Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“adjustment structure” in claim 1;
“mechanism that adjusts a flow rate” in claim 2;
“mechanism that adjusts a separation distance” in claims 3 and 4;
“mechanism that adjusts an opening area of the injection port” in claims 5-8; and
“mechanism that adjusts a flow rate” in claims 9-16
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Factors that will support a conclusion that the prior art element is an equivalent are:
(A) The prior art element performs the identical function specified in the claim in substantially the same way, and produces substantially the same results as the corresponding element disclosed in the specification. Kemco Sales, Inc. v. Control Papers Co., 208 F.3d 1352, 1364, 54 USPQ2d 1308, 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (An internal adhesive sealing the inner surfaces of an envelope pocket was not held to be equivalent to an adhesive on a flap which attached to the outside of the pocket. Both the claimed invention and the accused device performed the same function of closing the envelope, but the accused device performed the function in a substantially different way (by an internal adhesive on the inside of the pocket) with a substantially different result (the adhesive attached the inner surfaces of both sides of the pocket)); Odetics Inc. v. Storage Tech. Corp., 185 F.3d 1259, 1267, 51 USPQ2d 1225, 1229-30 (Fed. Cir. 1999); Lockheed Aircraft Corp. v. United States, 193 USPQ 449, 461 (Ct. Cl. 1977). The concepts of equivalents as set forth in Graver Tank & Mfg. Co. v. Linde Air Products, 339 U.S. 605, 85 USPQ 328 (1950) are relevant to any "equivalents" determination. Polumbo v. Don-Joy Co., 762 F.2d 969, 975 n.4, 226 USPQ 5, 8-9 n.4 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
(B) A person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the interchangeability of the element shown in the prior art for the corresponding element disclosed in the specification. Caterpillar Inc. v. Deere & Co., 224 F.3d 1374, 56 USPQ2d 1305 (Fed. Cir. 2000); Al-Site Corp. v. VSI Int’ l, Inc., 174 F.3d 1308, 1316, 50 USPQ2d 1161, 1165 (Fed. Cir. 1999); Chiuminatta Concrete Concepts, Inc. v. Cardinal Indus. Inc., 145 F.3d 1303, 1309, 46 USPQ2d 1752, 1757 (Fed. Cir. 1998); Lockheed Aircraft Corp. v. United States, 193 USPQ 449, 461 (Ct. Cl. 1977); Data Line Corp. v. Micro Technologies, Inc., 813 F.2d 1196, 1 USPQ2d 2052 (Fed. Cir. 1987).
(C) There are insubstantial differences between the prior art element and the corresponding element disclosed in the specification. IMS Technology, Inc. v. Haas Automation, Inc., 206 F.3d 1422, 1436, 54 USPQ2d 1129, 1138 (Fed. Cir. 2000); Warner-Jenkinson Co. v. Hilton Davis Chemical Co., 520 U.S. 17, 41 USPQ2d 1865, 1875 (1997); Valmont Industries, Inc. v. Reinke Mfg. Co., 983 F.2d 1039, 25 USPQ2d 1451 (Fed. Cir. 1993). See also Caterpillar Inc. v. Deere & Co., 224 F.3d 1374, 56 USPQ2d 1305 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (A structure lacking several components of the overall structure corresponding to the claimed function and also differing in the number and size of the parts may be insubstantially different from the disclosed structure. The limitation in a means- (or step-) plus-function claim is the overall structure corresponding to the claimed function. The individual components of an overall structure that corresponds to the claimed function are not claim limitations. Also, potential advantages of a structure that do not relate to the claimed function should not be considered in an equivalents determination under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishihara (JP 2019086189 A), hereinafter Ishihara, in view of Vetterick (US 5315941 A), hereinafter Vetterick, and further in view of Zhao (US 20200276551 A1), hereinafter Zhao.
Regarding claim 1, Ishihara discloses a combustion device comprising:
a burner including an ammonia injection nozzle having a tip portion provided with an injection port facing an internal space of a furnace (“The burner 4 includes an ammonia injection nozzle 41 and a pulverized coal injection nozzle 42, and is formed in a substantially cylindrical shape centering on the axis L of the ammonia injection nozzle 41 as a whole. The ammonia injection nozzle 41 has a rear end connected to the ammonia supply unit 6 and injects ammonia into the furnace 2 from the front end” all citations provided from machine translation appended to foreign reference).
PNG
media_image1.png
646
474
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
256
484
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
316
538
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Ishihara does not disclose:
an adjustment structure that adjusts a temperature of the tip portion; and
a control device that controls an operation of the adjustment structure so that the temperature of the tip portion is equal to or lower than a reference temperature;
wherein the reference temperature is a temperature equal to or lower than a lower limit value of a nitriding temperature range that is a temperature range in which nitriding of the tip portion is likely to occur;
wherein the control device controls the operation of the adjustment structure such that the tip portion is more easily cooled or less likely to be heated as the temperature of the tip.
However, Zhao teaches:
an adjustment structure that adjusts a temperature of the tip portion; and
a control device that controls an operation of the adjustment structure so that the temperature of the tip portion is equal to or lower than a reference temperature;
wherein the reference temperature is a temperature equal to or lower than a lower limit value of a nitriding temperature range that is a temperature range in which nitriding of the tip portion is likely to occur;
wherein the control device controls the operation of the adjustment structure such that the tip portion is more easily cooled or less likely to be heated as the temperature of the tip (“the temperature T.sub.i of the propylene and ammonia mixed gas at any position in the feed distributor can be effectively controlled to be lower than the nitridation temperature of the feed distributor. For example, when the initial temperature T.sub.0 is determined, the temperature rise ΔT.sub.i can be controlled or adjusted to prevent the temperature Ti from exceeding the nitridation temperature; alternatively, when the temperature rise ΔT.sub.i is determined, the initial temperature T.sub.0 can also be controlled or adjusted to achieve effective control of the temperature T.sub.i so as to make the temperature T.sub.i lower than the nitridation temperature” paragraph [0074] and “in order to control the temperature of the gas mixture finally flowing out from nozzles, an initial temperature T.sub.0 of the gas mixture needs to be adjusted accordingly” paragraph [0097] and “in order to ensure that the final temperature of the gas mixture ejected from the nozzles does not exceed the corresponding nitridation temperature, the initial temperature T.sub.0 of the propylene and ammonia mixed gas should be 220° C. or lower. Moreover, when the reactor diameter is larger, for example, when the reactor diameter is 7.5-12 meters, the initial temperature T.sub.0 should be 200° C. or lower; when the reactor diameter is 8.5-12 meters, the initial temperature T.sub.0 should be 185° C. or lower” paragraph [0117]).
In view of Zhao’s teachings, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the adjustment structure as is taught in Zhao, in the combustion device disclosed by Ishihara because Zhao states “When the temperature of the gas mixture is higher than a temperature (hereinafter sometimes referred to as nitridation temperature) at which ammonia decomposes into active nitrogen atoms, due to the continued presence of free ammonia in the gas mixture, part of the ammonia decomposes into active nitrogen atoms, which are bonded to metal atoms in the pipes to form a brittle metal nitride. The nitride is prone to brittle fractures under working conditions, causing fractures of the feed distributor” (paragraph [0004]). Therefore, including the structure of Zhao will prevent damage caused by nitridation.
Regarding claim 17, Ishihara, as modified by Vetterick, discloses a boiler comprising the combustion device according to claim 1 (“As shown in FIG. 1, the boiler 1 includes a furnace 2, a flue 3, a burner 4”).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishihara, in view of Zhao, and further in view of Tanazawa (EP 0562866 A1), hereinafter Tanazawa.
Regarding claim 2, Ishihara, as modified by Zhao, discloses the combustion device according to claim 1.
Ishihara, as modified by Zhao, does not disclose wherein the adjustment structure includes a mechanism that adjusts a flow rate of ammonia in the ammonia injection nozzle.
However, Tanazawa teaches wherein the adjustment structure includes a mechanism that adjusts a flow rate of solution in the solution injection nozzle (“By simultaneously supplying the aqueous solution of solid reducing agent and spray gas into the nozzle inner tube in order to increase the passing velocity of the solution through the nozzle inner tube under the effect of the spray gas, heat conduction to the solution is effectively prevented. This not only permits prevention of clogging of the nozzle tip portion, but also allows improvement of dispersion thereof into exhaust gas” page 6, line 13 and “The velocity of the aqueous solution of solid reducing agent passing through the nozzle inner tube is preferably at least 0.1 m/second. If the velocity is under this range, the nozzle may be clogged off because of crystallization or polymerization of the solid reducing agent in the nozzle inner tube under the effect of heat conduction from high-temperature exhaust gas” page 6, line 22).
In view of Tanazawa’s teachings, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include wherein the adjustment structure includes a mechanism that adjusts a flow rate of solution in the solution injection nozzle as is taught in Tanazawa, in the combustion device as presently modified because Tanazawa states that adjusting the velocity of the solution prevents clogging of the nozzle tip.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishihara, in view of Zhao, and further in view of Vetterick (US 5315941 A), hereinafter Vetterick.
Regarding claim 3, Ishihara, as modified by Zhao, discloses the combustion device according to claim 1.
Ishihara, as modified by Zhao, does not disclose wherein the adjustment structure includes a mechanism that adjusts a separation distance between the injection port and the internal space.
However, Vetterick teaches wherein the adjustment structure includes a mechanism that adjusts a separation distance between the injection port and the internal space (“As the temperature transducer 26 monitors the flue gas temperature within the furnace chamber 16 or the convection pass 18, it relays the temperature reading to control means 30. Based on the temperature reading relayed from the temperature transducer 26 to the control means 30, the control means will activate a drive 28 which is responsible for moving and positioning the NOx inhibitor conduit 22 within the furnace chamber 16 or the convection pass 18 in order to move nozzle 24 to the location of the appropriate temperature window” column 3, line 17).
PNG
media_image4.png
412
622
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Ishihara as modified by Zhao does not teach the specific claimed adjustment structure. Vetterick teaches the claimed adjustment structure. The substitution of one known element (the initial temperature control of Zhao) for another (the actuator of Vetterick) would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention, since the substitution of the actuator taught in Vetterick would have yielded predictable results, namely, structure for controlling the temperature experienced by the injector Agrizap, Inc. v. Woodstream Corp., 520 F.3d 1337, 86 USPQ2d 1110 (Fed. Cir. 2008).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishihara, in view of Zhao, in view of Tanazawa, and further in view of Vetterick.
Regarding claim 4, Ishihara, as modified by Zhao and Tanazawa, discloses the combustion device according to claim 2.
Ishihara, as modified by Zhao and Tanazawa, does not disclose wherein the adjustment structure includes a mechanism that adjusts a separation distance between the injection port and the internal space.
However, Vetterick teaches wherein the adjustment structure includes a mechanism that adjusts a separation distance between the injection port and the internal space (“As the temperature transducer 26 monitors the flue gas temperature within the furnace chamber 16 or the convection pass 18, it relays the temperature reading to control means 30. Based on the temperature reading relayed from the temperature transducer 26 to the control means 30, the control means will activate a drive 28 which is responsible for moving and positioning the NOx inhibitor conduit 22 within the furnace chamber 16 or the convection pass 18 in order to move nozzle 24 to the location of the appropriate temperature window” column 3, line 17).
Ishihara as modified by Zhao and Tanazawa does not teach the specific claimed adjustment structure. Vetterick teaches the claimed adjustment structure. The substitution of one known element (the initial temperature control of Zhao) for another (the actuator of Vetterick) would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention, since the substitution of the actuator taught in Vetterick would have yielded predictable results, namely, structure for controlling the temperature experienced by the injector Agrizap, Inc. v. Woodstream Corp., 520 F.3d 1337, 86 USPQ2d 1110 (Fed. Cir. 2008).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishihara, in view of Zhao, and further in view of Daudish (US 20190336988 A1), hereinafter Daudish.
Regarding claim 5, Ishihara, as modified by Zhao, discloses the combustion device according to claim 1.
Ishihara, as modified by Zhao, does not disclose wherein the adjustment structure includes a mechanism that adjusts an opening area of the injection port.
However, Daudish teaches wherein the adjustment structure includes a mechanism that adjusts an opening area of the injection port (“The nozzle sprayer 112 comprises a rotary dial used to select spray patterns. The different spray patterns may also affect flow rates which affect the heating capacity of the heating elements. For example, lower flow rates may result in increased heating of water passing through the heating chamber 307, while higher flow rates may result in a lower temperature rise of water passing through the heating chamber 307” paragraph [0033]).
In view of the teachings of Daudish, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include wherein the adjustment structure includes a mechanism that adjusts an opening area of the injection port as is taught in Daudish, in the combustion device as presently modified because Daudish shows that the opening area affects flow rate which affects residency which affects the temperature of the fluid. It is well known that denitration solutions can crystalize and clog nozzles at elevated temperatures (See Tanazawa and further references cited at the end of this action). Therefore, modifying the opening area to reduce a temperature of the fluid will minimize the risk of clogging in Ishihara.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishihara, in view of Zhao, in view of Tanazawa, and further in view of Daudish.
Regarding claim 6, Ishihara, as modified by Zhao and Tanazawa, discloses the combustion device according to claim 2.
Ishihara, as modified by Zhao and Tanazawa, does not disclose wherein the adjustment structure includes a mechanism that adjusts an opening area of the injection port.
However, Daudish teaches wherein the adjustment structure includes a mechanism that adjusts an opening area of the injection port (“The nozzle sprayer 112 comprises a rotary dial used to select spray patterns. The different spray patterns may also affect flow rates which affect the heating capacity of the heating elements. For example, lower flow rates may result in increased heating of water passing through the heating chamber 307, while higher flow rates may result in a lower temperature rise of water passing through the heating chamber 307” paragraph [0033]).
In view of the teachings of Daudish, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include wherein the adjustment structure includes a mechanism that adjusts an opening area of the injection port as is taught in Daudish, in the combustion device as presently modified because Daudish shows that the opening area affects flow rate which affects residency which affects the temperature of the fluid. It is well known that denitration solutions can crystalize and clog nozzles at elevated temperatures (See Tanazawa and further references cited at the end of this action). Therefore, modifying the opening area to reduce a temperature of the fluid will minimize the risk of clogging in Ishihara.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishihara, in view of Zhao, in view of Vetterick, and further in view of Daudish.
Regarding claim 7, Ishihara, as modified by Zhao and Vetterick, discloses the combustion device according to claim 3.
Ishihara, as modified by Zhao and Vetterick, does not disclose wherein the adjustment structure includes a mechanism that adjusts an opening area of the injection port.
However, Daudish teaches wherein the adjustment structure includes a mechanism that adjusts an opening area of the injection port (“The nozzle sprayer 112 comprises a rotary dial used to select spray patterns. The different spray patterns may also affect flow rates which affect the heating capacity of the heating elements. For example, lower flow rates may result in increased heating of water passing through the heating chamber 307, while higher flow rates may result in a lower temperature rise of water passing through the heating chamber 307” paragraph [0033]).
In view of the teachings of Daudish, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include wherein the adjustment structure includes a mechanism that adjusts an opening area of the injection port as is taught in Daudish, in the combustion device as presently modified because Daudish shows that the opening area affects flow rate which affects residency which affects the temperature of the fluid. It is well known that denitration solutions can crystalize and clog nozzles at elevated temperatures (See Tanazawa and further references cited at the end of this action). Therefore, modifying the opening area to reduce a temperature of the fluid will minimize the risk of clogging in Ishihara.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishihara, in view of Zhao, in view of Tanazawa, in view of Vetterick, and further in view of Daudish.
Regarding claim 8, Ishihara, as modified by Zhao, Tanazawa, and Vetterick, discloses the combustion device according to claim 4.
Ishihara, as modified by Zhao, Tanazawa, and Vetterick, does not disclose wherein the adjustment structure includes a mechanism that adjusts an opening area of the injection port.
However, Daudish teaches wherein the adjustment structure includes a mechanism that adjusts an opening area of the injection port (“The nozzle sprayer 112 comprises a rotary dial used to select spray patterns. The different spray patterns may also affect flow rates which affect the heating capacity of the heating elements. For example, lower flow rates may result in increased heating of water passing through the heating chamber 307, while higher flow rates may result in a lower temperature rise of water passing through the heating chamber 307” paragraph [0033]).
In view of the teachings of Daudish, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include wherein the adjustment structure includes a mechanism that adjusts an opening area of the injection port as is taught in Daudish, in the combustion device as presently modified because Daudish shows that the opening area affects flow rate which affects residency which affects the temperature of the fluid. It is well known that denitration solutions can crystalize and clog nozzles at elevated temperatures (See Tanazawa and further references cited at the end of this action). Therefore, modifying the opening area to reduce a temperature of the fluid will minimize the risk of clogging in Ishihara.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishihara, in view of Zhao, and further in view of Moberg (US 20040185399 A1), hereinafter Moberg.
Regarding claim 9, Ishihara, as modified by Zhao, discloses the combustion device according to claim 1, comprising an air pipe disposed coaxially with the ammonia injection nozzle so as to surround the ammonia injection nozzle (Figure 2 shows that passage 42 comprises an annular passage formed of an inner and outer annular pipe. The translation [google translate] shows that the inner pipe forms an air pipe surrounding the ammonia nozzle).
PNG
media_image5.png
258
484
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Ishihara, as modified by Zhao, does not disclose wherein the adjustment structure includes a mechanism that adjusts a flow rate of air in the air pipe.
However, Moberg teaches wherein the adjustment structure includes a mechanism that adjusts a flow rate of air in the air pipe (“an inner-middle duct 116. This duct is formed by the interior cylinder 126 of the outer-middle injector and exterior wall of the interior injector 118. A second gas is preferably injected through this duct. For example, cooling air to keep an injected urea solution cool prior to injection can be injected through this duct. The cooling air prevents urea decomposition prior to injection into the combustion furnace” paragraph [0040] and “The temperature of the cooling air was maintained below 100 degrees C. and the velocity was maintained above about 2 m/s to ensure that the urea solution was not boiling in the inner injector” paragraph [0046]).
PNG
media_image6.png
496
640
media_image6.png
Greyscale
In view of Moberg’s teachings, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include wherein the adjustment structure includes a mechanism that adjusts a flow rate of air in the air pipe as is taught in Moberg, in the combustion device as presently modified because Moberg states that controlling the air will prevent boiling of the solution in the inner injector. Therefore, including the teachings of Moberg will prevent boiling of the ammonia in the inner injector of Ishihara.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishihara, in view of Zhao, in view of Tanazawa, and further in view of Moberg.
Regarding claim 10, Ishihara, as modified by Zhao and Tanazawa, discloses the combustion device according to claim 2, comprising an air pipe disposed coaxially with the ammonia injection nozzle so as to surround the ammonia injection nozzle (Figure 2 shows that passage 42 comprises an annular passage formed of an inner and outer annular pipe. The translation [google translate] shows that the inner pipe forms an air pipe surrounding the ammonia nozzle).
Ishihara, as modified by Zhao and Tanazawa, does not disclose wherein the adjustment structure includes a mechanism that adjusts a flow rate of air in the air pipe.
However, Moberg teaches wherein the adjustment structure includes a mechanism that adjusts a flow rate of air in the air pipe (“an inner-middle duct 116. This duct is formed by the interior cylinder 126 of the outer-middle injector and exterior wall of the interior injector 118. A second gas is preferably injected through this duct. For example, cooling air to keep an injected urea solution cool prior to injection can be injected through this duct. The cooling air prevents urea decomposition prior to injection into the combustion furnace” paragraph [0040] and “The temperature of the cooling air was maintained below 100 degrees C. and the velocity was maintained above about 2 m/s to ensure that the urea solution was not boiling in the inner injector” paragraph [0046]).
In view of Moberg’s teachings, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include wherein the adjustment structure includes a mechanism that adjusts a flow rate of air in the air pipe as is taught in Moberg, in the combustion device as presently modified because Moberg states that controlling the air will prevent boiling of the solution in the inner injector. Therefore, including the teachings of Moberg will prevent boiling of the ammonia in the inner injector of Ishihara.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishihara, in view of Zhao, in view of Vetterick, and further in view of Moberg.
Regarding claim 11, Ishihara, as modified by Zhao and Vetterick, discloses the combustion device according to claim 3, comprising an air pipe disposed coaxially with the ammonia injection nozzle so as to surround the ammonia injection nozzle (Figure 2 shows that passage 42 comprises an annular passage formed of an inner and outer annular pipe. The translation [google translate] shows that the inner pipe forms an air pipe surrounding the ammonia nozzle).
Ishihara, as modified by Zhao and Vetterick, does not disclose wherein the adjustment structure includes a mechanism that adjusts a flow rate of air in the air pipe.
However, Moberg teaches wherein the adjustment structure includes a mechanism that adjusts a flow rate of air in the air pipe (“an inner-middle duct 116. This duct is formed by the interior cylinder 126 of the outer-middle injector and exterior wall of the interior injector 118. A second gas is preferably injected through this duct. For example, cooling air to keep an injected urea solution cool prior to injection can be injected through this duct. The cooling air prevents urea decomposition prior to injection into the combustion furnace” paragraph [0040] and “The temperature of the cooling air was maintained below 100 degrees C. and the velocity was maintained above about 2 m/s to ensure that the urea solution was not boiling in the inner injector” paragraph [0046]).
In view of Moberg’s teachings, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include wherein the adjustment structure includes a mechanism that adjusts a flow rate of air in the air pipe as is taught in Moberg, in the combustion device as presently modified because Moberg states that controlling the air will prevent boiling of the solution in the inner injector. Therefore, including the teachings of Moberg will prevent boiling of the ammonia in the inner injector of Ishihara.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishihara, in view of Zhao, in view of Tanazawa, in view of Vetterick, and further in view of Moberg.
Regarding claim 12, Ishihara, as modified by Zhao, Tanazawa, and Vetterick, discloses the combustion device according to claim 4, comprising an air pipe disposed coaxially with the ammonia injection nozzle so as to surround the ammonia injection nozzle (Figure 2 shows that passage 42 comprises an annular passage formed of an inner and outer annular pipe. The translation [google translate] shows that the inner pipe forms an air pipe surrounding the ammonia nozzle).
Ishihara, as modified by Vetterick and Tanazawa, does not disclose wherein the adjustment structure includes a mechanism that adjusts a flow rate of air in the air pipe.
However, Moberg teaches wherein the adjustment structure includes a mechanism that adjusts a flow rate of air in the air pipe (“an inner-middle duct 116. This duct is formed by the interior cylinder 126 of the outer-middle injector and exterior wall of the interior injector 118. A second gas is preferably injected through this duct. For example, cooling air to keep an injected urea solution cool prior to injection can be injected through this duct. The cooling air prevents urea decomposition prior to injection into the combustion furnace” paragraph [0040] and “The temperature of the cooling air was maintained below 100 degrees C. and the velocity was maintained above about 2 m/s to ensure that the urea solution was not boiling in the inner injector” paragraph [0046]).
In view of Moberg’s teachings, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include wherein the adjustment structure includes a mechanism that adjusts a flow rate of air in the air pipe as is taught in Moberg, in the combustion device as presently modified because Moberg states that controlling the air will prevent boiling of the solution in the inner injector. Therefore, including the teachings of Moberg will prevent boiling of the ammonia in the inner injector of Ishihara.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishihara, in view of Zhao, in view of Daudish, and further in view of Moberg.
Regarding claim 13, Ishihara, as modified by Zhao and Daudish, discloses the combustion device according to claim 5, comprising an air pipe disposed coaxially with the ammonia injection nozzle so as to surround the ammonia injection nozzle (Figure 2 shows that passage 42 comprises an annular passage formed of an inner and outer annular pipe. The translation [google translate] shows that the inner pipe forms an air pipe surrounding the ammonia nozzle).
Ishihara, as modified by Zhao and Daudish, does not disclose wherein the adjustment structure includes a mechanism that adjusts a flow rate of air in the air pipe.
However, Moberg teaches wherein the adjustment structure includes a mechanism that adjusts a flow rate of air in the air pipe (“an inner-middle duct 116. This duct is formed by the interior cylinder 126 of the outer-middle injector and exterior wall of the interior injector 118. A second gas is preferably injected through this duct. For example, cooling air to keep an injected urea solution cool prior to injection can be injected through this duct. The cooling air prevents urea decomposition prior to injection into the combustion furnace” paragraph [0040] and “The temperature of the cooling air was maintained below 100 degrees C. and the velocity was maintained above about 2 m/s to ensure that the urea solution was not boiling in the inner injector” paragraph [0046]).
In view of Moberg’s teachings, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include wherein the adjustment structure includes a mechanism that adjusts a flow rate of air in the air pipe as is taught in Moberg, in the combustion device as presently modified because Moberg states that controlling the air will prevent boiling of the solution in the inner injector. Therefore, including the teachings of Moberg will prevent boiling of the ammonia in the inner injector of Ishihara.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishihara, in view of Zhao, in view of Tanazawa, in view of Daudish, and further in view of Moberg.
Regarding claim 14, Ishihara, as modified by Zhao, Tanazawa, and Daudish, discloses the combustion device according to claim 6, comprising an air pipe disposed coaxially with the ammonia injection nozzle so as to surround the ammonia injection nozzle (Figure 2 shows that passage 42 comprises an annular passage formed of an inner and outer annular pipe. The translation [google translate] shows that the inner pipe forms an air pipe surrounding the ammonia nozzle).
Ishihara, as modified by Zhao, Tanazawa, and Daudish, does not disclose wherein the adjustment structure includes a mechanism that adjusts a flow rate of air in the air pipe.
However, Moberg teaches wherein the adjustment structure includes a mechanism that adjusts a flow rate of air in the air pipe (“an inner-middle duct 116. This duct is formed by the interior cylinder 126 of the outer-middle injector and exterior wall of the interior injector 118. A second gas is preferably injected through this duct. For example, cooling air to keep an injected urea solution cool prior to injection can be injected through this duct. The cooling air prevents urea decomposition prior to injection into the combustion furnace” paragraph [0040] and “The temperature of the cooling air was maintained below 100 degrees C. and the velocity was maintained above about 2 m/s to ensure that the urea solution was not boiling in the inner injector” paragraph [0046]).
In view of Moberg’s teachings, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include wherein the adjustment structure includes a mechanism that adjusts a flow rate of air in the air pipe as is taught in Moberg, in the combustion device as presently modified because Moberg states that controlling the air will prevent boiling of the solution in the inner injector. Therefore, including the teachings of Moberg will prevent boiling of the ammonia in the inner injector of Ishihara.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishihara, in view of Zhao, in view of Vetterick, in view of Daudish, and further in view of Moberg.
Regarding claim 15, Ishihara, as modified by Zhao, Vetterick, and Daudish, discloses the combustion device according to claim 7, comprising an air pipe disposed coaxially with the ammonia injection nozzle so as to surround the ammonia injection nozzle (Figure 2 shows that passage 42 comprises an annular passage formed of an inner and outer annular pipe. The translation [google translate] shows that the inner pipe forms an air pipe surrounding the ammonia nozzle).
Ishihara, as modified by Zhao, Vetterick, and Daudish, does not disclose wherein the adjustment structure includes a mechanism that adjusts a flow rate of air in the air pipe.
However, Moberg teaches wherein the adjustment structure includes a mechanism that adjusts a flow rate of air in the air pipe (“an inner-middle duct 116. This duct is formed by the interior cylinder 126 of the outer-middle injector and exterior wall of the interior injector 118. A second gas is preferably injected through this duct. For example, cooling air to keep an injected urea solution cool prior to injection can be injected through this duct. The cooling air prevents urea decomposition prior to injection into the combustion furnace” paragraph [0040] and “The temperature of the cooling air was maintained below 100 degrees C. and the velocity was maintained above about 2 m/s to ensure that the urea solution was not boiling in the inner injector” paragraph [0046]).
In view of Moberg’s teachings, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include wherein the adjustment structure includes a mechanism that adjusts a flow rate of air in the air pipe as is taught in Moberg, in the combustion device as presently modified because Moberg states that controlling the air will prevent boiling of the solution in the inner injector. Therefore, including the teachings of Moberg will prevent boiling of the ammonia in the inner injector of Ishihara.
Claim 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishihara, in view of Zhao, in view of Tanazawa, in view of Vetterick, in view of Daudish, and further in view of Moberg.
Regarding claim 16, Ishihara, as modified by Zhao, Tanazawa, Vetterick, and Daudish, discloses the combustion device according to claim 8, comprising an air pipe disposed coaxially with the ammonia injection nozzle so as to surround the ammonia injection nozzle (Figure 2 shows that passage 42 comprises an annular passage formed of an inner and outer annular pipe. The translation [google translate] shows that the inner pipe forms an air pipe surrounding the ammonia nozzle).
Ishihara, as modified by Zhao, Tanazawa, Vetterick, and Daudish, does not disclose wherein the adjustment structure includes a mechanism that adjusts a flow rate of air in the air pipe.
However, Moberg teaches wherein the adjustment structure includes a mechanism that adjusts a flow rate of air in the air pipe (“an inner-middle duct 116. This duct is formed by the interior cylinder 126 of the outer-middle injector and exterior wall of the interior injector 118. A second gas is preferably injected through this duct. For example, cooling air to keep an injected urea solution cool prior to injection can be injected through this duct. The cooling air prevents urea decomposition prior to injection into the combustion furnace” paragraph [0040] and “The temperature of the cooling air was maintained below 100 degrees C. and the velocity was maintained above about 2 m/s to ensure that the urea solution was not boiling in the inner injector” paragraph [0046]).
In view of Moberg’s teachings, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include wherein the adjustment structure includes a mechanism that adjusts a flow rate of air in the air pipe as is taught in Moberg, in the combustion device as presently modified because Moberg states that controlling the air will prevent boiling of the solution in the inner injector. Therefore, including the teachings of Moberg will prevent boiling of the ammonia in the inner injector of Ishihara.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Janka (FI 87014 B) “The essential idea of the invention is that the location of the nozzles used for feeding lime in the firebox of the boiler is set in a suitable place according to the power of the boiler, so that the lime is fed to the temperature range optimal for calcination and desulphurisation. This can be done, for example, by measuring the temperature of the furnace and moving the nozzle towards the desired temperature range. The advantage of this solution is that, regardless of the boiler's 'load-bearing capacity, desulphurisation from flue gases can be carried out as efficiently as possible and, in addition, by boiler power • by changing the lime supply for desulphurisation”
Nakagawa (JP 2005000765 A) “In some cases, the ammonia water injection nozzle 10a is clogged because it reaches a temperature range in which acidic ammonium sulfate produced by the reaction of sulfur oxide and ammonia is deposited”
Frederiksen (CZ 369598 A3) “In preferred embodiments of this aspect of the invention, nitrogen-containing liquids, such as aqueous urea or ammonia, are injected into the gas stream by means of a two-phase nozzle using air at a pressure of about 300-300 kPa with the nozzle positioned in the middle of the gas stream… The minimum air flow through the nozzle protects the nozzle from overheating above 120 °. Higher nozzle temperatures can concentrate or decompose urea on the nozzle and cause clogging”
Bool (US 6254379 B1) “In another example it may be desired to provide ammonia or urea deep within a furnace to react with the NOx to form nitrogen gas”
PNG
media_image7.png
672
340
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Higgins (US 20100159406 A1) “The present invention also preferably includes a sliding injector embodiment. In this embodiment, the injectors can be slid toward or away from the reactor space for adjustment”
PNG
media_image8.png
470
550
media_image8.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image9.png
408
520
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Xue (CN 103506000 A) “The invention is equipped with temperature measuring device at the nozzle end of the gun so as to precisely know the gun near temperature field situation, using PID control module, which can ensure when the gun position separated from the "temperature window" range in time when stopping spraying the reducing agent to prevent ammonia slip phenomenon”
Hamel (US 20140134086 A1) “The active component can be ammonia, urea or another nitrogen-containing compound which preferably at increased temperature releases ammonia and in this way can be used for selective non-catalytic reduction”
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LOGAN P JONES whose telephone number is (303)297-4309. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:30-5:00 EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Michael Hoang can be reached at (571) 272-6460. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/LOGAN P JONES/Examiner, Art Unit 3762 /MICHAEL G HOANG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3762
Prosecution Insights