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 Interpretation
Regarding claim 8. The claim recites, “Al2O3: at least 14, 15, 16 or 18, not more than 35, 30, 26 or 23;” This limitation is being interpreted as requiring any one of at least 14, 15, 16, or 18 in combination with any one of not more than 35, 30, 26, or 23. For example, prior art that teaches a range of at least 16 and not more than 35 wt % of Al2O3 would read on this limitation of the claim.
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 4 and 9 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.
Regarding claim 4, the phrase "preferably" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). For the purpose of substantive examination, Examiner will consider the limitations following “preferably” as not being required to read on the claim.
Regarding claim 9, the phrase "preferably" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). For the purpose of substantive examination, Examiner will consider the limitations following “preferably” as not being required to read on the claim.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-5, 7, 9-10, and 12-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP H0158408 B2 to Yamanaka in view of US 20170321885 A1 to Hansen.
Note: Reference is made to the attached translation of Yamanaka.
Regarding claim 1. Yamanaka teaches a method of making mineral melt (as described by the further modification by Hansen below), the method comprising:
providing a cyclone furnace (fig. 4, furnace object 111), particulate raw material (fig. 4, the raw material is supplied through the slot 116), fuel (fig. 4, fuel is injected by auxiliary fuel burner 118), and oxidising agent (fig. 4, oxygen is supplied by air entrances 117);
injecting fuel into the furnace at one or more first injection ports (fig. 4, auxiliary fuel burner 118);
injecting oxidising agent into the furnace at one or more second injection ports (fig. 4, first combustion air entrances 117);
injecting raw material into the furnace at one or more third injection ports (fig. 4, destroying-by fire thing entrance slot 116),
wherein the fuel, oxidising agent and raw material are all injected into the top of the furnace (from fig. 4, the portion having 116, 117, and 118 would be generally considered as the top of the furnace); and
allowing the gaseous fuel to combust with the oxidising agent, thereby melting the raw material (it is understood that any gaseous fuel injected into the combustion chamber would be allowed to combust with the oxygen supplied by the air entrances 117, and this would destroy, i.e. melt any raw material supplied),
PNG
media_image1.png
469
350
media_image1.png
Greyscale
wherein each first injection port is spaced at an angular separation from the one or more second injection ports such that no first injection port is at an angular separation of less than 20 degrees from any of the second injection ports, measured about a vertical axis through the centre of the cyclone furnace (fig. 5, one first and two second injection ports are evenly spaced, thereby having a spacing of 120 degrees about the vertical axis of the center of the cyclone furnace).
PNG
media_image2.png
235
229
media_image2.png
Greyscale
But fails to teach the raw material being a mineral raw material, and the fuel being a gaseous fuel.
Hansen teaches a burner which uses gaseous fuel (para. 7, “The secondary fuel can be all a solid fuel such as coal but preferably also comprises liquid or gaseous fuel. It is disclosed that the secondary combustion gas and secondary fuel can be introduced together, via an oxy-fuel burner, this being especially useful for liquid or gaseous fuels.”) and a mineral raw material (abstract, “The invention relates to a method of making a mineral melt, the method comprising providing a circulating combustion chamber which comprises an upper zone, a lower zone and a base zone, injecting primary particulate fuel and particulate mineral material and primary combustion gas into the upper zone of the circulating combustion chamber,”).
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 device of Yamanaka to utilize a gaseous fuel in the auxiliary burner 118 to melt a particulate mineral material, as taught by Hansen. This would provide the predictable result and benefit of providing a suitable combustion burner for producing a mineral melt, as suggested by Hansen in the portions cited above.
Regarding claim 3. Modified Yamanaka teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein each first injection port is spaced at an angular separation from the one or more third injection ports such that no first injection port is at an angular separation of less than 20 degrees from any of the third injection ports, measured about a vertical axis through the centre of the cyclone furnace (from Yamanaka fig. 5, the slit 116 and burner 118 appear to be separated by more than 20 degrees, based on what one of ordinary skill in the art would infer from the figure).
Regarding claim 4. Modified Yamanaka teaches the method according to claim 1, to claim wherein the gaseous fuel injected through the one or more first injection ports provides at least 40% of the energy in the furnace, preferably at least 50% (from Yamanaka fig. 4, the auxiliary burner 118 appears to be the only source of energy into the furnace other than the combustion of the raw material itself, based on what one of ordinary skill in the art would infer from the figures. When modifying the system of Yamanaka to heat a mineral raw material, it would provide more of the total energy).
Regarding claim 5. Modified Yamanaka teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein the furnace comprises a body and a lid (Yamanaka fig. 4, the top portion of the furnace object 111 appears to be separable based on the figure, see horizontal line between cross sections V and VI) and
wherein the first injection ports traverse the lid (Yamanaka fig. 4, the auxiliary burner 118 would be in the portion considered the lid, i.e. cross section V).
Regarding claim 7. Modified Yamanaka teaches the method according to claim 5, wherein each of the one or more first injection ports is positioned at an angle of from 30 to 90 degrees from the lid of the furnace (Yamanaka p. 3, “As shown in Drawing 5, these first combustion air entrance 117 and auxiliary fuel burner 118 are installed in the circumference tangential adjusting of the horizontal section of the top wall of the primary combustion chamber of furnace object 111, while they incline downward at an angle of 45 * to the perpendicular direction, respectively.” Where the downward inclination can be seen in fig. 4).
Regarding claim 9. Modified Yamanaka teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein the oxidising agent is air (fig. 5, combustion air entrances 117), oxygen, or oxygen-enriched air, preferably oxygen-enriched air (optional limitations, see mapping to alternative).
Regarding claim 10. Yamanaka teaches a cyclone furnace for melting mineral raw material (intended use which the device of Yamanaka is capable of), the cyclone furnace comprising:
a furnace body (fig. 4, furnace object 111);
a furnace lid (fig. 4, uppermost part of furnace object 111);
one or more first injection ports for injecting fuel into the furnace (fig. 4, auxiliary fuel burner 118);
one or more second injection ports for injecting oxidising agent into the furnace (fig. 4, first combustion air entrances 117); and
one or more third injection ports for injecting mineral raw material into the furnace (fig. 4, destroying-by fire thing entrance slot 116),
wherein the furnace body comprises a top section, a central section and a bottom section (fig. 4, the furnace object 111 can be seen to extend in the vertical direction, and therefore could be comprised of a top, central, and bottom section, per se),
PNG
media_image1.png
469
350
media_image1.png
Greyscale
each first injection port is spaced at an angular separation from the one or more second injection ports such that no first injection port is at an angular separation of less than 20 degrees from any of the second injection ports, measured about a vertical axis through the centre of the cyclone furnace (fig. 5, one first and two second injection ports are evenly spaced, thereby having a spacing of 120 degrees about the vertical axis of the center of the cyclone furnace), and
PNG
media_image2.png
235
229
media_image2.png
Greyscale
wherein each of the first, second and third injection ports are configured to inject the fuel, oxidising agent and mineral raw material, respectively, into the top of the furnace (from fig. 4, the portion having 116, 117, and 118 would be generally considered as the top of the furnace).
But fails to explicitly teach the fuel being a gaseous fuel.
Hansen teaches a burner which uses gaseous fuel (para. 7, “The secondary fuel can be all a solid fuel such as coal but preferably also comprises liquid or gaseous fuel. It is disclosed that the secondary combustion gas and secondary fuel can be introduced together, via an oxy-fuel burner, this being especially useful for liquid or gaseous fuels.”)
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 device of Yamanaka to utilize a gaseous fuel in the auxiliary burner 118, as taught by Hansen. This would provide the predictable result and benefit of providing a suitable combustion burner, as suggested by Hansen in the portion cited above.
Regarding claim 12. The device of modified Yamanaka teaches the cyclone furnace according to claim 10, wherein each first injection port is spaced at an angular separation from the one or more third injection ports such that no first injection port is at an angular separation of less than 20 degrees from any of the third injection ports, measured about a vertical axis through the centre of the cyclone furnace (from Yamanaka fig. 5, the slit 116 and burner 118 appear to be separated by more than 20 degrees, based on what one of ordinary skill in the art would infer from the figure).
Regarding claim 13. The device of modified Yamanaka teaches the cyclone furnace according to claim 10, wherein the furnace comprises a body wall and a lid (Yamanaka fig. 4, the top portion of the furnace object 111 appears to be separable based on the figure, see horizontal line between cross sections V and VI) and
wherein the first injection ports traverse the lid (Yamanaka fig. 4, the auxiliary burner 118 would be in the portion considered the lid, i.e. cross section V).
Regarding claim 14. The device of modified Yamanaka teaches the cyclone furnace according to claim 13, wherein each of the one or more first injection ports is positioned at an angle of from 30 to 90 degrees from the lid of the furnace (Yamanaka p. 3, “As shown in Drawing 5, these first combustion air entrance 117 and auxiliary fuel burner 118 are installed in the circumference tangential adjusting of the horizontal section of the top wall of the primary combustion chamber of furnace object 111, while they incline downward at an angle of 45 * to the perpendicular direction, respectively.” Where the downward inclination can be seen in fig. 4).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2, 6, 8, 11, and 15 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 2. The combination of Yamanaka in view of Hansen, applied to claim 1, represents the closest prior art of record to the claimed invention. The prior art fails to teach, “wherein each second injection port is integrated with a third injection port.”, in addition to the rest of the claim.
Instead, Yamanaka teaches distinct ports 116 and 117. Furthermore, it would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to integrate these ports, as claimed.
Regarding claim 11. The claim is allowable for substantially the same reason as claim 2.
Regarding claim 6. The combination of Yamanaka in view of Hansen, applied to claim 1, represents the closest prior art of record to the claimed invention. The prior art fails to teach, “wherein the second and third injection ports traverse the top section of the body wall”, in addition to the rest of the claim.
Instead, Yamanaka teaches a lid being a separable upper portion of the furnace body, see fig. 4 and rejection to claim 5, and teaches the second and third injection ports, 117 and 116 respectively, as traversing the lid of the body. Furthermore, it would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to relocate these at a portion below the lid, as claimed.
Regarding claim 15. The claim is allowable for substantially the same reason as claim 6.
Regarding claim 8. The combination of Yamanaka in view of Hansen, applied to claim 1, represents the closest prior art of record to the claimed invention. The prior art fails to teach the particular composition of mineral raw material, in addition to the rest of the claim.
Instead, the mineral raw material described in para. 61 of Hansen is distinct from the claimed composition. Furthermore, it would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to further modify the mineral raw material to arrive at the claimed composition.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Kurt J Wolford whose telephone number is (571)272-9945. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30 AM - 4:00 PM.
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 G 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.
/KURT J WOLFORD/Examiner, Art Unit 3762 /MICHAEL G HOANG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3762