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 9-10 and 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 9 requires “two neighboring sections” whereas claim 8 from which claim 9 depends requires “two or more sections”. Claim 9 should also require “two or more sections”.
Claim 19 requires “two neighboring sections” whereas claim 18 from which claim 19 depends requires “two or more sections”. Claim 9 should also require “two or more sections”.
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 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Al-Amer et. al (US 2021/0388983 A1).
With respect to claim 1 Al-Amer discloses a burn pit, comprising: a burn pit basin [reference character 126 in Fig. 8] delineated by at least a first side wall [reference character 132 in Fig. 8], a refractory wall [reference character 130], and a second side wall [reference character 134 in Fig. 8]; a refractory passage [reference character 118 in Fig. 9 and 14] extending from the burn pit basin through the third wall; a burner shaft [reference character 192] disposed within the refractory passage, wherein the burner shaft is configured to deliver a combustible gas to a flare tip [reference character 124] structure at the burn pit basin, wherein the flare tip structure ignites [via igniters 156 in paragraph 0075] the combustible gas to create a flame directed towards the burn pit basin; and a refractory sleeve [reference character 142 in Figs. 8 and 15] surrounding at least a portion of the burner shaft, wherein the refractory sleeve is configured to protect the burner shaft from damage caused by the flame.
With respect to claim 8 Al- Amer discloses that the refractory sleeve is constructed by two or more sections [see Fig. 15 reference character 142 sections a-f].
Claim(s) 11 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Al-Amer et. al (US 2021/0388983 A1).
With respect to claim 11 Al-Amer discloses a method comprising: forming a burn pit basin [reference character 126 in Fig. 8] by building a first side wall [reference character 132 in Fig. 8], a refractory wall [reference character 130], and a second side wall [reference character 134 in Fig. 8]; extending a refractory passage [reference character 118 in Fig. 9 and 14] from the burn pit basin through the refractory wall; surrounding at least a portion of a burner shaft [reference character 192] with a refractory sleeve [reference character 142 in Figs. 8 and 15]; extending the burner shaft having the refractory sleeve through the refractory passage; transporting a combustible gas through the burner shaft to a flare tip structure [reference character 124] at the burn pit basin and igniting the combustible gas [via igniters 156 in paragraph 0075] using the flare tip structure to create a flame directed towards the burn pit basin; and protecting the burner shaft from damage caused by the flame using the refractory sleeve [see paragraph 0084].
With respect to claim 18 Al-Amer discloses that at least the portion of the burner shaft with the refractory sleeve further comprises forming the refractory sleeve using two or more sections [see Fig. 15 reference character 142 sections a-f].
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) 2-4 and 12-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Al-Amer et. al (US 2021/0388983 A1) in view of Regal (US 3,515,173).
With respect to claims 2 and 12 Al-Amer does not disclose that the refractory passage is constructed by one or more concrete boxes.
Regal discloses a fuel gas enclosure [see Fig. 6] that is formed from precast concrete boxes [reference character 26 in column 3 lines 33-34] that can be lifted into place with a crane via lifting lugs [reference character 80], simplifying construction.
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 passage taught by Al-Amer by forming it from concrete boxes, as taught by Regal, because the modular construction taught by Regal allows for simplified and more rapid assembly at the construction site.
With respect to claims 3 and 13 the combination of Al-Amer and Regal discloses that each concrete box further comprises: two support portions [reference character 16 of Regal]; two side plates supported [see annotated Fig. below of Regal] on a corresponding support portion in a thickness direction; and a top plate [see annotated Fig. below of Regal] supported by the two side plates in a length direction, wherein a length of the support portion is equal to a length of the side plate and a width of the support portion is greater than a thickness of the side plate [see annotated Fig. below of Regal].
PNG
media_image1.png
419
722
media_image1.png
Greyscale
With respect to claims 4 and 14 the combination of Al-Amer and Regal disclose that each concrete box further comprises a lifting hole [formed through lifting lug 80] machined into the top plate.
Claim(s) 5 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Al-Amer et. al (US 2021/0388983 A1) in view of Myles (US 3,467,535).
With respect to claims 5 and 15 Al-Amer disclose that a void between the refractory sleeve and an inner surface of the refractory passage is filled with castable refractory [reference character 138].
Al-Amer does not disclose that the castable refractory is combined with a ceramic fiber material.
Myles discloses “…refractory insulating compositions and more particularly to improved hydraulic setting, ceramic fiber containing, castable refractory insulating products…” [column 1 lines 21-25] which possesses “…good insulating properties, good thermal shock resistance, and high resistance to erosion and wetting by molten metal, which is capable of being used at service temperatures up to about 1315 C. and which can be readily formed into relatively intricate shapes of desired densities at the user's location” [column 1 lines 52-58].
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 Al-Amer by replacing the castable refractory with a castable refractory with ceramic fiber material, as taught by Myles, because the material disclosed by Myles possesses “…good insulating properties, good thermal shock resistance, and high resistance to erosion and wetting by molten metal, which is capable of being used at service temperatures up to about 1315 C. and which can be readily formed into relatively intricate shapes of desired densities at the user's location” [column 1 lines 52-58].
Claim(s) 6 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Al-Amer et. al (US 2021/0388983 A1) in view of Myles (US 3,467,535) and further in view of Thevenet et. al (US 2019/0010575 A1).
With respect to claims 6 and 16 Al-Amer does not disclose a stainless-steel backing plate located adjacent to the castable refractory and ceramic fiber material in the void.
Thevenet discloses a refractory wall [reference character 1] which may be backed by a stainless-steel plate [paragraph 0038].
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 the combination of Al-Amer and Myles by backing the refractory wall with a stainless-steel plate, as taught by Thevenet, in order to stabilize the castable refractory material.
Claim(s) 7 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Al-Amer et. al (US 2021/0388983 A1) in view of Myles (US 3,467,535) and further in view of Piret (US 2013/0276680 A1).
With respect to claims 7 and 17 Al-Amer discloses that a refractory layer [reference character 138] is disposed in a void in the refractory passage between the refractory sleeve and an inner surface of the refractory passage.
Al-Amer does not disclose that the refractory layer is formed from brick.
Piret discloses a blast furnace hearth [reference character 10] that includes a refractory wall [reference character 38] formed from bricks.
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 castable refractory taught by Al-Amer from brick, as taught by Piret, in order to allow for easier repair of the refractory wall.
Claim(s) 9-10 and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Al-Amer et. al (US 2021/0388983 A1) in view of Nygaard (US 1,806,113).
With respect to claims 9 and 19 Al-Amer discloses that the neighboring sections are connected to one another to form a cylinder [see Fig. 15, the internal surface of the sleeve is a cylinder].
Al-Amer does not disclose that the sections are connected by an expansion joint.
Nygaard discloses a refractory wall formed from bricks [reference character 16] where neighboring bricks are connected to each other van an expansion joint [see annotated Fig. below].
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 sleeve taught by Al-Amer by placing an expansion joint between adjacent refractory bricks, as taught by Nygaard, in order to allow for differential thermal expansion between the bricks, since the bricks are of differing shape.
With respect to claims 10 and 20 the combination of Al-Amer and Nygaard disclose that an edge of each of the two or more sections along a longest direction of the section has a Z-like shape [see annotated Fig. above].
PNG
media_image2.png
322
280
media_image2.png
Greyscale
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