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.
Claim 19 is 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 19 requires “a first set or blades extending radially outwardly” and “a second set of blades extending radially inwardly”. The structure of the claim renders “radially outwardly” and “radially inwardly” ambiguous because any structure with radial extent can arbitrarily be interpreted as extending radially outwardly or radially inwardly without exceeding the scope of the claim. For the purposes of examination, the claim is interpreted as simply requiring requires “a first set or blades extending radially” and “a second set of blades extending radially”. Furthermore, since claim 19 depends from claim 18, and claim 18 introduces “a plurality of blades” it is unclear if “a first set of blades” and “a second set of blades” as claimed in claim 19 are new blades of the blades already claimed in claim 18. For the purposes of examination claim 19 is interpreted as referring back to the “plurality of blades” already introduced in claim 18.
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) 16-19 and 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Compere (US 1,503,817).
With respect to claim 16 Compere discloses a burner [see Fig. 2] for a shaft melting furnace1, comprising: a first chamber [reference characters 13-16] with an inlet opening [reference character 14], via which an oxygen-containing gas can be supplied to the burner [pp. 1 lines 50-54], and an outlet opening [see annotated Fig. below], which is arranged at a distal end of a conically tapering sub-portion [see annotated Fig. below] of the first chamber; a second chamber [the interior of reference character 44], which is connected to the conically tapering sub-portion of the first chamber [via intervening structure] and which has a burner nozzle [reference character 46]; a combustion gas line [reference character 21], which opens into the first chamber and via which a combustion gas can be supplied to the burner2; and a mixing nozzle [reference character 24], which is arranged in the outlet opening of the first chamber and which has a mixing chamber [see annotated Fig. below] via which the oxygen-containing gas and the combustion gas can be mixed to form a combustion gas mixture.
PNG
media_image1.png
264
934
media_image1.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 17 Compere discloses that the combustion gas line opens into the conically tapering sub-portion of the first chamber [see annotated Fig. above].
With respect to claim 18 Compere discloses that the mixing nozzle comprises a plurality of blades [reference characters 34, 36, 38, 40, 41, 42, and 43], which are arranged in the mixing chamber [see Fig. 2], and wherein the mixing chamber is annular [the annulus being formed between the inside surface of 24 and shaft 37].
With respect to claim 19 Compere discloses that the annular mixing chamber comprises a first set of blades [reference character 34 and 36] arranged radially outwardly and a second set of blades [reference characters 38 and 40] arranged radially inwardly, wherein blades of the first set of blades are arranged in opposite direction to blades of the second set of blades [pp. 1 lines 106-110].
With respect to claim 24 Compere discloses that the burner nozzle comprises a conically tapering outlet opening [see annotated Fig. below], which is arranged in a rear region of the burner nozzle.
PNG
media_image2.png
213
668
media_image2.png
Greyscale
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) 20 and 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Compere (US 1,503,817) in view of Little Jr. (US 4,536,152).
With respect to claim 20 Compere does not disclose an observation device (9) with a viewing axis (28) extending through the first chamber (4), the mixing nozzle (19), the second chamber (6) and the burner nozzle (7), via which a flame chamber of the shaft melting furnace can be monitored.
Little Jr. discloses a burner having an observation device [reference character 65] with a viewing axis [the axis through 65] extending through the burner the mixing nozzle, the second chamber and the burner nozzle, via which a flame chamber of the shaft melting furnace can be monitored.
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 burner taught by Compere by including an eyepiece, as taught by Little Jr. in order to allow the operator to monitor the furnace for flame instability and verify for the presence of the flame.
With respect to claim 27 Compere does not disclose at least two measurement connections.
Little Jr. discloses a burner having at least two measurement connections [reference characters 69 and 70] for taking samples of the gas stream [column 4 lines 38-39].
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 Compere by including measurement connections, as taught by Little Jr. in order to allow for sampling of the gas stream [column 4 lines 38-39 of Little Jr.] in order to verify mixing quality.
Claim(s) 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Compere (US 1,503,817) in view of Gutmark et. al (US 2005/0100846 A1).
With respect to claim 23 Compere does not disclose that the burner nozzle comprises a plurality of guide blades, which are arranged in a front region of the burner nozzle.
Gutmark discloses a burner having an upstream swirl generator and mixing chamber [reference character 2] and a downstream nozzle having a swirler [reference character 10] with a plurality of guide blades [reference character 11] arranged in a front region of the burner nozzle. The exit swirler provides for “…increased flow stability. In addition, the axial vorticity provides enhanced small scale mixing in the region of the outlet 10” [paragraph 0024].
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 burner taught by Compere by including an exit swirler in the nozzle, as taught by Gurmark, in order to increase “…flow stability. In addition, the axial vorticity provides enhanced small scale mixing in the region of the outlet 10” [paragraph 0024].
Claim(s) 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Compere (US 1,503,817).
With respect to claim 26 Compere does not disclose that the mixing nozzle and/or the burner nozzle is made of silicon carbide. However, in the same field of burners it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of the filing date of the invention to modify Compere by forming the mixing nozzle/burner, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known component or material on the basis of suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious mechanical design expediency. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. Also see MPEP 2144.07. Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp. states "Reading a list and selecting a known compound to meet known requirements is no more ingenious than selecting the last piece to put in the last opening in a jig-saw puzzle." 325 U.S. at 335, 65 USPQ at 301.). Since the burner nozzle requires the use of a high temperature material, the designation of a specific material does nothing to enhance the patentability of a design.
Claim(s) 29-30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hugens et. al (US 2007/0175297 A1) in view of Compere (US 1,503,817).
With respect to claim 29 Hugens discloses a copper shaft melting furnace [see Fig. 1, Abstract, and paragraph 0012] having at least one burner [reference character 24].
Hugens does not disclose the burner of claim 1.
Compere discloses the burner of claim 1, see rejection for claim 1, above.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing date of the invention to use the burner taught by Compere in the furnace taught by Hugens because the burner taught by Compere provides for efficient pre-mixing of fuel and air [pp. 1 lines 14-18 of Compere].
With respect to claim 30 Hugens discloses that the at least one burner is arranged at an inclined angle with respect to a horizontal line in a wall of the shaft melting furnace [see Fig. 1].
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 21-22 and 27 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.
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
1 The limitation “for a shaft melting furnace” is interpreted as intended use, where the prior art need only be capable of being used in the intended way. In this case a person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the burner taught by Compere could be used to provide heat in a shaft melting furnace.
2 The limitation “a combustion gas can be supplied to the burner” is interpreted as functional in nature, where the prior art need only be capable of performing the required function. In this case although Compere discloses oil [pp. 2 lines 25-29] it would be clear to a person having ordinary skill in the art that line 21 could be connected to a source of gas with a reasonable expectation of success.