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
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 2, 8, 15-17, and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Myers (US 4274392 A), hereinafter Myers.
Regarding claim 1, Myers discloses a compensator for a burner of a fired heater or furnace, the burner having an intake for airflow (“in order to attach enclosure 28 around the air intake opening of the furnace, flanges such as 49 are provided along the edges of the open side of housing 38 with which sheet metal screws may be utilized for attachment of housing 38” column 6, line 11), the compensator comprising:
a stationary plate disposed across the intake and across a direction of the airflow through the intake, the stationary plate including one or more first openings (“Cover plate 39 completely covers opposite side 40 and includes a plurality of apertures 41, each of which are hidden from view in the FIG. 2 illustration” column 4, line 38); and
a movable plate disposed adjacent to the stationary plate and including one or more second openings, the movable plate being movable between first and second lateral positions with respect to the stationary plate to control the airflow through the intake (“Cover plate 39a also includes a second plurality of apertures 45 which are equal in number, arrangement and spacing to apertures 41 in cover plate 39” column 4, line 57),
wherein in the first lateral position, the one or more second openings of the movable plate are at least partially aligned with the one or more first openings of the stationary plate, thereby defining a first level of airflow through the intake (“Upon energizing solenoid 30, arm 42 moves outwardly to an extended position a distance substantially equal to dimension "d" and through the action of cover plate arm 43 and the sliding movement of cover plate 39a, apertures 45 are brought into registration (alignment) with apertures 41 thereby allowing an inlet flow of air through each aligned pair of apertures” column 5, line 16),
wherein in the second lateral position, the one or more second openings of the movable plate are at least partially misaligned with the one or more first openings of the stationary plate, thereby defining a second level of airflow through the intake (“With cover plate 39 in the illustrated position of FIG. 2, enclosure 28 is in a closed position and in this position, apertures 45 are staggered from apertures 41 by a dimension "d." With the aperture patterns of plates 39 and 39a completely out of registration in this closed position, combustion air is unable to pass through the apertures of plate 39 and enter the combustion chamber” column 4, line 60), and
wherein the airflow through the intake at the second level is less than the air flow through the intake at the first level (The second level is the closed position).
PNG
media_image1.png
552
418
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
428
586
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
542
382
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Myers discloses the compensator of claim 1, wherein in the first lateral position, the one or more second openings are substantially aligned with the one or more first openings such that the first level is a maximum amount of airflow allowed through the intake (“Upon energizing solenoid 30, arm 42 moves outwardly to an extended position a distance substantially equal to dimension "d" and through the action of cover plate arm 43 and the sliding movement of cover plate 39a, apertures 45 are brought into registration (alignment) with apertures 41 thereby allowing an inlet flow of air through each aligned pair of apertures” column 5, line 16), and in the second lateral position, the one or more second openings are substantially misaligned with the one or more first openings such that the second level is a minimum amount of airflow allowed through the intake (“With cover plate 39 in the illustrated position of FIG. 2, enclosure 28 is in a closed position and in this position, apertures 45 are staggered from apertures 41 by a dimension "d." With the aperture patterns of plates 39 and 39a completely out of registration in this closed position, combustion air is unable to pass through the apertures of plate 39 and enter the combustion chamber” column 4, line 60).
Regarding claim 8, Myers discloses the compensator of claim 1, further comprising a housing configured to affix to the burner and having an opening, a first end of the housing communicating with the intake (“in order to attach enclosure 28 around the air intake opening of the furnace, flanges such as 49 are provided along the edges of the open side of housing 38 with which sheet metal screws may be utilized for attachment of housing 38” column 6, line 11), and a second end of the housing having the stationary plate disposed across the opening (“Cover plate 39 is attached to the edges of side 40” column 4, line 40).
Regarding claim 15, Myers discloses the compensator of claim 1, wherein the one or more first openings comprise two first openings having a first width in the lateral direction, the two first openings separated by a first separation at least as great as the first width, and wherein the one or more second openings comprise two second openings having a second width in the lateral direction, the two second openings separated by a second separation at least as great as the second width (Figure 3).
Regarding claim 16, Myers discloses the compensator of claim 15, wherein the first width is substantially equal to the second width; wherein the first separation is substantially equal to the second separation (Figure 3).
Regarding claim 17, Myers discloses the compensator of claim 15, wherein a first shape of the first openings is the same as a second shape of the second openings (Figure 3).
Regarding claim 26, Myers discloses fired heater or furnace, comprising:
a radiant firebox having a floor, walls, a roof, and a stack (“a combustion chamber 23, an exhaust flue 24 and a flue updraft opening 25” column 3, line 55);
a plurality of burners disposed in the firebox at the floor, walls, or roof, each of the burners having an intake for airflow (“a series of burners 21” column 3, line 54); and
a compensator according to claim 1 disposed at the intake of one or more of the burners (“flanges such as 49 are provided along the edges of the open side of housing 38 with which sheet metal screws may be utilized for attachment of housing 38 to interior surfaces of furnace 20” column 6, line 12).
Claims 1-6, 9, and 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Schossow (US 4292950 A), hereinafter Schossow.
Regarding claim 1, Schossow discloses a compensator for a burner of a fired heater or furnace, the burner having an intake for airflow (“a pressure box 14, which encloses the burner intake of furnace 12” column 2, line 35), the compensator comprising:
a stationary plate disposed across the intake and across a direction of the airflow through the intake, the stationary plate including one or more first openings (“baffle plate 48 contains a plurality of apertures 50” column 3, line 8); and
a movable plate disposed adjacent to the stationary plate and including one or more second openings, the movable plate being movable between first and second lateral positions with respect to the stationary plate to control the airflow through the intake (“grate 52, which has corresponding apertures 54 therein. Grate 52… can be moved so as to adjust the size of openings defined between the pairs of apertures, thus regulating the rate at which air passes into downstream chamber 46, and ultimately reaches burner 18” column 3, line 9),
wherein in the first lateral position, the one or more second openings of the movable plate are at least partially aligned with the one or more first openings of the stationary plate, thereby defining a first level of airflow through the intake (“Grate 52 is slidable in tracts 56, and can be moved so as to bring apertures 54 into register with apertures 50, allowing a maximum amount of combustion air to pass into downstream chamber 46” column 3, line 10),
wherein in the second lateral position, the one or more second openings of the movable plate are at least partially misaligned with the one or more first openings of the stationary plate, thereby defining a second level of airflow through the intake (Figures 3 and 4 show partially misaligned openings. The second lateral position will be considered the position of grate 52 corresponding to a minimum flow), and
wherein the airflow through the intake at the second level is less than the air flow through the intake at the first level (The second lateral position will be considered the position of grate 52 corresponding to a minimum flow).
PNG
media_image4.png
642
502
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
348
524
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Schossow discloses the compensator of claim 1, wherein in the first lateral position, the one or more second openings are substantially aligned with the one or more first openings such that the first level is a maximum amount of airflow allowed through the intake (“Grate 52 is slidable in tracts 56, and can be moved so as to bring apertures 54 into register with apertures 50, allowing a maximum amount of combustion air to pass into downstream chamber 46” column 3, line 10), and in the second lateral position, the one or more second openings are substantially misaligned with the one or more first openings such that the second level is a minimum amount of airflow allowed through the intake (The second lateral position will be considered the position of grate 52 corresponding to a minimum flow).
Regarding claim 3, Schossow discloses the compensator of claim 1, wherein the first and second openings are configured to vary the airflow for the intake in a linear relationship between the first and second levels with the movement of the movable plate between the first and second lateral positions (The arrangement shown in figures 3 and 4 will produce a linearly adjustable airflow).
Regarding claim 4, Schossow discloses the compensator of claim 1, further comprising a movable support member being movable in a lateral direction relative to the stationary plate that is generally transverse to the direction of the airflow through the intake, the movable plate being releasably coupled to the movable support member, and the movable support member being configured to move the movable plate with respect to the stationary plate between the first and second lateral positions (“grate 52 is movable by means of threaded arm 58, which is fixed to grate 52 at one end, and extends through a collar and wing nut assembly 60 mounted on the outside of pressure box 14. By rotating wing nut 62, grate 52 may be slid back and forth across the face of baffle plate 48” column 3, line 18. Figures 3 and 4 show fasteners attaching 58 and 52. Screws or bolts are easily releasable, but even rivets may be removed).
Regarding claim 5, Schossow discloses the compensator of claim 4, wherein the movable support member is a slidable elongated bar (58 is a slidable elongated bar).
Regarding claim 6, Schossow discloses the compensator of claim 4, further comprising an actuator configured to slide the bar with respect to the stationary plate (“By rotating wing nut 62, grate 52 may be slid back and forth across the face of baffle plate 48” column 3, line 22).
Regarding claim 9, Schossow discloses the compensator of claim 1, further comprising a breaker plate disposed adjacent to the movable plate and being configured to interrupt the airflow to the first and second openings to address interference due to wind directions (42 or 48 or 72).
Regarding claim 15, Schossow discloses the compensator of claim 1, wherein the one or more first openings comprise two first openings having a first width in the lateral direction, the two first openings separated by a first separation at least as great as the first width, and wherein the one or more second openings comprise two second openings having a second width in the lateral direction, the two second openings separated by a second separation at least as great as the second width (Figure 4).
Regarding claim 16, Schossow discloses the compensator of claim 15, wherein the first width is substantially equal to the second width; wherein the first separation is substantially equal to the second separation (Figure 4).
Regarding claim 17, Schossow discloses the compensator of claim 15, wherein a first shape of the first openings is the same as a second shape of the second openings (Figure 3).
Claims 1-3, 12, 13, and 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Pfisterer (EP 0604388 A1), hereinafter Pfisterer.
Regarding claim 1, Pfisterer discloses a compensator for a burner of a fired heater or furnace, the burner having an intake for airflow (“The closable by the closure member 3 opening for the supply of combustion air does not of course have to be provided in the ash door 2, but can also be arranged at another location, for example in the combustion chamber door 1 or in a separate air supply duct opening into the combustion chamber” all citations from machine translation appended to the foreign reference), the compensator comprising:
a stationary plate disposed across the intake and across a direction of the airflow through the intake, the stationary plate including one or more first openings (“As can be seen from FIG. 2, the closure member 3 consists of two plates, of which the upper plate 14 is visible, which is displaceable in the direction of the double arrow 15 relative to the plate underneath” emphasis added and “Both the upper plate 14 and the plate located below have air access openings 18”); and
a movable plate disposed adjacent to the stationary plate and including one or more second openings, the movable plate being movable between first and second lateral positions with respect to the stationary plate to control the airflow through the intake (“As can be seen from FIG. 2, the closure member 3 consists of two plates, of which the upper plate 14 is visible, which is displaceable in the direction of the double arrow 15 relative to the plate underneath” emphasis added and “Both the upper plate 14 and the plate located below have air access openings 18 which, depending on the position of the two plates relative to one another, more or less overlap one another, as a result of which the cross section of these air access openings which determines the air access with a linear displacement of the plate 14 relative to the one below it Plate is changed linearly by means of the adjusting device 16”),
wherein in the first lateral position, the one or more second openings of the movable plate are at least partially aligned with the one or more first openings of the stationary plate, thereby defining a first level of airflow through the intake (The first lateral position corresponds to a maximum opening position),
wherein in the second lateral position, the one or more second openings of the movable plate are at least partially misaligned with the one or more first openings of the stationary plate, thereby defining a second level of airflow through the intake (The second lateral position corresponds to a minimum opening position), and
wherein the airflow through the intake at the second level is less than the air flow through the intake at the first level (The second lateral position corresponds to a minimum opening position).
PNG
media_image6.png
422
400
media_image6.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image7.png
268
430
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Pfisterer discloses the compensator of claim 1, wherein in the first lateral position, the one or more second openings are substantially aligned with the one or more first openings such that the first level is a maximum amount of airflow allowed through the intake (The first lateral position corresponds to a maximum opening position), and in the second lateral position, the one or more second openings are substantially misaligned with the one or more first openings such that the second level is a minimum amount of airflow allowed through the intake (The second lateral position corresponds to a minimum opening position).
Regarding claim 3, Pfisterer discloses the compensator of claim 1, wherein the first and second openings are configured to vary the airflow for the intake in a linear relationship between the first and second levels with the movement of the movable plate between the first and second lateral positions “Both the upper plate 14 and the plate located below have air access openings 18 which, depending on the position of the two plates relative to one another, more or less overlap one another, as a result of which the cross section of these air access openings which determines the air access with a linear displacement of the plate 14 relative to the one below it Plate is changed linearly by means of the adjusting device 16”.
Regarding claim 12, Pfisterer discloses the compensator of claim 1, further comprising at least one sensor being configured to measure one or more characteristics associated with operation of the burner, and a controller in communication with the sensor and being configured to control the moveable plate based on the measured characteristic to adjust the airflow through the intake (“The signals emitted by the temperature sensor 9 and by the lambda probe 6 are used in the control device 8 in such a way that an optimal supply of combustion air takes place via the closure member 3”).
Regarding claim 13, Pfisterer discloses the compensator of claim 12, wherein the sensor comprises one or more of an oxygen sensor, a fuel gas BTU sensor, and a calorimeter (“The output signal of the lambda probe corresponds to the residual oxygen content in the combustion gas”).
Regarding claim 15, Pfisterer discloses the compensator of claim 1, wherein the one or more first openings comprise two first openings having a first width in the lateral direction, the two first openings separated by a first separation at least as great as the first width, and wherein the one or more second openings comprise two second openings having a second width in the lateral direction, the two second openings separated by a second separation at least as great as the second width (Figure 2).
Regarding claim 16, Pfisterer discloses the compensator of claim 15, wherein the first width is substantially equal to the second width; wherein the first separation is substantially equal to the second separation (Figure 2).
Regarding claim 17, Pfisterer discloses the compensator of claim 15, wherein a first shape of the first openings is the same as a second shape of the second openings (Figure 2).
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.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schossow, in view of Wells (GB 2389414 A), hereinafter Wells.
Regarding claim 7, Schossow, discloses the compensator of claim 4, wherein a coupling removably connects the movable plate to the bar (“grate 52 is movable by means of threaded arm 58, which is fixed to grate 52 at one end, and extends through a collar and wing nut assembly 60 mounted on the outside of pressure box 14. By rotating wing nut 62, grate 52 may be slid back and forth across the face of baffle plate 48” column 3, line 18. Figures 3 and 4 show fasteners attaching 58 and 52. Screws or bolts are easily releasable, but even rivets may be removed).
Schossow does not disclose wherein the coupling comprises a mount disposed on the movable plate, a flange disposed on the bar, and a locking pin removably connecting the flange to the mount.
However, Wells teaches wherein the coupling comprises a mount (14) disposed on the movable plate, a flange (42) disposed on the bar (43), and a locking pin removably connecting the flange to the mount (“a right angle lug 42 via which they are all riveted” page 4, line 1).
PNG
media_image8.png
478
326
media_image8.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image9.png
244
466
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Schossow does not disclose the claimed flange/pin connection. Wells teaches the claimed flange/pin connection. The substitution of one known element (the connector of Schossow) for another (the connector of Wells) would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention, since the substitution of the connector as taught in Wells would have yielded predictable results, namely, means for connecting an actuator rod to a damper Agrizap, Inc. v. Woodstream Corp., 520 F.3d 1337, 86 USPQ2d 1110 (Fed. Cir. 2008).
Claims 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schossow, in view of Fielding (US 4498635 A), hereinafter Fielding.
Regarding claims 10 and 11, Schossow discloses the compensator of claim 1, further comprising a support plate, track, or guide disposed between a first surface of the movable plate and a second surface of the compensator (“Grate 52 is slidable in tracts 56” column 3, line 10).
Schossow does not disclose a friction reducer supporting the movable plate on the compensator, wherein the friction reducer comprises a support plate, track, or guide.
However, Fielding teaches a friction reducer supporting the movable plate, wherein the friction reducer comprises a support plate, track, or guide (“To reduce friction during sliding movement of the grid plate in the top track or slot 40, a strip of anti-friction tape 43 such as Teflon tape may be affixed to the inside surface of each guide piece 42” column 3, line 35).
In view of Fielding’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 a friction reducer supporting the movable plate on the compensator, wherein the friction reducer comprises a support plate, track, or guide as is taught in Fielding, in the compensator disclosed by Schossow because Fielding states that the configuration reduces friction which will simplify movement.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schossow, in view of Ruffolo (US 6887073 B1), hereinafter Ruffolo.
Regarding claim 14, Schossow discloses the compensator of claim 1.
Schossow does not disclose a curb disposed between the movable plate and the stationary plate on each side of the one or more first openings, the curbs being configured to reduce leakage of the air from the sides between the plates.
However, a curb disposed between the movable plate and the stationary plate on each side of the one or more first openings, the curbs being configured to reduce leakage of the air from the sides between the plates (“sealing gasket 376 is mounted on the flange 374 so as to be positioned between the flange 374 and the gate plate 50. The sealing gasket 376 is constructed from a flexible material so as to be able to compress when it is in contact with the gate plate 50. When the gate plate 50 is aligned with the air flow aperture 368 so as to cover the entire air flow aperture 368, the entire sealing gasket 376 will be in contact with the gate plate 50 in a compressed state. Accordingly, the gate plate 50 in cooperation with the sealing gasket 376 can substantially seal the inlet 25” column 6, line 20).
In view of Ruffolo’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 a curb disposed between the movable plate and the stationary plate on each side of the one or more first openings, the curbs being configured to reduce leakage of the air from the sides between the plates as is taught in Ruffolo, in the compensator disclosed by Schossow because Ruffolo states that the configuration creates a seal which will reduce air losses.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schossow, in view of Keith (GB 806669 A), hereinafter Keith.
Regarding claim 18, Schossow, discloses the compensator of claim 1.
Schossow does not disclose wherein the one or more first and second openings each comprise a quadrilateral having sides of unequal length, vertical ones of the sides being parallel to one another, a lateral one of the sides being orthogonal to the vertical sides, another lateral one of the sides being oblique to the vertical sides.
However, Keith teaches wherein the one or more openings each comprise a quadrilateral having sides of unequal length, vertical ones of the sides being parallel to one another, a lateral one of the sides being orthogonal to the vertical sides, another lateral one of the sides being oblique to the vertical sides (11).
PNG
media_image10.png
212
324
media_image10.png
Greyscale
In view of Keith’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 one or more openings each comprise a quadrilateral having sides of unequal length, vertical ones of the sides being parallel to one another, a lateral one of the sides being orthogonal to the vertical sides, another lateral one of the sides being oblique to the vertical sides as is taught in Keith, in the compensator disclosed by Schossow because Keith states “By this means an accurate control of the admission of air can be obtained more especially where a small rate of air entry is required” (page 2, line 3). Therefore, including the shaped openings as taught by Keith will permit a more accurate control of the admission of air.
Claims 19-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Martin (US 2842076 A), hereinafter Martin, in view of Hammond (GB 266842 A), hereinafter Hammond.
Regarding claim 19, Martin discloses a compensator system for a fired heater or furnace having a plurality of burners, each burner having an intake for airflow (“an air box 4. The combustion air flows through the openings 5 into the individual furnace zones” column 2, line 36), the compensator system comprising:
at least one movable support member being movable laterally relative to the intakes in a direction generally transverse to a direction of the airflow (2a);
a plurality of stationary sections disposed across the intakes of the burners, respectively, each of the stationary sections including one or more first openings (5); and
a plurality of movable plates disposed adjacent to the plurality of stationary sections (6), respectively, each of the movable plates including one or more second openings (8, 8’, or 8’’); and
a controller configured to move each of the plurality of movable plates between first and second lateral positions via movement of the moving support member to control the airflow through the intake of each burner (“a crank 1 connected with a spur gear wheel 1a actuates a rack 2 which is connected with a rod 2a for moving the throttle slides 6” column 2, line 39 emphasis added), respectively,
wherein in the first lateral position, the one or more second openings of each movable plate are at least partially aligned with the one or more first openings of a respective stationary section, thereby defining a first level of airflow through the intake of each burner, respectively,
wherein in the second lateral position, the one or more second openings of each movable plate are at least partially misaligned with the one or more first openings of the respective stationary section, thereby defining a second level of airflow through the intake of each burner, respectively, and
wherein the airflow at the second level is less than the air flow at the first level (“control of the combustion air from zero to full load” column 3, line 74).
PNG
media_image11.png
148
518
media_image11.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image12.png
148
494
media_image12.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image13.png
96
562
media_image13.png
Greyscale
Martin does not disclose:
wherein the stationary sections comprise plates; and
each movable plate being releasably coupled to the movable support member.
However, Hammond teaches:
wherein the stationary section comprises a plate (“a plate 5” page 2, line 85); and
the movable plate (4) being releasably coupled to the movable support member (The figures show that movable plate 4 is coupled to movable support member 8 by a threaded fastener).
PNG
media_image14.png
314
490
media_image14.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image15.png
326
462
media_image15.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image16.png
130
462
media_image16.png
Greyscale
In view of Hammond’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 stationary section comprises a plate as is taught in Hammond, in the compensator system disclosed by Martin because Hammond states “It is found in practice that a damper constructed as hereinbefore described permits of a more efficient control of the passage of gas” (page 2, line 7). Therefore, including the configuration of Hammond will permit a more efficient control of the passage of gas in Martin. Additionally, the court has held that removability is an indicia of obviousness In re Dulberg, 289 F.2d 522, 523, 129 USPQ 348, 349 (CCPA 1961). Therefore, 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 releasable coupling of Hammond.
Regarding claim 20, Martin, as modified by Hammond, discloses the compensator system of claim 19, wherein the controller is configured to move each of the movable plates between the first and second lateral positions at substantially the same time via the movable support member (The plates 6 are configured to move simultaneously).
Regarding claim 21, Martin, as modified by Hammond, discloses the compensator system of claim 20, wherein the controller automatically controls the airflow between the first and second levels (“The system according to the invention for the distribution of the forced-draught in furnaces having a plurality of air supply zones permits a completely automatic control of the combustion air from zero to full load” column 3, line 72).
Regarding claim 22, Martin, as modified by Hammond, discloses the compensator system of claim 19, wherein an actuator coupled to the movable support member is configured to slide the movable support member with respect to the stationary plates (“a crank 1 connected with a spur gear wheel 1a actuates a rack 2 which is connected with a rod 2a for moving the throttle slides 6” column 2, line 39 emphasis added).
Regarding claim 23, Martin, as modified by Hammond, discloses the compensator system of claim 22, wherein the movable support member is an elongated bar (2a).
Regarding claim 24, Martin, as modified by Hammond, discloses the compensator system of claim 19, further comprising a bearing configured to support the bar to a portion of the fired heater (Figures 1 and 2 show bearings supporting bar 2a).
Regarding claim 25, Martin, as modified by Hammond, discloses a method of controlling airflow through a fired heater or furnace comprising the step of adjusting the airflow using the compensator system according to claim 19 (“The system according to the invention for the distribution of the forced-draught in furnaces having a plurality of air supply zones permits a completely automatic control of the combustion air from zero to full load” column 3, line 72).
Claims 27-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Myers, in view of Wells.
Regarding claims 27-30, Myers discloses the fired heater or furnace of claim 26.
Myers does not disclose:
wherein the burners are arranged in at least two rows;
at least two movable support members are each arranged on one of the at least two rows;
at least one actuator coupled to the at least two movable support members and being configured to move the at least two movable support members along the rows;
wherein each movable support member is an elongated bar;
wherein a controller is configured to automatically adjust the airflow through one or more of the burners via one or more of the compensators between the first and second levels.
However, Wells teaches:
wherein the inlets are arranged in at least two rows (32-35);
at least two movable support members are each arranged on one of the at least two rows (14);
at least one actuator coupled to the at least two movable support members and being configured to move the at least two movable support members along the rows (43);
wherein each movable support member is an elongated bar (Elements 14 are elongated bars);
wherein a controller is configured to automatically adjust the airflow through one or more of the inlets via one or more of the compensators between the first and second levels (15).
In view of the teachings of Wells, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include a duplicated arrangement as is taught in Wells, in the fired heater or furnace disclosed by Myers because the court has held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. In this case, the difference between the claims and the prior art Myers is the provision of an additional row of burners with additional dampers for the admission of air to the burners. No new or unexpected result is produced by duplicating the burners.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Gascuel (FR 2413613 A1)
PNG
media_image17.png
372
524
media_image17.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image18.png
202
518
media_image18.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image19.png
136
150
media_image19.png
Greyscale
Myers (US 4347832 A) similar to Myers relied upon above
Shimasa (JP S602151 U)
PNG
media_image20.png
464
364
media_image20.png
Greyscale
Kegasa (JP 2002081618 A)
PNG
media_image21.png
530
716
media_image21.png
Greyscale
Park (US 20230147831 A1)
PNG
media_image22.png
444
594
media_image22.png
Greyscale
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