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 § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 19 recites the limitation "the outer cooling air supply pipe" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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) 1-3, 9, and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Linz et. al (US 4,698,214).
With respect to claim 1 Linz discloses a low NOx premixed hydrogen burner comprising: a plenum chamber [reference character 12] comprising an inlet pipe [see annotated Fig. below] and an outlet pipe [reference character 22] and configured to mix hydrogen and combustion air introduced through the inlet pipe to generate premixed gas for flame formation [column 3 lines 16-20 of Linz where reference characters 18 and 20 carry oxygen and hydrogen, respectively], wherein a diameter of the plenum chamber is larger than diameters of the inlet pipe and the outlet pipe [see Fig. 1], and wherein a length of the plenum chamber is greater than the diameter of the plenum chamber [see Fig. 1].
PNG
media_image1.png
411
474
media_image1.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 2 Linz discloses a hydrogen supply pipe [reference character 20, see column 3 lines 16-20] connected to the inlet pipe of the plenum chamber and configured to be supplied with hydrogen; and a combustion air supply pipe [reference character 18, see column 3 lines 16-20] connected to the inlet pipe of the plenum chamber, and configured to be supplied with combustion air.
With respect to claim 3 Linz discloses an outer cooling air supply pipe [reference character 32] connected to the outlet pipe of the plenum chamber and configured to flow outer cooling air along an outer periphery of the outlet pipe to cool the premixed gas discharged from the plenum chamber [see column 4 lines 22-23].
With respect to claim 9 Linz discloses that the outer cooling air supply pipe is installed in an annular shape to surround an outer periphery of the outlet pipe of the plenum chamber [see Fig. 1].
With respect to claim 11 Linz discloses that an end of the outlet of the outlet pipe of the plenum chamber projects over an end of the outlet of the outer cooling air supply pipe by a recess length Lc [see annotated Fig. below], which is formed to be minimized1.
PNG
media_image2.png
448
456
media_image2.png
Greyscale
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(s) 5-7 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Linz et. al (US 4,698,214).
With respect to claims 5-6 Linz does not disclose that the plenum chamber has a length-to-radius ratio (AR) of about 6.7 to about 6.9 (claim 5) or that the plenum chamber has a length-to-radius ratio (AR) of less than about 12.9. However, the length to diameter ratio is interpreted to be a result effective variable that would be optimized based on the inlet flow rates in order to ensure that the residence time in the chamber is less than the ignition delay time between the fuel and oxidizer, in order to prevent ignition of the fuel and oxidizer in the mixing chamber. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing date of the invention to form the length to radius ratio such that it satisfies the requirements of claims 5 and 6. since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
With respect to claim 7 Linz does not disclose that a diameter of the plenum chamber is formed to be two times or more than a diameter of an upstream pipe. However, the ratio of the diameter of an upstream pipe to the diameter of the plenum chamber is interpreted to be a result effective variable that would be optimized in order to create a dump effect where a recirculation zone will form downstream of the inlet as a result of the sudden in increase in static pressure downstream of the dump. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing date of the invention to form a diameter of the plenum chamber so that it is two times or more than a diameter of an upstream pipe. since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
With respect to claim 12 Linz does not disclose that an outlet of the outer cooling air supply pipe is formed to generate between about 15 m/s and about 30 m/s of an air supply flow velocity. However, the velocity is interpreted to be a result effective variable that would be optimized in order to achieve a desired result, in this case the cooling air outlet velocity would be optimized in order to achieve the desired rate of shear between the annular cooling air and the fuel air mixture, in order to achieve proper mixing and flame stability. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing date of the invention to generate between about 15 m/s and about 30 m/s of an air supply flow velocity in the cooling air pipie since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 .
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Linz et. al (US 4,698,214) in view of Krause et. al (US 2,941,021).
With respect to claim 8 Linz does not disclose that the plenum chamber is formed in a diffuser-type or nozzle-type with a different diameter between an inlet and an outlet.
Krause discloses a hydrogen-oxygen mixer [reference character 1 in Fig. 1] which terminates in a tapering nozzle like outlet [see Fig. 1].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing date of the invention to modify the system taught by Linz by including a tapering outlet, as taught by Krause, which would make the outlet diameter different than the inlet diameter, in order to accelerate and therefore make the mixture exiting the plenum more laminar.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Linz et. al (US 4,698,214) in view of Gitman (US 4,797,087).
With respect to claim 10 Linz does not disclose that the outer cooling air supply pipe has an inner surface coupled to an outer surface of the outlet pipe of the plenum chamber by a reducer so that cooling air supply is not biased in a particular direction.
Gitman discloses a burner [see Fig. 1] having an inner pipe [reference character 18] and an outer air-cooling pipe [see annotated Fig. below] and a reducer [see annotated Fig. below] which maintains the position of the nozzle with respect to the outer air cooling pipe.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing date of the invention to modify the system taught by Linz by including a reducer as taught by Gitman to maintain the position of outlet line with respect to the cooling it pipe.
PNG
media_image3.png
303
445
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 13-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Linz et. al (US 4,698,214) in view of Ramsaier et. al (US 4,916,904).
With respect to claim 13 Linz does not disclose an inner cooling air supply pipe installed to extend through an interior of the plenum chamber to the outlet pipe of the plenum chamber, and configured to flow outer cooling air through and cool premixed gas in the plenum chamber.
Ramsaier discloses a hydrogen and oxygen burner which includes a mixing plenum [reference character 8] which leads into an ignition chamber [reference character 9] and then a main combustion chamber [reference character 2] where an inner oxygen pipe [reference character 3] extends through the interior of the plenum chamber to the outlet pipe of the plenum chamber [see Fig. 1].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing date of the invention to modify the premixer taught by Linz by including an inner oxygen pipe extending through the interior of the plenum chamber to the outlet pipe of the plenum chamber, as taught by Ramsaier, in order to allow the introduction of supplemental oxygen into the mixture.
With respect to claim 14 the combination of Linz and Ramsaier discloses that an end of an outlet of the inner cooling air supply pipe is formed to be on the same vertical line as or to project over an end of the outlet of the outlet pipe of the plenum chamber [see Fig. 1 of Ramsaier].
Claim(s) 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Linz et. al (US 4,698,214) in view of Ramsaier et. al (US 4,916,904).
With respect to claim 19 Linz discloses a low NOx premixed hydrogen burner comprising: a plenum chamber [reference character 12] comprising an inlet pipe [see annotated Fig. below] and an outlet pipe [reference character 22] and configured to mix hydrogen and combustion air introduced through the inlet pipe to generate premixed gas for flame formation [column 3 lines 16-20 of Linz where reference characters 18 and 20 carry oxygen and hydrogen, respectively]. Linz further discloses that an outer cooling air supply pipe [reference character 32] is installed in an annular shape to surround an outer periphery of the outlet pipe of the plenum chamber.
Linz does not disclose wherein an inner cooling air supply pipe is installed to extend through an interior of the plenum chamber to the outlet pipe of the plenum chamber.
Ramsaier discloses a hydrogen and oxygen burner which includes a mixing plenum [reference character 8] which leads into an ignition chamber [reference character 9] and then a main combustion chamber [reference character 2] where an inner oxygen pipe [reference character 3] extends through the interior of the plenum chamber to the outlet pipe of the plenum chamber [see Fig. 1].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing date of the invention to modify the premixer taught by Linz by including an inner oxygen pipe extending through the interior of the plenum chamber to the outlet pipe of the plenum chamber, as taught by Ramsaier, in order to allow the introduction of supplemental oxygen into the mixture.
PNG
media_image1.png
411
474
media_image1.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 20 the combination of Linz and Ramsaier disclose that the outlet of the outlet pipe of the plenum chamber projects over an end of the outlet of the outer cooling air supply pipe, and wherein an end of an outlet of the inner cooling air supply pipe is formed to be on the same vertical line as or to project over an end of the outlet of the outlet pipe of the plenum chamber [see Fig. 1 of Ramsaier].
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 15-18 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VIVEK K SHIRSAT whose telephone number is (571)272-3722. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00AM-5:20AM.
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, Steven B McAllister can be reached at 571-272-6785. 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.
/VIVEK K SHIRSAT/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3762
1 “[W]hich is formed to be minimized” is interpreted to be a product-by-process limitation where “"[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985)” (emphasis in original) [see MPEP § 2113].