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 .
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
In paragraph 0022, line 6, “exhaust pipe 102” should read “exhaust pipe 108” as previously defined in paragraphs 0018, 0019, 0020.
In paragraph 0034, line 4, “the nozzles 120, 126 (and the supply lines 120, 122)” should read “the nozzles 122, 126 (and the supply lines 120, 124)” as previously defined in paragraph 0022 – 0031.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as failing to set forth 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 11 recites the limitation “wherein at least one of the first plurality of water nozzles positioned downstream of each steam nozzle,” which lacks a verb and therefore fails to define a complete limitation. Additionally, the phrase “at least one of the first plurality of water nozzles” is ambiguous as to whether one or multiple water nozzles are positioned downstream of each steam nozzle. Accordingly, the scope of the claim is unclear.
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 non-obviousness.
Claim(s) 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Strandberg U.S. PG Pub. No. 20160016109 A1, January 21, 2016 (hereinafter “Strandberg”), in view of Ross U.S. PG Pub. No. 4818256 A, April 04, 1989 (hereinafter “Ross”).
Regarding claim 1, Strandberg discloses a scrubber system 1 (figure 1), comprising: an exhaust tube 2 (figure 1, paragraph 0039) having an inlet (paragraph 0045) and an outlet (figure 1, scrubbing chamber outlet 8, paragraph 0048), at least a first water supply line (figure 1, water tubes 10, paragraph 0046) and injector tubes 7 are connected to water supply tubes 10 outside of the scrubber 1; a scrubber section 1 of the exhaust tube 2 comprising: a first plurality of water nozzles 6, 6’ (figure 1, water injectors 6, 6’) in fluidic connection with the first water supply tubes 10, for spraying water into the exhaust pipe in a first direction. Strandberg fails to disclose the inlet being higher than the outlet such that the exhaust pipe is inclined by at least 2 degrees with respect to horizontal; and at least a first steam supply line running exterior to the exhaust pipe; and a first plurality of steam nozzles in fluidic connection with the first steam supply line, for spraying steam into the exhaust pipe in the first direction.
Ross discloses a steam scrubber 10 (figures 1-3), for scrubbing exhaust gases by injecting steam (col. 2, lines 40-41) and liquid into an exhaust gas stream to remove contaminants through condensation and liquid contact, through a nozzle 19 (col. 2, line 57). Claim 1 further recites that the exhaust pipe is inclined. In a scrubber system in which water and steam are sprayed, liquid accumulates within the duct and must be removed. It would have been obvious to orient the exhaust pipe at an incline to facilitate gravity-assisted drainage of liquid toward a drain or collection region. MPEP §2144.04 (VI)(B).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the exhaust gas scrubber of Strandberg to incorporate the steam injection taught by Ross, thereby providing a steam supply line and steam nozzle in addition to water spray nozzles, in order to improve scrubbing efficiency through steam condensation and enhanced pollutant capture.
Regarding claim 2, Strandberg discloses a scrubber system 10 (figure 1), further comprising an emission source in fluidic connection with the inlet. The exhaust gas is supplied from an engine connected to the exhaust gas tube 2 (paragraph 0045). It would have been obvious to provide a fluid connection between the emission source and the scrubber inlet, as it is a conventional and necessary configuration for operation of any exhaust gas scrubber system.
Regarding claim 3, Strandberg discloses an exhaust gas outlet 12 (paragraph 0065) and a scrubber outlet 20 (paragraph 0069). Providing a chimney or exhaust stack at the outlet of a scrubber duct to discharge treated gas is a conventional exhaust system design practice. It would have been obvious to include a chimney in the combined system.
Regarding claim 4, Strandberg discloses that at least a part of the injected water is directed in the main direction of the gas flow (paragraph 0016). Selecting a co-current or partially co-current spray direction is a routine design choice to improve contact between liquid droplets and gas flow. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to the exhaust gas and injected water flow in the same direction.
Regarding claim 5, Strandberg discloses at least a second water supply line (figure 1, water tubes 10, paragraph 0046) running exterior to the exhaust pipe; at least a second plurality of water nozzles in fluidic connection with the at least second water supply line, for spraying water into the exhaust pipe in at least a second direction, wherein the first direction and the at least second direction are partially co-current to emissions flow through the exhaust pipe (paragraph 0046 - 0048). Ross discloses a multiple steam scrubber system (figures 4 and 5) with at least a second steam supply line, and a least a second plurality of steam supply conduit (col. 3, lines 30-43). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide multiple supply lines and multiple nozzle groups for distributing spray in different regions of a scrubber duct as it is a conventional extension of the basic spray system and would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill seeking uniform gas-liquid contact.
Regarding claim 6, Strandberg discloses that the water injectors 6, 6′ (figure 1)are preferably arranged substantially along the length axis of the scrubber (paragraph 0048). Ross discloses that wet steam is introduced into chamber 11 (figure 1) along its height through the closed top of the rubber and along the height of the scrubber chamber through a perforate pipe 13 (figure 2, col. 3, lines 39-42). The symmetric placement of supply lines and nozzle around a duct for uniform spray coverage within the scrubber is a conventional engineering practice. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to arrange the water supply lines, steam supply lines, and associated nozzles symmetrically around the circumference to balance flow distribution with the scrubber.
Regarding claim 7, Strandberg discloses multiple water injectors (figure 1) arranged along the scrubber to provide wide coverage of the water stream (paragraph 0016 and 0058). Ross discloses a perforated pipe 13 (figure 2) arranged at the center to saturate a cross-sectional area of an interior volume of the exhaust pipe (col. 2, lines 49-57). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a spray system designed to cover the cross-section of the exhaust gas path in order to maximize contact area between the water, steam and exhaust gas.
Regarding claim 8, Strandberg discloses that the water injectors 6, 6’ (figure 1) are arranged substantially along the length axis of the scrubber to provide distributed spray coverage within the scrubber chamber (paragraph 0048), Ross discloses introducing wet stream into the scrubber through perforated pipe (figure 2) extending along the height of the chamber, thereby distributing steam injection points over the chamber height (col.3, line 39-42). Arranging nozzle lines at equal circumferential increment around a duct represents conventional engineering practice to achieve uniform spray distribution. Such equal spacing merely reflects and optimization of nozzle placement for balanced gas-liquid contact within the scrubber and does not result in a new or unexpected function. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to arrange water and steam nozzle lines at equal circumferential increment around the exhaust pipe in order to promote balanced flow.
Regarding claim 9, Strandberg teaches a drainpipe (figure 2, water outlet 8, paragraph 0076) in fluidic connection with the outlet; and a reservoir (figure 2, process tank 152) for collecting wastewater from the drainpipe (paragraph 0076-0079). Ross discloses a discharge pipe 20 (figure 1, col.3, lines 10-12). Providing a drain pipe to convey collected wastewater from the scrubber outlet region to a reservoir is a conventional practice in scrubber system for managing spent scrubbing liquid. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a drainpipe in fluidic connection with the scrubber outlet and a reservoir for collecting wastewater from the drainpipe in order to facilitate removal and storage of spent scrubbing liquid.
Regarding claim 10, Strandberg discloses the drainpipe (figure 2, water outlet 8, paragraph 0076) are positioned below the scrubber outlet such that wastewater collected in the scrubber flows downwards by gravity into the process tank (see figure 2, paragraph 0064). Ross discloses a discharge pipe 20 (figure 1, col.3, lines 10-12) extending downwards from the scrubber chamber to convey liquid to a lower collection region. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to position the drainpipe and reservoir below the scrubber outlet to facilitate gravity-assisted drainage of wastewater is routinely employed to improve liquid removal efficiency and prevent liquid accumulation within the scrubber chamber.
Regarding claim 11, Strandberg discloses the spray cone angle from the water injectors 6, 6’ (figure 1) is from 90 to 150 degrees, such as about 120°, to obtain a sufficient distribution of water droplets in the scrubber (paragraph 0062). The use of conical spray patterns having wide spray angles is a well-known design feature of scrubber nozzle to promote uniform gas-liquid contact. Selecting a spray arc of at least 72 degrees represent a routine design choice that falls within the range of spray angles taught by Strandberg and reflects an optimization od spray coverage. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the water nozzles and the steam nozzles to spray in a conical stream having an arc of at least 72 degrees in order to improve distribution and contact with the exhaust gas. MPEP §2144.05(I).
Regarding claim 12, Strandberg discloses operating the water injectors under pressurized conditions sufficient to generate atomized spray for gas-liquid contact within the scrubber (paragraph 0074). Ross also discloses introducing wet steam into the scrubber chamber under controlled pressure conditions suitable for distribution through perforated piping along the chamber height (col. 1, lines 30-33). The selection of operating pressure for water and steam supply lines in a well-known result-effective variable that directly affects spray atomization and distribution. Selecting a pressure range between 80-126 psi represents a routine optimization of known operating parameters to achieve adequate spray performance. MPEP §2144.05(II)(A). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to operate the water and steam supply line within the claimed pressure range in order to achieve effective atomization and distribution.
Regarding claim 13, Strandberg discloses water injectors 6, 6’ (figure 1) are arranged substantially along the length axis of the scrubber to provide distributed spray coverage within the scrubber chamber (paragraph 0048), Ross discloses introducing wet stream into the scrubber through perforated pipe (figure 2) extending along the height of the chamber, thereby distributing steam injection points over the chamber height (col.3, line 39-42). Arranging water nozzles downstream of stream nozzles is a predictable configuration to enhance mixing and contact between steam, water and exhaust gas. Such sequential placement along a flow path is a conventional design practice in scrubber and reactor systems to improve phase interaction and treatment efficiency. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to position at least one of the first plurality of water nozzles downstream of each steam nozzle in order to improve mixing and gas-liquid contact.
Regarding claim 14 Strandberg discloses a plurality of water injectors distributed along the scrubber chamber (figure 1, paragraph 0048), and Ross discloses multiple steam discharge openings provided along the perforated pipe extending through the scrubber (figure 2, col. 3, line 40-42). Selecting a particular ratio of water nozzles to steam nozzles, such as a 1:1 ratio, represents a routine system-balancing choice made to achieve uniform distribution and coordinated delivery of the respective fluids. Such selection merely reflects optimization of a known design parameter and does not result in a new or unexpected functional relationship. MPEP §2144.05(II)(A). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a 1:1 ratio of water nozzles to steam nozzles in the scrubber section in order to balance fluid distribution and promote uniform gas-liquid-steam contact.
Regarding claim 15 Strandberg discloses water injectors 6, 6’ (figure 1) are arranged substantially along the length axis of the scrubber to provide distributed spray coverage within the scrubber chamber (paragraph 0048), Ross discloses introducing wet stream into the scrubber through perforated pipe (figure 2) extending along the height of the chamber, thereby distributing steam injection points over the chamber height (col.3, line 39-42). The spacing of injection devices along the length of as scrubber chamber is a known design parameter selected to achieve uniform distribution and effective gas-liquid contact. The 0.5 m increment spacing is an optimization design choice. MPEP §2144.05(II)(A). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to dispose the water nozzles and the steam nozzles at 0.5 m increments along the length of the scrubber section in order to promote uniform distribution.
Regarding claim 16 Strandberg discloses that spent water is collected at the bottom of scrubbing chamber 3 and 13 (figure 1), and is withdrawn through one or more upper outlet 8, 18 (paragraph 0068). Ross discloses the cooling spray and condensed steam settle as a mass of liquid at the bottom of vessel 23 and flow out through pipe 27 (figure 1, col. 3, lines 19-22). Providing a condensing or moisture removal section proximate to the outlet of a scrubber is done to reduce carryover of liquid droplets and improve discharge gas quality. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a condensate section to the outlet of the scrubber system to improve moisture removal and discharge quality.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MIRIAM N EZELUOMBA whose telephone number is (571)272-0110. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00am-4:30pm.
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, Jennifer Dieterle can be reached at 5712707872. 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.
/M.N.E./Examiner, Art Unit 1776
/Jennifer Dieterle/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1776