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 § 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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Prentice (US 20060053791 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Prentice teaches an apparatus (the assembly of FIG. 1) for reduced nitrogen oxide formation during combustion, the apparatus comprising: a mixing device configured to mix flue gas and oxygen to form a synthetic air for feeding to a combustion device as an oxidant for combustion of a fuel fed to the combustion device (paragraph 37, the assembly combines air and other inert gases), the mixing device positionable to receive a gas from at least one source of gas having carbon dioxide (CO2) and/or flue gas output from the combustion device that is recycled to the mixing device (paragraph 37, the mix includes CO2), the mixing device positioned to receive the oxygen from at least one source of oxygen (paragraph 37, the mix includes O).
Prentice fails to teach that the synthetic air has a concentration of oxygen (02) of between 20 mole percent (mol%) 02 and 40 mol% 02, has a concentration of nitrogen (N2) of between 20 mol% N2 and 0 mol% N2, and a concentration of CO2 of at least 30 mol% CO2.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to make the synthetic air have a concentration of oxygen (02) of between 20 mole percent (mol%) 02 and 40 mol% 02, have a concentration of nitrogen (N2) of between 20 mol% N2 and 0 mol% N2, and a concentration of CO2 of at least 30 mol% CO2, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art (Prentice, paragraph 37, the mix is (by weight, which can be converted to mol) 76.9% N2, 23.1% O2, with trace amounts of CO2), discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves (MPEP 2144.05 II. A) only routine skill in the art.
In addition, it is observed that the ratio by mol of the different gases is a result effective variable because it radically changes the character of the burn. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to make the synthetic air have a concentration of oxygen (02) of between 20 mole percent (mol%) 02 and 40 mol% 02, have a concentration of nitrogen (N2) of between 20 mol% N2 and 0 mol% N2, and a concentration of CO2 of at least 30 mol% CO2, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)).
Regarding claim 2, Prentice fails to teach that the synthetic air comprises between 2 mol% water and 40 mol% water.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to make the synthetic air comprise between 2 mol% water and 40 mol% water, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art (Prentice, paragraph 756, the mix may be 56% water), discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves (MPEP 2144.05 II. A) only routine skill in the art.
In addition, it is observed that the ratio by mol of the different substances is a result effective variable because it radically changes the character of the burn. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to make the synthetic air comprise between 2 mol% water and 40 mol% water, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)).
Regarding claim 3, Prentice fails to teach that the synthetic air has a CO2 concentration of between 30 mol% CO2 and 70 mol% CO2.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to make the synthetic air have a CO2 concentration of between 30 mol% CO2 and 70 mol% CO2, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art (Prentice, paragraph 37, the mix has trace amounts of CO2), discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves (MPEP 2144.05 II. A) only routine skill in the art.
In addition, it is observed that the ratio by mol of the different substances is a result effective variable because it radically changes the character of the burn. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to make the synthetic air have a CO2 concentration of between 30 mol% CO2 and 70 mol% CO2, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)).
Regarding claim 4, Prentice fails to teach that the synthetic air has a pre-selected ratio of water to CO2 of between 0.5 and 1.0.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to make the synthetic air comprise a pre-selected ratio of water to CO2 of between 0.5 and 1.0, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art (Prentice, paragraph 756, the mix may be 56% water and 28.3% CO2), discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves (MPEP 2144.05 II. A) only routine skill in the art.
In addition, it is observed that the ratio by mol of the different substances is a result effective variable because it radically changes the character of the burn. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to make the synthetic air comprise a pre-selected ratio of water to CO2 of between 0.5 and 1.0, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)).
Regarding claim 5, Prentice teaches that the combustion device is configured to receive the synthetic air output from the mixing device as an oxidant for combustion of a fuel to form flue gas (paragraph 37).
Regarding claim 6, Prentice teaches a carbon capture apparatus positioned to receive a first portion of the flue gas output from the combustion device (paragraph 465, the apparatus includes a carbon capture device).
Regarding claim 7, Prentice teaches that the mixing device is positioned to receive a second portion of the flue gas output from the combustion device for forming the synthetic air (paragraph 465).
Regarding claim 8, Prentice fails to teach that the second portion of the flue gas is between 30% and 70% of the flue gas output from the combustion device and a balance of the flue gas is the first portion of the flue gas.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to make it so the second portion of the flue gas is between 30% and 70% of the flue gas output from the combustion device and a balance of the flue gas is the first portion of the flue gas, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art (Prentice, paragraph 465), discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves (MPEP 2144.05 II. A) only routine skill in the art.
In addition, it is observed that the ratio of flue gas is a result effective variable because it affects emissions. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to make it so the second portion of the flue gas is between 30% and 70% of the flue gas output from the combustion device and a balance of the flue gas is the first portion of the flue gas, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)).
Regarding claims 9 and 18, Prentice fails to teach that the synthetic air is formed such that combustion of the fuel at full rate operation with the synthetic air results in formation of nitrogen oxides (NOx) that is no more than 15 mg/Nm3 of NOx and is also greater than 0 mg/Nm3 of NOx, wherein Nm3 is a normal cubic meter.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to make it so the system forms nitrogen oxides (NOx) that is no more than 15 mg/Nm3 of NOx and is also greater than 0 mg/Nm3 of NOx, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art (Prentice, paragraph 465), discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves (MPEP 2144.05 II. A) only routine skill in the art.
In addition, it is observed that the amount of NOX produced is a result effective variable because it affects emissions. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to make it so the system forms nitrogen oxides (NOx) that is no more than 15 mg/Nm3 of NOx and is also greater than 0 mg/Nm3 of NOx, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)).
Regarding claim 10, Prentice teaches that the at least one source of oxygen comprises oxygen from an air separation unit (ASU) (paragraph 679, the assembly may include an ASU), vacuum swing adsorption (VSA) unit, and/or a storage tank configured to retain oxygen.
Regarding claims 11 and 19, Prentice teaches that the synthetic air is formed so that combustion of the fuel at full rate operation with the synthetic air results in formation of nitrogen oxides (NOx) that is no more than 6.1 mg/Nm3 of NOx and is also greater than 0 mg/Nm3 of NOx, wherein Nm3 is a normal cubic meter.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to make it so the system forms nitrogen oxides (NOx) that is no more than 6.1 mg/Nm3 of NOx and is also greater than 0 mg/Nm3 of NOx, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art (Prentice, paragraph 465), discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves (MPEP 2144.05 II. A) only routine skill in the art.
In addition, it is observed that the amount of NOX produced is a result effective variable because it affects emissions. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to make it so the system forms nitrogen oxides (NOx) that is no more than 6.1 mg/Nm3 of NOx and is also greater than 0 mg/Nm3 of NOx, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)).
Regarding claim 12, Prentice teaches a process for reduced nitrogen oxide formation during combustion (the process performed by the apparatus of FIG. 1), the process comprising: forming a synthetic air by mixing a gas having carbon dioxide (CO2) (paragraph 37, the mix includes CO2) and/or flue gas recycled from a combustion device with oxygen from at least one source of oxygen (paragraph 37, the mix includes O), the synthetic air having between 0 mole percent (mol%) nitrogen (N2) and 20 mol% N2; feeding the formed synthetic air to the combustion device as an oxidant for combustion of a fuel in a combustion chamber of the combustion device.
Prentice fails to teach that the synthetic air has a concentration of oxygen (02) of between 20 mole percent (mol%) 02 and 40 mol% 02, has a concentration of nitrogen (N2) of between 20 mol% N2 and 0 mol% N2, and a concentration of CO2 of at least 30 mol% CO2.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to make the synthetic air have a concentration of oxygen (02) of between 20 mole percent (mol%) 02 and 40 mol% 02, have a concentration of nitrogen (N2) of between 20 mol% N2 and 0 mol% N2, and a concentration of CO2 of at least 30 mol% CO2, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art (Prentice, paragraph 37, the mix is (by weight, which can be converted to mol) 76.9% N2, 23.1% O2, with trace amounts of CO2), discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves (MPEP 2144.05 II. A) only routine skill in the art.
In addition, it is observed that the ratio by mol of the different gases is a result effective variable because it radically changes the character of the burn. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to make the synthetic air have a concentration of oxygen (02) of between 20 mole percent (mol%) 02 and 40 mol% 02, have a concentration of nitrogen (N2) of between 20 mol% N2 and 0 mol% N2, and a concentration of CO2 of at least 30 mol% CO2, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)).
Regarding claim 13, Prentice teaches feeding a portion of flue gas formed via the combustion of the fuel in the combustion chamber of the combustion device to a mixing device for formation of the synthetic air (paragraph 37).
Regarding claim 14, Prentice teaches feeding a first portion of flue gas formed via the combustion of the fuel in the combustion chamber of the combustion device to a carbon capture apparatus to form at least one carbon dioxide product stream (paragraph 465).
Regarding claim 15, Prentice teaches feeding a second portion of flue gas formed via the combustion of the fuel in the combustion chamber of the combustion device to a mixing device for formation of the synthetic air (paragraph 37).
Regarding claim 16, Prentice teaches feeding the oxygen to the mixing device for the forming of the synthetic air (paragraph 37).
Regarding claim 16, Prentice fails to teach that the synthetic air has a concentration of oxygen (02) of between 20 mol% 02 and 40 mol% 02, has a concentration of N2 of between 20 mol% N2 and 0 mol% N2, a concentration of CO2 of at least 30 mol% CO2, and a concentration of water of between 2 mol% water and 40 mol% water.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to make the synthetic air have a concentration of oxygen (02) of between 20 mol% 02 and 40 mol% 02, have a concentration of N2 of between 20 mol% N2 and 0 mol% N2, a concentration of CO2 of at least 30 mol% CO2, and a concentration of water of between 2 mol% water and 40 mol% water, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art (Prentice, paragraphs 37 and 465), discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves (MPEP 2144.05 II. A) only routine skill in the art.
In addition, it is observed that the ratio by mol of the different gases is a result effective variable because it radically changes the character of the burn. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to make the synthetic air have a concentration of oxygen (02) of between 20 mol% 02 and 40 mol% 02, have a concentration of N2 of between 20 mol% N2 and 0 mol% N2, a concentration of CO2 of at least 30 mol% CO2, and a concentration of water of between 2 mol% water and 40 mol% water, have a concentration of nitrogen (N2) of between 20 mol% N2 and 0 mol% N2, and a concentration of CO2 of at least 30 mol% CO2, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)).
Regarding claim 20, Prentice teaches an apparatus (the assembly of FIG. 1) for reduced nitrogen oxide formation during combustion, the apparatus comprising:a mixing device configured to mix flue gas and oxygen to form a synthetic air for feeding to a combustion device as an oxidant for combustion (paragraph 37, the assembly combines air and other inert gases), the mixing device positionable to receive the flue gas from at least one source of gas having carbon dioxide (CO2) and/or flue gas output from the combustion device that is recycled to the mixing device (paragraph 37, the mix includes CO2), the mixing device positioned to receive the oxygen from at least one source of oxygen (paragraph 37, the mix includes O); the combustion device connected to the mixing device to receive the synthetic air from the mixing device as the oxidant for combustion of a fuel, the combustion device having at least one burner and a flue gas outlet conduit for outputting flue gas formed from the combustion (paragraph 37); a carbon capture apparatus positioned to receive a first portion of the flue gas from the flue gas outlet conduit (paragraph 465, the apparatus includes a carbon capture device); and the mixing device positioned to receive a second portion of the flue gas from the flue gas outlet conduit to form the synthetic air (paragraph 37).
Prentice fails to teach that the synthetic air has a concentration of oxygen (02) of between 20 mole percent (mol%) 02 and 40 mol% 02, has a concentration of nitrogen (N2) of between 20 mol% N2 and 0 mol% N2, and a concentration of CO2 of between 30 mol% CO2 and 80 mol% CO2; to form at least one CO2 product stream having a concentration of CO2 between 90 mol% CO2 and 100 mol% CO2; the synthetic air being formable such that combustion of the fuel at full rate operation with the synthetic air results in formation of nitrogen oxides (NOx) that is no more than 15 mg/Nm3 of NOx and is also greater than 0 mg/Nm3 of NOx, wherein Nm3 is a normal cubic meter; and wherein the first portion is between 30% and 70% of the flue gas and the second portion is a remaining portion of the flue gas that is not passed to the carbon capture apparatus.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to make the synthetic air have a concentration of oxygen (02) of between 20 mole percent (mol%) 02 and 40 mol% 02, have a concentration of nitrogen (N2) of between 20 mol% N2 and 0 mol% N2, and a concentration of CO2 of at least 30 mol% CO2, nitrogen oxides (NOx) that is no more than 15 mg/Nm3 of NOx and is also greater than 0 mg/Nm3 of NOx, wherein Nm3 is a normal cubic meter; and wherein the first portion is between 30% and 70% of the flue gas and the second portion is a remaining portion of the flue gas that is not passed to the carbon capture apparatus, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art (Prentice, paragraph 37, the mix is (by weight, which can be converted to mol) 76.9% N2, 23.1% O2, with trace amounts of CO2), discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves (MPEP 2144.05 II. A) only routine skill in the art.
In addition, it is observed that the ratio by mol of the different gases is a result effective variable because it radically changes the character of the burn. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to make the synthetic air have a concentration of oxygen (02) of between 20 mole percent (mol%) 02 and 40 mol% 02, have a concentration of nitrogen (N2) of between 20 mol% N2 and 0 mol% N2, and a concentration of CO2 of at least 30 mol% CO2, nitrogen oxides (NOx) that is no more than 15 mg/Nm3 of NOx and is also greater than 0 mg/Nm3 of NOx, wherein Nm3 is a normal cubic meter; and wherein the first portion is between 30% and 70% of the flue gas and the second portion is a remaining portion of the flue gas that is not passed to the carbon capture apparatus, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM C. WEINERT whose telephone number is (571)272-6988. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00-5:00 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, Helena Kosanovic can be reached at (571) 272-9059. 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.
/WILLIAM C WEINERT/Examiner, Art Unit 3762
/Allen R. B. Schult/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3762
Prosecution Insights