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 the combination of references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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, 2, 4, 5, and 7-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li (CN 202177101 U), hereinafter Li, in view of Schindler (EP 91116528 A), hereinafter Schindler.
Regarding claims 1, 2, and 7-10, Li discloses a radiant tube apparatus, comprising:
an outer radiant tube (“the radiant tube 2” paragraph [0018]);
a burner located at least partially within the outer radiant tube (“flame nozzle 9” paragraph [0018]) and adapted to receive air and gas and operable to supply combustion gas (“gas tube 1, air inlet 8” paragraph [0018]);
a plurality of inner flame tubes located within, and spaced apart from, the outer radiant tube, the plurality of inner flame tubes disposed in flow-series and including at least a first inner flame tube and a second inner flame tube, the first inner flame tube adapted to receive the combustion gas from the burner and supply the combustion gas to at least the second inner flame tube (“the radiant tube 2 is further provided with a flame tube 15. flame tube 15 there is a radial gap between the radiation tube 2” paragraph [0018]. Figure 1 shows two).
PNG
media_image1.png
320
594
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Li does not disclose:
at least one flow body installed at an end of the second inner flame tube,
wherein the at least one flow body protrudes into, and extends from, the second inner flame tube;
wherein the at least one flow body is tubular;
wherein the at least one flow body comprises a polygonal tube-like body;
wherein the at least one flow body comprises an arrangement of a plurality of polygonal tube-like bodies;
wherein each polygonal tube-like body among the plurality of polygonal tube-like bodies are located next to each other, behind each other, or inside each other;
a plurality of flow bodies for the displacement of flow including the at least one flow body.
However, Schindler teaches:
at least one flow body installed at an end of the flame tube (Figure 2, elements 16 and 18),
wherein the at least one flow body protrudes into, and extends from, the flame tube (“The tube 14 with the largest diameter is placed over the burner nozzle” all citations from the machine translation appended to the foreign reference);
wherein the at least one flow body is tubular;
wherein the at least one flow body comprises a polygonal tube-like body (“cylindrical tubes 14, 16 and 18, preferably with a circular cross section, although tubes with a polygonal cross section can also be used”);
wherein the at least one flow body comprises an arrangement of a plurality of polygonal tube-like bodies (16 and 18);
wherein each polygonal tube-like body among the plurality of polygonal tube-like bodies are located next to each other, behind each other, or inside each other (Figure 2);
a plurality of flow bodies for the displacement of flow including the at least one flow body (16 and 18).
PNG
media_image2.png
716
486
media_image2.png
Greyscale
In view of Schindler’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 flow bodies as is taught in Schindler, in the radiant tube disclosed by Li because Schindler states “The apparatus comprises a number of pipes of decreasing diameter and surrounding vent devices for concentrating the flame, with feeding of the recirculation air together with the combustion products. The pipes are arranged telescopically around the flame outlet or fuel nozzle, the pipe diameters decreasing in the direction of the flame outlet. Rotating vent devices in the pipes can be arranged in various ways to provide the recirculation air with a spin and acceleration. The flame is thus sharply concentrated and the air is rapidly recycled in the combustion chamber. The invention increases the burner output, reduces the combustion temperature and reduces the NOx emissions by up to 50% and the carbons by up to 100%.” Therefore, including the flow bodies for recirculating air will reduce emissions in Li.
Regarding claims 4 and 5, Li, as modified by Schindler, discloses the radiant tube apparatus of claim 1 wherein:
The second inner flame tube has a diameter (“the diameter of the flame tube” paragraph [0008]).
Li, as modified by Schindler, does not explicitly disclose the at least one flow body protrudes into the second inner flame tube with a length of approximately 0.3x to 0.7x the diameter of the second inner flame tube.
However, the court has held a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985). However, it has been held that “[w]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” See MPEP §2144.05(II)(A) (quoting In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Although, it has been further held that "[a] particular parameter must first be recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e. a variable which achieves a recognized result, before determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation. Refer to MPEP §2144.05(II)(B)(quoting In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). In this case, Shindler discloses wherein the at least one flow body protrudes into the flame tube, but does not specifically recite the claimed protrusion length. Achieving the claimed protrusion length is a results-effective variable because Schindler states “The position of the pipes should be adjusted until the pollutant content in the flue gases has been reduced to a minimum… adjust the position of the pipes 14, 16 and 18 accordingly by pushing or rotating the pipes.” Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the protrusion length, because the selection of protrusion length to achieve reduced emissions constitutes the optimization of design parameters, which fails to distinguish the claim.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Hisamatsu (JP 59164810 A)
PNG
media_image3.png
294
492
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Buschulte (US 4629414 A)
PNG
media_image4.png
326
432
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Cassagne (US 4850334 A)
PNG
media_image5.png
252
606
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Vandergrift (US 20160091199 A1)
PNG
media_image6.png
366
726
media_image6.png
Greyscale
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