DETAILED ACTION
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 .
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.
Claim(s) 1-5, 7-10 and 12-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Junier (US 6,170,528). Regarding Claim 1:In the specification and Figures 2-4, Junier discloses a process for reducing pressure of a flue gas stream (see abstract and column 2, lines 12-15) comprising: passing a pressurized flue gas stream (pressurized flue gas stream discussed in column 2, lines 11-30) to a chamber (orifice chamber 10a) through an inlet (16a); passing the pressurized flue gas stream longitudinally through orifices (orifices in orifice plates 20a, 22a, 24a and 26a) in a plurality of plates (in orifice plates 20a, 22a, 24a and 26a) in the chamber to reduce the pressure of the flue gas stream (column 2, lines 11-30); and passing the flue gas stream from the chamber (10a) at a lower pressure than at the inlet (pressure lowered from 20 to 40 psig to atmospheric pressure, see column 4, lines 59-64).Regarding Claim 2:In the specification and Figures 2-4, Junier discloses the process, wherein one of said plurality of orifice plates (orifice plates 20a, 22a, 24a and 26a) is flat (all plates are flat as seen in Figures 2-3).Regarding Claim 3:In the specification and Figures 2-4, Junier discloses the process, wherein one of said plurality of orifice plates (20a) comprises an array (19, 21) of strips (circular strip 21 with horizontal strip 19, see Figure 3).Regarding Claim 4:In the specification and Figures 2-4, Junier discloses the process, further comprising laying each strip (19, 21) in said array of strips so the array extends across a cross section of the chamber (each plate and thereby each array extends across a cross section of the chamber as evident from Figure 2).Regarding Claim 5:In the specification and Figures 2-4, Junier discloses the process, further comprising securing a side of one of said several strips to a side of an adjacent one said several strips (the lateral sides of 19 are connected to an inner side of 21 as seen in Figure 3).Regarding Claim 7:In the specification and Figures 2-4, Junier discloses the process, further comprising inserting each of said several strips through a manway (30a) in said chamber (10a) before laying each of said several strips in the array (each orifice plate can be inserted through the manway 30a and so each strip is inserted through said manway, see column 4, lines 10-21).Regarding Claim 8:In the specification and Figures 2-4, Junier discloses the process, wherein a second one (22a) of said plurality of orifice plates (20a, 22a, 24a and 26a) comprises a second array of strips (all the plates are identical to 20a and would all have the same array of strips 19, 21) and further comprising laying each of said strips in said second array that extends across a cross section of the chamber in an orientation that is not aligned with an orientation of said first one of said plurality of orifice plates (as seen in Figure 2, each support plate 29, 31, 33 and 35 comprise two orifice plates. In Figure 2, orifice plate 20a is on the right side and it is not aligned with the left side plate identical to 22a on 31. In other words, these orifice plates are oriented such that they are not axially aligned. Furthermore, since these orifice plates are circular, perfect alignment of two such plates would be extremely hard and thus each respective array of strips would likely be misaligned with another array of strips at least slightly).Regarding Claim 9:In the specification and Figures 2-4, Junier discloses the process, further comprising removing one of said several strips through said manway in said chamber after laying each of said several strips in an array that extends across a cross section of the chamber (as mentioned in column 4, lines 10-21, any of the strips on any respective orifice plate can be removed for repair or replacement of the orifice plates via the manway. Therefore, removal of a particular strip is up to the end user for maintenance purposes).Regarding Claim 10:In the specification and Figures 2-4, Junier discloses the process, further comprising passing the flue gas from a catalyst regenerator (not shown) to said chamber (the flue gas is a result of the combustion process in a regenerator as mentioned in column 1, lines 27-30).Regarding Claim 12:In the specification and Figures 2-4, Junier discloses a chamber (10a) for reducing pressure of a flue gas stream (see abstract and column 2, lines 12-15) comprising: an inlet (16a) to the chamber (10a); a plurality of orifice plates (orifice plates 20a, 22a, 24a and 26a) in the chamber spaced apart along a height of the chamber (as seen in Figure 2), each one of said orifice plates comprising an array (19, 21) of orifice strips (circular strip 21 with horizontal strip 19, as seen in Figure 3); and an outlet (18a) from the chamber.Regarding Claim 13:In the specification and Figures 2-4, Junier discloses the chamber (10a) wherein said inlet is in downstream communication with a catalyst regenerator (the flue gas is a result of the combustion process in a regenerator as mentioned in column 1, lines 27-30).Regarding Claim 14:In the specification and Figures 2-4, Junier discloses the chamber (10a) wherein said orifice plates (orifice plates 20a, 22a, 24a and 26a) having orifices oriented parallel to the longitudinal axis of the chamber (as seen in Figure 2, the orifices in each orifice plate would be parallel to the longitudinal axis depicted by the vertical dashed line).Regarding Claim 15:In the specification and Figures 2-4, Junier discloses the chamber (10a) wherein one of said plurality of orifice plates is flat (all plates are flat as seen in Figures 2-3).Regarding Claim 16:In the specification and Figures 2-4, Junier discloses the chamber (10a) wherein one of said orifice plates extends across a cross section of the chamber (as seen in Figure 1, all orifice plates extend across a cross section of the chamber).Regarding Claim 17:In the specification and Figures 2-4, Junier discloses the chamber (10a) wherein a side of one of said several strips is secured to a side of an adjacent one said several strips (the lateral sides of 19 are connected to an inner side of 21 as seen in Figure 3).Regarding Claim 18:In the specification and Figures 2-4, Junier discloses the chamber (10a) wherein a manway (30a) in said chamber and each of said strips has a width that is less than a diameter of the manway (all orifice plates are accessible via said manway 30a and so each strip must inherently be smaller in width than the diameter of the manway, see column 4, lines 10-21). Note: The manway could be a manhole which is known to have a circular shape with a diameter (see column 2, lines 37-44). Regarding Claim 19:In the specification and Figures 2-4, Junier discloses the chamber (10a) wherein said strips (19, 21) include a stiffener flange (flange formed by base plate 29 for instance) oriented orthogonal to the surface of the strip (the flange formed by base plate 29 extends in an axial direction that is orthogonal/perpendicular to the radial direction of the strips as seen in Figure 2).
Regarding Claim 20:In the specification and Figures 2-4, Junier discloses the chamber (10a) wherein said array of strips (19, 21) in one of said plurality of plates (20a) is oriented at an angle to strips in an adjacent one (22a) of said plurality of plates (since these orifice plates are circular, perfect alignment of two such plates would be extremely hard and thus each respective array of strips would likely be misaligned with another array of strips in another orifice plate at least slightly. Hence one array of strips would be angled with respect to another array of strips).Regarding Claim 21:In the specification and Figures 2-4, Junier discloses a chamber (10a) for reducing pressure of a flue gas stream (see abstract and column 2, lines 12-15) comprising: an inlet (16a) to the chamber in downstream communication with a catalyst regenerator (the flue gas is a result of the combustion process in a regenerator as mentioned in column 1, lines 27-30); a plurality of orifice flat plates (orifice plates 20a, 22a, 24a and 26a) in the chamber spaced apart along a height of the chamber (see Figure 2), each one of said orifice plates comprising an array (19, 21) of orifice strips (circular strip 21 with horizontal strip 19, see Figure 3); and an outlet (18a) from the chamber.
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.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Junier (US 6,170,528) in view of Krishnamurthy et al. (herein Krishnamurthy) (US 2020/0033893). Junier is silent regarding any pressure measurement. However, Krishnamurthy discloses a similar process of reducing pressure in a flue gas stream wherein pressure measurements are taken by sensors in the flue gas stream to detect pressure drop which is then transmitted to a receiver (see paragraph [0048]). It is also well known in the art that pressure sensors can be used to determine if the pressure reduction is working well or if some part needs to be replaced to achieve the pressure reduction goals. Hence, based on Krishnamurthy’s teachings and common knowledge in the art, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have included at least one pressure sensor to measure pressure in the flue gas stream and to transmit the measurement to an appropriate receiver (as taught by Kirshnamurthy), since doing so would allow an end user to determine if the pressure reduction was being accomplished as intended or if the pressure reduction was unsatisfactory, thereby allowing for remedial actions like replacing orifice plates.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 6 is 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.
Claim 6 includes the limitation: flanges of adjacent strips are secured to each other with a clip. Junier’s strips (19, 21) do not have flanges and are integrally connected to each other. Modifying said strips to be separable, include flanges and further interconnect these flanges with clips would require substantial impermissible hindsight reconstruction and would be largely unnecessary. Hence, this claims is deemed allowable.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See appended PTO-892 for relevant prior art related to gas pressure reduction processes and related structures.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DOMINICK L PLAKKOOTTAM whose telephone number is (571)270-7571. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 12 pm -8 pm ET.
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, Essama Omgba can be reached at 469-295-9278. 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.
/DOMINICK L PLAKKOOTTAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3746