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
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of group I – claims 1-17 in the reply filed on 2/4/26 is acknowledged.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-5, 9-13, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Nan (JP 2001-193908), which shows all of the claimed limitations. Nan shows:
1. (Original) A burner configured to produce a flame F in a combustion zone, the burner comprising: a combustion air A conduit that provides combustion air to the combustion zone; a targeted gas E conduit surrounded by said combustion air conduit, said targeted gas provides a targeted gas to the combustion zone; a fuel gas G conduit surrounded by said targeted gas conduit, said fuel gas conduit provides fuel gas to the combustion zone, wherein a portion of the fuel gas is mixed with a portion of the targeted gas prior to mixing with the combustion air in the combustion zone (fig. 2).
2. (Original) The burner of claim 1, wherein an inlet of said fuel gas conduit draws in a flue gas from a combustion source (para. 0026 - “combustion exhaust gas E”).
3. (Original) The burner of claim 1, wherein said combustion air conduit includes a closed end and openings 16 at said closed end, the targeted gas flows across said closed end forming a fluid barrier between the combustion air and the fuel gas (fig. 2).
4. (Original) The burner of claim 1, wherein said targeted gas conduit includes a closed end and openings 20a at said closed end (fig. 2).
5. (Original) The burner of claim 1, wherein said fuel gas conduit includes a closed end and openings 18 at said closed end (fig. 2).
9. (Original) The burner of claim 1, further comprising at least one aperture 26 extending between said combustion air conduit and said targeted gas conduit (fig. 2).
10. (Original) The burner of claim 9, further comprising at least one aperture 13 extending between said targeted gas conduit and said fuel gas conduit (fig. 2).
11. (Original) The burner of claim 1, further comprising at least one aperture 13 extending between said targeted gas conduit and said fuel gas conduit (fig. 2).
12. (Original) The burner of claim 1, wherein said targeted gas is a NOx reducing medium or a mixture of NOx reducing media (para. 0035).
13. (Original) A process for reducing production of NOx gases at a burner, the process comprising: injecting a combustion air A into a combustion zone; injecting a targeted gas E into the combustion zone; and injecting a fuel gas G into the combustion zone, wherein a portion of the fuel gas is mixed with a portion of the targeted gas prior to mixing 21 with the combustion air in the combustion zone (fig. 2).
17. (Original) The process of claim 13, wherein the targeted gas is a NOx reducing medium or a mixture of NOx reducing media (para. 0035).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nan (JP 2001-193908), which discloses substantially all of the claimed limitations.
Nan teaches the invention as described above but fails to explicitly teach the claimed range.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Nan, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable values or ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233; In re Swain, 156 F.2d 239. See also Peterson, 315 F.3d at 1330, 65 USPQ2d at 1382 (“The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages.”).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-8, 14, and 15 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. These references disclose devices with many of the claimed components. Nevertheless, in order to avoid overburdening the applicant with redundant rejections, these references were not applied.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALFRED BASICHAS whose telephone number is 571 272 4871. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday during regular business hours.
To contact the examiner’s supervisor please call MICHAEL HOANG whose telephone number is 571 272 6460.
Any inquiry of a general nature or relating to the status of this application or proceeding should be directed to the Tech Center telephone number is 571 272 3700.
March 4, 2026
/ALFRED BASICHAS/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3762