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:
“Filler inside the burner” recited in claim 1 was not in the original specification. Figures 2 and 3 shows that filler 7 is inside regenerator 2, not inside burner 1.
The entire limitations of claims 2 and 3 are not included in the original specification.
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.
Claims 1-3 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 1 recites “which contains at least one burner” in lines 1-2. It’s not clear as to if the at least one burner is positively recited to be part of the system because it’s in the preamble.
Regarding claim 1, the phrase "such as" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the chimney" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the furnace" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites “a filler” twice in line 6 and line 8. It’s not clear as to if they refer to the same filler. Examiner recommend applicant to amend this limitation in line 8 to “the filler”.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the burner" in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Examiner recommend applicant to amend this limitation to (and for examining purpose, examiner interprets this limitation is) “the at least one burner”. Note: there are two places in line 6 for this same issue.
Claim 1 recites “filler inside the burner” in line 6. However the original specification merely states “a regenerator through which air or air waste gas mixture passes, which first stores the heat generated by the burner on a filler inside” on page 3. The specification doesn’t say filler is inside the burner. Upon reviewing the figures, it’s evidently that filler 7 is inside the regenerator 2, not the burner 1. Therefore the claimed limitation is not supported in the original specification and it’s not clear as to whether applicant intended to claim that filler is inside the regenerator or inside the burner. Examiner recommend applicant to amend this limitation to (and for examining purpose, examiner interprets this limitation is) “filler inside the regenerator.”
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the grate piece" in line 9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Examiner recommend applicant to amend this limitation to (and for examining purpose, examiner interprets this limitation is) “the at least one grate piece”.
Claim 1 recites “at least one discharge door that transfers the end-of-life filler to a basket located outside the regenerator” in lines 10-11. It’s not clear as to if “end-of-life filler” and “basket” is part of the system. According to the specification, the system is shown in fig 1 and basket 9 isn’t part of the system. Also there’s insufficient antecedent basis for limitation “the end-of-life filler”. Examiner recommend applicant to amend this limitation to (and for examining purpose, examiner interprets this limitation is) “at least one discharge door that is configured to transfer end-of-life filler to a basket located outside the regenerator”.
Claim 1 recites “at least one filling door that transfers the new filler to the chamber in the regenerator.” It is unclear as to if “new filler” is part of the system. Also there’s insufficient antecedent basis for limitations “new filler” and “the chamber”. Examiner recommend applicant to amend this limitation to (and for examining purpose, examiner interprets this limitation is) “at least one filling door that is configured to transfer new filler to a chamber in the regenerator”.
Claim 2 recites “@700°”. It’s not clear as to if 700° is in °C. Examiner recommend applicant to amend this limitation to (and for examining purpose, examiner interprets this limitation is) “@700°C”
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 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Crane (US 20020072020).
Regarding claim 1, Crane teaches a regenerative burner system “used in industrial furnaces, which contains at least one burner that provides heat by forming a flame by combining flammable organic gases such as methane or propane with air in order to maximize the use of the temperature coming out of the chimney of the furnace” (This is intended use), the system comprising:
a regenerator (system shown in fig 1) that passes through air or air waste gas mixture, first stores the heat generated by the at least one burner on a filler (one of heat exchange media 5) inside the regenerator and then transfers this heat ([0004] “Combustion air for the second burner is routed through the heated media and becomes preheated as it approaches the burner”) to the air or air waste gas mixture;
at least one grate piece (16, fig 4-9) which is inclined (see fig 5) in the regenerator and has the filler on the at least one grate piece ([0021] “The grate 16 both supports the media”), passing air or air waste gas mixture through the filler (grate inherently is capable of allow air to flow through);
at least one discharge door (9, fig 1) “that is configured to transfer end-of-life filler to a basket located outside the regenerator” (door inherently can allow filler to be transfer out of the regenerator. Basket isn’t positively recited to be part of the system); and
at least one filling door (8, fig 1) that is configured to transfer new filler to a chamber in the regenerator (door 8 inherently can allow new filler to be placed inside the regenerator).
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.
Claims 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Crane (US 20020072020) in view of Osborne (US 20190071362) and Design Choice.
Regarding claim 2, Crane teaches all the limitations of claim 1 and an alumina ball ([0014] “alumina ceramic balls”), and filler inherently has a heat capacity.
Crane fails to teach filler (which is regenerative media) having a heat capacity of 0.3 Cal/g°C @700°C.
Osborne teaches regenerative media having high heat capacity about 0.21 cal/gm/° C. at 20° C ([0017] “The bodies 20 typically have a relatively high heat capacity (about 0.21 cal/gm/° C. at 20° C.)”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Crane as taught by Osborne to use desired type heat exchange media or regenerative media in order to store required amount to achieve required heat transfer result.
Crane in view of Osborne fails to teach a heat capacity of 0.3Cal/g°C @700°C.
However, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to modify the apparatus of Crane in view of Osborne to have heat exchange media that produce heat capacity of 0.3Cal/g°C @700°C since the present application does not show that the particular heat capacity as recited in the claim solves a particular problem or provides any unexpected results, and it appears that using the heat exchange media of Osborne would perform equally well in the regenerative burner system.
Regarding claim 3, Crane teaches all the limitations of claim 1 but fails to teach silicon dioxide, corundum mineral, cordierite porcelain, mullite-like fillers.
Osborne teaches silicon dioxide, corundum mineral, cordierite porcelain, mullite-like fillers (See abstract and [0010], “high (>99%) alumina, tabular alumina, white fused alumina, mullite, and/or chamotte, or the like”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Crane as taught by Osborne to use desired type heat exchange media or regenerative media in order to store required amount to achieve required heat transfer result.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KO-WEI LIN whose telephone number is (571)270-7675. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 6:30-2:30 Eastern Time.
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, Steve 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.
/KO-WEI LIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3762