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
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Interpretation
Claim 7 recites “a plurality of panels each having a two-dimensional linear body.” A physical body must have three dimensions. The limitation “two-dimensional” is interpreted to mean planar.
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.
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.
Claims 1-5, 10, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marcum (NPL, “Electric-field-induced flame speed modification”), hereinafter Marcum.
Regarding claim 1, Marcum discloses an apparatus, comprising:
(a) a combustion burner configured to output a flame and a gas flow from a face of the burner, wherein the gas flow defines a gas flow path in a direction away from the burner (“The burner used was a commercial atomic absorption type (Perkin-Elmer with a modified cylindrical (44-mm diameter x 50 mm) stainless-steel head. The premixed gas inlet orifices consisted of five concentric rings of close spaced 0.8-mm-diamter holes, the largest ring having a 17-mm diameter. The hollow, 25-mm-diamter portion of the burner head is filled with multiple layers of fine mesh wire screen in series with the standard burner body to ensure complete fuel/air mixing”);
(b) a first conductive element positioned within the flame;
(c) a second conductive element positioned across the face of the burner; and
(d) a positive electrode and a negative electrode each coupled with a power source, wherein the positive electrode is electrically coupled with the first conductive element and the negative electrode is electrically coupled with the second conductive element, wherein the positive electrode and the negative electrode are configured to generate an electric field oriented parallel to the gas flow path, wherein the electric field is oriented in an opposite direction to the gas flow path;
wherein the power source is configured to generate the electric field to form at least one flame root defined by the flame immediately downstream of the second conductive element, wherein the power source is configured to selectively modify the electric field to increase or decrease a quantity of the at least one flame root formed immediately downstream of the second conductive element.
Claims 1-5, 10, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krichtafovitch (US 20140227646 A1), hereinafter Krichtafovitch, in view of Marcum (NPL, “Electric-field-induced flame speed modification”), hereinafter Marcum, and further in view of Colannino (US 20150276211 A1), hereinafter Colannino.
Regarding claim 1, Krichtafovitch discloses an apparatus, comprising:
(a) a combustion burner configured to output a flame and a gas flow from a face of the burner, wherein the gas flow defines a gas flow path in a direction away from the burner (“burner nozzle 104” paragraph [0061]);
(b) a first conductive element positioned adjacent the flame (“the charger 310 may include a corona electrode (e.g., a sharpened electrode or saw blade) configured to generate ions that are injected into the fuel, flame, or combinations thereof to impart the net electrical charge” column 4, line 55);
(c) a second conductive element positioned across the face of the burner (“The flame anchoring apparatus 302 is also electrically coupled to the voltage power supply 304” paragraph [0064] and “In some embodiments, the fuel flow equalizer 202g and the flame anchoring apparatus 302 may be integrated (e.g., the fuel flow equalizer 202g may be configured to anchor the flame thereto and/or may be integrally formed together with the flame anchoring apparatus 302)” paragraph [0063]); and
(d) a positive electrode and a negative electrode each coupled with a power source, wherein the positive electrode and the negative electrode are configured to generate an electric field oriented parallel to the gas flow path, wherein the electric field is oriented in an opposite direction to the gas flow path (“A voltage power supply 304 (e.g., a high voltage power supply) biases the charger 310 to cause charges to be emitted from the charger 310. The flame anchoring apparatus 302 is also electrically coupled to the voltage power supply 304 and biases the flame anchoring apparatus 302 oppositely to the bias of the charged flame 308” paragraph [0064]);
wherein the power source is configured to generate the electric field to form at least one flame root defined by the flame, wherein the power source is configured to selectively modify the electric field to increase or decrease a quantity of the at least one flame root (“application of the bias to the flame anchoring apparatus 302 may control the position and/or shape of the charged flame 308. More specifically, the voltage power supply 304 and the anchoring apparatus 302 may generate an electric field near one or more surfaces or sides of the flame anchoring apparatus 302, which may attract, couple, and/or anchor the charged flame 308 to at least one side of the anchoring apparatus 302” paragraph [0064] and “the voltage power supply 304 and the flame anchoring apparatus 302 may produce an electric field near the flame anchoring apparatus 302, which may be controlled by the voltage power supply 304 in a manner that controls the charged flame 308” paragraph [0066]).
PNG
media_image1.png
280
388
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
500
450
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Krichtafovitch does not explicitly disclose:
the first conductive element positioned within the flame, wherein the positive electrode is electrically coupled with the first conductive element and the negative electrode is electrically coupled with the second conductive element;
wherein the power source is configured to generate the electric field to form the flame roots defined by the flame immediately downstream of the second conductive element.
However, Marcum teaches the first conductive element positioned within the flame (Figure 1, and “a stainless-steel ring geometry (44-mm o.d. x 3-mm thick x 18-mm height) provided much better coupling and enhanced flame front modifications. Still better coupling is achieved by stretching a coarse-mesh, woven stainless-steel screen (0.85-mm-diameter wire, 6-mm square grid) across the ring electrode” page 29), wherein the positive electrode is electrically coupled with the first conductive element and the negative electrode is electrically coupled with the second conductive element (“Not surprisingly, noticeable flame front geometry modifications occur only when the upper electrode is positively biased” page 30).
PNG
media_image3.png
364
338
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
784
338
media_image4.png
Greyscale
In view of Marcum’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 the first conductive element positioned within the flame, wherein the positive electrode is electrically coupled with the first conductive element and the negative electrode is electrically coupled with the second conductive element as is taught in Marcum, in the apparatus disclosed by Krichtafovitch. Krichtafovitch discloses the goal of attracting, coupling, and/or anchoring the charged flame to at least one side of the anchoring apparatus. Marcum teaches an arrangement which collapses the flame front “toward the burner head.” Therefore, including the arrangement taught by Marcum will assist in accomplishing the goals of Krichtafovitch.
Krichtafovitch, as modified by Marcum, does not explicitly disclose wherein the power source is configured to generate the electric field to form the flame roots defined by the flame immediately downstream of the second conductive element. However, it has been held that “[w]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” See MPEP §2144.05(II)(A) (quoting In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Although, it has been further held that "[a] particular parameter must first be recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e. a variable which achieves a recognized result, before determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation. Refer to MPEP §2144.05(II)(B)(quoting In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). In this case, Krichtafovitch discloses varying the power source, but does not specifically recite that the flame roots are defined immediately downstream of the second conductive element. Achieving wherein the power source is configured to generate the electric field to form at least the flame roots defined by the flame immediately downstream of the second conductive element is a results-effective variable because Colannino states “varying a bias voltage or a temporal duty cycle of a time-varying toroidal electrode voltage and/or charge electrode signal can be used to select a flame base position across a range of fuel flow rates” (paragraph [0030]). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the power source, because the selection of power to achieve desired flame base position constitutes the optimization of design parameters, which fails to distinguish the claim.
Regarding claim 2, Krichtafovitch, as modified by Marcum and Colannino, discloses the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the second conductive element includes a plurality of element portions (“the fuel flow equalizer 202a may include a plurality of rib members 204a that may form a mesh that includes multiple flow openings 206a” paragraph [0043]), wherein a maximum quantity of the at least one flame root correlates to the plurality of portions (Krichtafovitch states “the voltage power supply 304 and the flame anchoring apparatus 302 may produce an electric field near the flame anchoring apparatus 302, which may be controlled by the voltage power supply 304 in a manner that controls the charged flame 308” paragraph [0066]. Thus, the flame may be controlled by the voltage. The examiner now points to Marcum. Marcum shows that the quantity of flame roots increases with a building field strength and correlates to the plurality of portions).
Regarding claim 3, Krichtafovitch, as modified by Marcum and Colannino, discloses the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the second conductive element includes at least one wire positioned across the face of the burner (“the fuel flow equalizer 202 may include a mesh” paragraph [0041]).
Regarding claim 4, Krichtafovitch, as modified by Marcum and Colannino, discloses the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the second conductive element includes a multi-element feature arranged across the face of the burner, wherein the multi-element feature includes a plurality of openings arranged therethrough (“the fuel flow equalizer 202a may include a plurality of rib members 204a that may form a mesh that includes multiple flow openings 206a” paragraph [0043]).
Regarding claim 5, Krichtafovitch, as modified by Marcum and Colannino, discloses the apparatus of claim 4, where in the multi-element feature defines a honeycomb-like structure (“the fuel flow equalizer 202 may include a mesh, a honeycomb, or a pattern of alternating opens spaces or openings and barrier elements” paragraph [0041]).
Regarding claim 10, Krichtafovit discloses a method of operating a combustion burner to affect a heat-release of the combustion burner, wherein the combustion burner is configured to output a flame and a gas flow from a face of the burner defining a gas flow path in a direction away from the burner, wherein a conductive element is positioned across the face of the burner (“In some embodiments, the fuel flow equalizer 202g and the flame anchoring apparatus 302 may be integrated (e.g., the fuel flow equalizer 202g may be configured to anchor the flame thereto and/or may be integrally formed together with the flame anchoring apparatus 302)” paragraph [0063]), an electrode is positioned adjacent the flame (“the charger 310 may include a corona electrode (e.g., a sharpened electrode or saw blade) configured to generate ions that are injected into the fuel, flame, or combinations thereof to impart the net electrical charge” column 4, line 55), and an electrode is coupled with the conductive element (“The flame anchoring apparatus 302 is also electrically coupled to the voltage power supply 304” paragraph [0064]), the method comprising:
(a) generating a flame from the burner (308);
(b) generating an electric field between the positive electrode and the negative electrode (“the voltage power supply 304 and the anchoring apparatus 302 may generate an electric field near one or more surfaces or sides of the flame anchoring apparatus 302” paragraph [0064]);
(c) forming an electrohydrodynamic bluff-body via the conductive element based upon the electric field (“the flame anchoring apparatus 302 may be configured as an electrically conductive bluff body” paragraph [0062]);
(d) generating a first flame root based upon the electrohydrodynamic bluff-body (“The flame anchoring apparatus 302 is also electrically coupled to the voltage power supply 304 and biases the flame anchoring apparatus 302 oppositely to the bias of the charged flame 308 to electrodynamically attract the charged flame 308 to the flame anchoring apparatus 302” paragraph [0064]); and
(e) increasing a strength of the electric field (“the voltage power supply 304 and the flame anchoring apparatus 302 may produce an electric field near the flame anchoring apparatus 302, which may be controlled by the voltage power supply 304 in a manner that controls the charged flame 308” paragraph [0066]) to generate a second flame root based upon the electrohydrodynamic bluff-body (The examiner now points to Marcum. Marcum shows that the quantity of flame roots increases with a building field strength. Marcum here is not necessarily being relied upon as a teaching reference, but merely to show how the existing electrical field would interact with the structure of Krichtafovitch).
Krichtafovitch does not explicitly disclose:
the positive electrode is positioned within the flame, the negative electrode is coupled with the conductive element;
generating the flame roots immediately downstream of the conductive element.
However, Marcum teaches the positive electrode is positioned within the flame (Figure 1, and “a stainless-steel ring geometry (44-mm o.d. x 3-mm thick x 18-mm height) provided much better coupling and enhanced flame front modifications. Still better coupling is achieved by stretching a coarse-mesh, woven stainless-steel screen (0.85-mm-diameter wire, 6-mm square grid) across the ring electrode” page 29), the negative electrode is coupled with the conductive element (“Not surprisingly, noticeable flame front geometry modifications occur only when the upper electrode is positively biased” page 30).
In view of Marcum’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 the first conductive element positioned within the flame, wherein the positive electrode is electrically coupled with the first conductive element and the negative electrode is electrically coupled with the second conductive element as is taught in Marcum, in the apparatus disclosed by Krichtafovitch. Krichtafovitch discloses the goal of attracting, coupling, and/or anchoring the charged flame to at least one side of the anchoring apparatus. Marcum teaches an arrangement which collapses the flame front “toward the burner head.” Therefore, including the arrangement taught by Marcum will assist in accomplishing the goals of Krichtafovitch.
Krichtafovitch, as modified by Marcum, does not explicitly disclose generating the flame roots immediately downstream of the second conductive element. However, it has been held that “[w]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” See MPEP §2144.05(II)(A) (quoting In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Although, it has been further held that "[a] particular parameter must first be recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e. a variable which achieves a recognized result, before determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation. Refer to MPEP §2144.05(II)(B)(quoting In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). In this case, Krichtafovitch discloses varying the power source, but does not specifically recite that the flame roots are defined immediately downstream of the second conductive element. Achieving wherein the power source is configured to generate the electric field to form at least the flame roots defined by the flame immediately downstream of the second conductive element is a results-effective variable because Colannino states “varying a bias voltage or a temporal duty cycle of a time-varying toroidal electrode voltage and/or charge electrode signal can be used to select a flame base position across a range of fuel flow rates” (paragraph [0030]). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the power source, because the selection of power to achieve desired flame base position constitutes the optimization of design parameters, which fails to distinguish the claim.
Regarding claim 11, Krichtafovitch, as modified by Marcum and Colannino, discloses the method of claim 10, wherein generating the electric field between the positive electrode and the negative electrode includes generating the electric field in an orientation parallel to the gas flow path and in an opposite direction relative to the flow path (“The flame anchoring apparatus 302 is also electrically coupled to the voltage power supply 304 and biases the flame anchoring apparatus 302 oppositely to the bias of the charged flame 308 to electrodynamically attract the charged flame 308 to the flame anchoring apparatus 302” paragraph [0064]).
Claims 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krichtafovitch, in view of Marcus, in view of Colannino, and further in view of Hartwick (US 20110027734 A1), hereinafter Hartwick.
Regarding claims 6 and 7, Krichtafovitch, as modified by Marcum and Colannino, discloses the apparatus of claim 1.
Krichtafovitch, as modified by Marcum and Colannino, does not disclose wherein the second conductive element includes a multi-element feature arranged around a circumference of the face of the burner, wherein the multi-element feature includes a plurality of panels each having a two-dimensional linear body aimed toward a central position defined by the burner face.
However, Hartwick teaches wherein the second conductive element includes a multi-element feature arranged around a circumference of the face of the burner, wherein the multi-element feature includes a plurality of panels each having a two-dimensional linear body aimed toward a central position defined by the burner face (“While the electrodes 106, 108, 110 are indicated as cylindrical conductors arranged parallel to the major axis of the burner nozzle, other arrangements may fall within the scope. For example, in another embodiment, a plurality of electrodes are arranged substantially at the corners of a cube, and include plates of finite size having normal axes that intersect at the center of the cube, which corresponds to the supported flame 104” paragraphs [0070]-[0071]).
PNG
media_image5.png
652
494
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Krichtafovitch does not disclose the claimed electrode arrangement. Hartwick teaches the claimed electrode arrangement. The substitution of one known element (the electrode arrangement of Krichtafovitch) for another (the electrode arrangement of Hartwick) would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention, since the substitution of the electrode arrangement taught in Hartwick would have yielded predictable results, namely, application of an electrical field at the burner Agrizap, Inc. v. Woodstream Corp., 520 F.3d 1337, 86 USPQ2d 1110 (Fed. Cir. 2008).
Claims 8, 9, and 12-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krichtafovitch, in view of Marcus, in view of Colannino, and further in view of Joos (US 5784889 A), hereinafter Joos.
Regarding claims 8 and 9, Krichtafovitch, as modified by Marcum and Colannino, discloses the apparatus of claim 1.
Krichtafovitch, as modified by Marcum and Colannino, does not disclose:
(a) a sensor configured to determine an acoustic characteristic of the combustion burner and output a data signal based upon the acoustic characteristic; and
(b) a data processor communicatively coupled with the sensor and the power source, wherein the data processor is configured to receive the data signal and selectively operate the power source to modify the electric field based upon the data signal;
wherein the data processor is configured to compare the acoustic characteristic to a pre-determined acoustic characteristic, wherein the data processor is configured to modify the electric field to thereby achieve an improved acoustic characteristic.
However, Joos teaches:
(a) a sensor (6) configured to determine an acoustic characteristic of the combustion burner and output a data signal based upon the acoustic characteristic; and
(b) a data processor (10) communicatively coupled with the sensor and the power source, wherein the data processor is configured to receive the data signal and selectively operate the power source to modify the electric field based upon the data signal;
wherein the data processor is configured to compare the acoustic characteristic to a pre-determined acoustic characteristic, wherein the data processor is configured to modify the electric field to thereby achieve an improved acoustic characteristic (“The most suitable regulated variable for the regulating device 10 is the pressure in the combustion chamber 1, which pressure is detected by the pressure sensor 6. The measured pressure values are transmitted to the signal conditioner 7 and subsequently further processed in the signal processor 8. The contiguously installed control unit 9 generates corresponding signals for the voltage source 11. In accordance with the load-dependent pressure vibrations, the voltage source 11 then loads the heat shield 12 via the electrode 14 with a positive direct-current voltage in the range up to a few thousand volts” column 2, line 66).
PNG
media_image6.png
404
502
media_image6.png
Greyscale
In view of the teachings of Joos it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include the features of Joos because the court has held combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results supports a conclusion of obviousness Anderson’s-Black Rock, Inc. v. Pavement Salvage Co., 396 U.S. 57, 163 USPQ 673 (1969). In this case, Joos teaches “The electric field causes electric forces to act on the ions contained in the flame. In this way, a type of electric wind develops within the flame 16, which electric wind has a striking effect on the combustion velocity of the flame 16 and stabilizes it” (column 2, line 53). Krichtafovitch discloses “As used herein, an "anchoring apparatus" refers to an electrically conducting device located at least proximate to a flame and configured for coupling the flame thereto in a manner that may improve flame stability” (paragraph [0015]). Joos wants for a more specific structure, while Krichtafovitch wants for a more specific application. The combination of these references results, predictably, in no more or less than the sum of the constituent parts. The court has also held that “the convenience of putting… together… elements in one machine, though perhaps a matter of great convenience does not produce a new or different function.” Id. at 60, 163 USPQ at 674.
Regarding claims 12 and 14, Krichtafovitch discloses a method of operating a combustion burner, wherein the combustion burner is configured to output a flame and a gas flow from a face of the burner defining a gas flow path in a direction away from the burner, wherein a conductive element is positioned across the face of the burner (“In some embodiments, the fuel flow equalizer 202g and the flame anchoring apparatus 302 may be integrated (e.g., the fuel flow equalizer 202g may be configured to anchor the flame thereto and/or may be integrally formed together with the flame anchoring apparatus 302)” paragraph [0063]), an electrode is positioned adjacent the flame (“the charger 310 may include a corona electrode (e.g., a sharpened electrode or saw blade) configured to generate ions that are injected into the fuel, flame, or combinations thereof to impart the net electrical charge” column 4, line 55), and an electrode is coupled with the conductive element (“The flame anchoring apparatus 302 is also electrically coupled to the voltage power supply 304” paragraph [0064]), the method comprising:
(a) generating a flame from the burner (308); and
(d) selectively modifying an electric field induced between the positive electrode and the negative electrode to modify a heat-release of the flame (“the voltage power supply 304 and the flame anchoring apparatus 302 may produce an electric field near the flame anchoring apparatus 302, which may be controlled by the voltage power supply 304 in a manner that controls the charged flame 308” paragraph [0066]).
Krichtafovitch does not disclose:
a positive electrode is positioned within the flame, and a negative electrode is coupled with the conductive element, the method comprising:
(b) measuring an acoustic characteristic of the burner;
(c) comparing the acoustic characteristic to a pre-determined acoustic characteristic; and
(d) based upon the comparison, selectively modifying the electric field to modify the flame root immediately downstream of the conductive element.
However, Marcum teaches the first conductive element positioned within the flame (Figure 1, and “a stainless-steel ring geometry (44-mm o.d. x 3-mm thick x 18-mm height) provided much better coupling and enhanced flame front modifications. Still better coupling is achieved by stretching a coarse-mesh, woven stainless-steel screen (0.85-mm-diameter wire, 6-mm square grid) across the ring electrode” page 29), a negative electrode is coupled with the conductive element (“Not surprisingly, noticeable flame front geometry modifications occur only when the upper electrode is positively biased” page 30).
In view of Marcum’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 the first conductive element positioned within the flame, a negative electrode is coupled with the conductive element as is taught in Marcum, in the apparatus disclosed by Krichtafovitch. Krichtafovitch discloses the goal of attracting, coupling, and/or anchoring the charged flame to at least one side of the anchoring apparatus. Marcum teaches an arrangement which collapses the flame front “toward the burner head.” Therefore, including the arrangement taught by Marcum will assist in accomplishing the goals of Krichtafovitch.
Krichtafovitch, as modified by Kaehni, does not disclose, the method comprising:
(b) measuring an acoustic characteristic of the burner, wherein the acoustic characteristic includes an acoustic pressure;
(c) comparing the acoustic characteristic to a pre-determined acoustic characteristic; and
(d) based upon the comparison, selectively modifying the electric field to modify the flame root immediately downstream of the conductive element.
However, Joos teaches, the method comprising:
(b) measuring an acoustic characteristic of the burner;
(c) comparing the acoustic characteristic to a pre-determined acoustic characteristic; and
(d) based upon the comparison, selectively modifying the electric field (“The most suitable regulated variable for the regulating device 10 is the pressure in the combustion chamber 1, which pressure is detected by the pressure sensor 6. The measured pressure values are transmitted to the signal conditioner 7 and subsequently further processed in the signal processor 8. The contiguously installed control unit 9 generates corresponding signals for the voltage source 11. In accordance with the load-dependent pressure vibrations, the voltage source 11 then loads the heat shield 12 via the electrode 14 with a positive direct-current voltage in the range up to a few thousand volts” column 2, line 66).
In view of the teachings of Joos it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include the features of Joos because the court has held combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results supports a conclusion of obviousness Anderson’s-Black Rock, Inc. v. Pavement Salvage Co., 396 U.S. 57, 163 USPQ 673 (1969). In this case, Joos teaches “The electric field causes electric forces to act on the ions contained in the flame. In this way, a type of electric wind develops within the flame 16, which electric wind has a striking effect on the combustion velocity of the flame 16 and stabilizes it” (column 2, line 53). Krichtafovitch discloses “As used herein, an "anchoring apparatus" refers to an electrically conducting device located at least proximate to a flame and configured for coupling the flame thereto in a manner that may improve flame stability” (paragraph [0015]). Joos wants for a more specific structure, while Krichtafovitch wants for a more specific application. The combination of these references results, predictably, in no more or less than the sum of the constituent parts. The court has also held that “the convenience of putting… together… elements in one machine, though perhaps a matter of great convenience does not produce a new or different function.” Id. at 60, 163 USPQ at 674.
Krichtafovitch, as modified by Marcum and Joos, does not explicitly disclose modifying and electric field to modify the flame roots immediately downstream of the second conductive element. However, it has been held that “[w]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” See MPEP §2144.05(II)(A) (quoting In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Although, it has been further held that "[a] particular parameter must first be recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e. a variable which achieves a recognized result, before determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation. Refer to MPEP §2144.05(II)(B)(quoting In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). In this case, Krichtafovitch discloses varying the power source, but does not specifically recite that the flame roots are defined immediately downstream of the second conductive element. Achieving wherein the power source is configured to generate the electric field to form at least the flame roots defined by the flame immediately downstream of the second conductive element is a results-effective variable because Colannino states “varying a bias voltage or a temporal duty cycle of a time-varying toroidal electrode voltage and/or charge electrode signal can be used to select a flame base position across a range of fuel flow rates” (paragraph [0030]). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the power source, because the selection of power to achieve desired flame base position constitutes the optimization of design parameters, which fails to distinguish the claim.
Regarding claim 13, Krichtafovitch, as modified by Marcum, Joos and Colannino, discloses the method of claim 12, wherein selectively modifying the electric field induced between the positive electrode and the negative electrode to modify the heat-release of the flame includes:
(a) forming an electrohydrodynamic bluff-body via the conductive element based upon the electric field (“the flame anchoring apparatus 302 may be configured as an electrically conductive bluff body” paragraph [0062]);
(b) generating a first flame root based upon the electrohydrodynamic bluff-body (“The flame anchoring apparatus 302 is also electrically coupled to the voltage power supply 304 and biases the flame anchoring apparatus 302 oppositely to the bias of the charged flame 308 to electrodynamically attract the charged flame 308 to the flame anchoring apparatus 302” paragraph [0064]); and
(c) increasing a strength of the electric field (“the voltage power supply 304 and the flame anchoring apparatus 302 may produce an electric field near the flame anchoring apparatus 302, which may be controlled by the voltage power supply 304 in a manner that controls the charged flame 308” paragraph [0066]) to generate a second flame root based upon the electrohydrodynamic bluff-body (The examiner now points to Marcum. Marcum shows that the quantity of flame roots increases with a building field strength and correlates to the plurality of portions).
Regarding claim 15, Krichtafovitch, as modified by Marcum, Joos and Colannino,discloses the method of claim 12, further comprising applying generating the electric field between the positive and negative electrodes, wherein the electric field is oriented parallel to flow path and in an opposite direction relative to the flow path (“The flame anchoring apparatus 302 is also electrically coupled to the voltage power supply 304 and biases the flame anchoring apparatus 302 oppositely to the bias of the charged flame 308 to electrodynamically attract the charged flame 308 to the flame anchoring apparatus 302” paragraph [0064]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Altendorfner (NPL) “As a result of the collisions of the fast ions with the neutral molecules within the fresh gas region, a clearly observable shift of the flame front occurs. This can be attributed to the following two different mechanisms:
I. The first mechanism, usually named the “ionic wind” or “electrohydrodynamic effect”, relies solely on the transfer of momentum from the accelerated positive ions to the incoming neutral molecules. This momentum transfer to the fresh gas molecules changes the flow pattern above the burner rim. As a consequence, the flame front is shifted towards the burner exit.
II. The second mechanism is based on the generation of radicals by the collisions of accelerated electrons with neutral” molecules. Radicals are produced upstream of the effective reaction zone and increase the reactivity of the mixture. Hence, the flame also responds with a change of the reaction zone. While the existence of the electrohydrodynamic effect seems to be proven, the increase in flame front velocity due to radical production is still under discussion [14]. A good survey of the basic studies and the model theory to date in this area can be found in the textbook by Bradley [15]
PNG
media_image7.png
300
566
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Biblarz (US 4439980 A) “An electrode is disposed within the combustion chamber to provide a high strength electrostatic field in the vicinity of the injection nozzle so that the fuel spray from the nozzle becomes charged as it leaves the nozzle. The strength of the electric field is adjusted to provide a spray characteristic which produces optimum engine performance as determined by measuring an operating parameter of the engine” (abstract).
PNG
media_image8.png
380
656
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Krichtafovitch (US 20140227645 A1) “The ability to control the flame geometry or other characteristics of the flame may be influenced by placement of the one or more electrodes, size and shape of the one or more electrodes, directions of electric fields, relative potentials of the one or more electrodes, relative strengths of the corresponding electric fields, or combinations thereof. The one or more electrodes may be placed, for example, above the flame, on the sides of the flame, within the flame, or combinations thereof” paragraph [0017]
PNG
media_image9.png
598
394
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Dumas (US 20150104748 A1) “ELECTRODYNAMIC COMBUSTION CONTROL (ECC)” from title
PNG
media_image10.png
472
368
media_image10.png
Greyscale
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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 /MICHAEL G HOANG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3762
Prosecution Insights