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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the limitations recited in Claims 11 and 12 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 6 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 6 recites the limitation "the ejector" in the second line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. In the interest of advancing prosecution Claim 6 is interpreted as if amended to depend from Claim 5 in order to cure the lack of antecedent basis.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2000337614 A (hereinafter “YAMAGAMI”) in view of US 2019/0072274 A1 (hereinafter “MAITANI”).
PNG
media_image1.png
718
1608
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 1, YAMAGAMI discloses a dark radiator having a burner (2a), a fan (15), and a radiant tube (indicated in annotated Fig. 4 above; see also radiant tube 1 in the embodiment of Fig. 1), wherein the burner is connected to a fuel gas supply (see 7a in the embodiments of Figs. 1-3 & 5), wherein the fan (15) is set up for supplying combustion air to the burner, wherein the burner is set up for outputting a flame (indicated in annotated Fig. 4 above) into the radiant tube, wherein the fuel gas supply has a gas nozzle (indicated in annotated Fig. 4 above), without the presence of a flame holder.
YAMAGAMI does not disclose wherein the fuel gas supply is connected to a hydrogen source as the fuel gas source, wherein an ignition device is arranged at a distance from the gas nozzle.
MAITANI teaches a radiator having a burner wherein the fuel gas supply is connected to a hydrogen source (9) as the fuel gas source, wherein an ignition device is arranged at a distance from the gas nozzle (2; see also see para. [0046]: “By using an ignition apparatus such as a spark plug (not shown) disposed near the one end 1b of the outer pipe 1, a spark or the like is generated and the hydrogen gas is ignited and burned.”).
PNG
media_image2.png
761
1802
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify YAMAGAMI wherein the fuel gas supply is connected to a hydrogen source as the fuel gas source as taught and/or suggested by MAITANI, since both references teach a radiant tube burning a gaseous fuel, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to substitute one gaseous fuel for the other to achieve the predictable result of providing radiant heat from said radiant tube via the combustion of said hydrogen fuel gas source.
Regarding Claim 2, YAMAGAMI further discloses wherein the fan (15) is arranged in such a manner that the radiant tube (indicated in annotated Fig. 4 above; see also radiant tube 1 in the embodiment of Fig. 1) is flooded with combustion air, at least in the flame direction, behind the gas nozzle (indicated in annotated Fig. 2 above).
Regarding Claim 3, YAMAGAMI further discloses wherein the fan (15) is arranged in such a manner that the gas nozzle (indicated in annotated Fig. 4 above) is flushed with combustion air.
Regarding Claim 4, YAMAGAMI further discloses wherein the fan (15) is connected, on the suction side, to an exhaust gas line (18) that is connected to the radiant tube (see Fig. 4).
Regarding Claim 5, YAMAGAMI further discloses wherein the fan (15) is connected, on the suction side (indicated in annotated Fig. 4 above), to an ejector (indicated in annotated Fig. 4 above), having a suction connector (indicated in annotated Fig. 4 above) connected to the exhaust gas line (18), wherein the combustion air drawn in by the fan (15) serves as a driving medium, so that an exhaust gas/combustion air mixture is supplied to the burner (2a) by the fan (15).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over YAMAGAMI in view of MAITANI as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of US 2014/0011140 A1 (hereinafter “SCHWANK”). NOTE the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection of Claim 6 above.
Regarding Claim 6, YAMAGAMI in view of MAITANI does not disclose wherein the ejector (indicated in annotated Fig. 4 of YAMAGAMI above) or the exhaust gas line (YAMAGAMI, 18) is provided with an adjustment device, by way of which the mixture ratio of the exhaust gas stream and the combustion air stream can be adjusted.
SCHWANK teaches a radiator (2) having a burner (1) wherein the ejector (9) or the exhaust gas line (5) is provided with an adjustment device (11), by way of which the mixture ratio of the exhaust gas stream and the combustion air stream can be adjusted (see para. [0047]: “Between the exhaust passage 5 and the fresh air passage 8 an exhaust gas recirculation system 9 is arranged which consists of an exhaust gas recirculation passage 10 and a volume flow regulator 11.”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to further modify YAMAGAMI in view of MAITANI wherein the ejector or the exhaust gas line is provided with an adjustment device, by way of which the mixture ratio of the exhaust gas stream and the combustion air stream can be adjusted as taught and/or suggested by SCHWANK, since the use of exhaust gas recirculation arrangement s are old and well known to provide various benefits and/or advantages over systems which do not incorporate exhaust gas recirculation such as reduced energy consumption due to preheated combustion air requiring less fuel to achieve a desired heat output, lower emissions due to reduced NOx and CO emissions, improved temperature stability which provides a more consistent and efficient heat output and is cost effective due to the savings realized from reduced energy consumption and emissions.
Claims 7-8 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over YAMAGAMI in view of MAITANI as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of WO 2017/103000 A1 (hereinafter “THOMAS”).
Regarding Claims 7 and 8, YAMAGAMI in view of MAITANI does not disclose wherein an optical sensor is provided, which is set up for detecting at least one flame parameter of the flame; wherein the optical sensor is a UV sensor.
THOMAS discloses a radiator wherein an optical sensor (21) is provided, which is set up for detecting at least one flame parameter of the flame (see the provided English translation: “The burner 20 is equipped with a flame detection means 21, for example an ultraviolet type optical cell”); wherein the optical sensor is a UV sensor (21; see again the provided English translation: “The burner 20 is equipped with a flame detection means 21, for example an ultraviolet type optical cell”).
PNG
media_image3.png
870
1109
media_image3.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to further modify YAMAGAMI in view of MAITANI wherein an optical sensor is provided, which is set up for detecting at least one flame parameter of the flame; wherein the optical sensor is a UV sensor as taught and/or suggested by THOMAS, since such a modification would provide a feedback control input for the radiator control system (see Thomas, the provided English translation: “The combustion system is equipped with an electronic control module 23 located in the immediate vicinity of the burner, with output 23a and input 23b signals. The input signals according to the example shown are the positions of the controlled valves 14 and 18, the flame detection 21, the air and gas flow measurements 12 and 15, the residual oxygen in the humid fumes measured by the sensor 24 and the temperature of the tube measured by the thermocouple 25. The output signals are the controls of the valves 14, 17 and 18 and the ignition control 22.”).
Regarding Claim 11, YAMAGAMI in view of MAITANI does not disclose wherein the optical sensor is connected to a setting device connected to the fuel gas supply, to interrupt and/or to adjust the hydrogen supply.
THOMAS discloses a radiator wherein the optical sensor (21) is connected to a setting device (see 17, 18) connected to the fuel gas supply (see 7), to interrupt and/or to adjust the fuel supply (see the provided English translation: “The gas supply of the burner comprises a flow measuring member, for example a diaphragm 16 and a differential pressure sensor 15 and two electrically or pneumatically controlled opening valves 17 and 18 providing the double dam function.”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to further modify YAMAGAMI in view of MAITANI wherein the optical sensor is connected to a setting device connected to the fuel gas supply, to interrupt and/or to adjust the hydrogen supply as taught and/or suggested by THOMAS, since such a modification would provide a means to control the fuel supply via the radiator control system (see Thomas, the provided English translation: “The combustion system is equipped with an electronic control module 23 located in the immediate vicinity of the burner, with output 23a and input 23b signals. The input signals according to the example shown are the positions of the controlled valves 14 and 18, the flame detection 21, the air and gas flow measurements 12 and 15, the residual oxygen in the humid fumes measured by the sensor 24 and the temperature of the tube measured by the thermocouple 25. The output signals are the controls of the valves 14, 17 and 18 and the ignition control 22.”).
Claims 9 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over YAMAGAMI in view of MAITANI and THOMAS as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of US 2021/0356126 A1 (hereinafter “ZINK”).
Regarding Claim 9, YAMAGAMI in view of MAITANI and THOMAS does not disclose wherein the optical sensor is directed at the flame base of the flame.
PNG
media_image4.png
550
1144
media_image4.png
Greyscale
ZINK teaches a system and method in which (i) a flame scanner provides UV and/or IR wave period and amplitude information for a burner flame and (ii) a flame stabilization metering module determines whether the wave period and amplitude of the flame have reached warning and shutoff set points for the burner, thus indicating that the operation of the burner is unstable, or that a flame out event is likely, and, in which event, corrective actions are taken, or the burner is shut down, to restore stable operation and prevent a flame out from occurring: wherein the optical sensor (4) is directed at the flame base (see Fig. 1) of the flame (10).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to further modify YAMAGAMI in view of MAITANI and THOMAS wherein the optical sensor is directed at the flame base of the flame as taught and/or suggested by ZINK, since ZINK states that the flame scanner as directed in Fig. 1 at the flame base of the flame “provides UV and/or IR wave period and amplitude information for a burner flame and (ii) a flame stabilization metering module determines whether the wave period and amplitude of the flame have reached warning and shutoff set points for the burner, thus indicating that the operation of the burner is unstable, or that a flame out event is likely, and, in which event, corrective actions are taken, or the burner is shut down, to restore stable operation and prevent a flame out from occurring” (see ZINK, the Abstract).
Regarding Claim 12, THOMAS further teaches wherein the setting device (17, 18) is connected to a control and regulation module (23).
YAMAGAMI in view of MAITANI and THOMAS does not disclose wherein said control and regulation module is set up for regulating the flame properties of the flame on the basis of reference parameters stored in memory, by means of changing the hydrogen amount and/or the combustion air amount.
ZINK teaches a system and method in which (i) a flame scanner provides UV and/or IR wave period and amplitude information for a burner flame and (ii) a flame stabilization metering module determines whether the wave period and amplitude of the flame have reached warning and shutoff set points for the burner, thus indicating that the operation of the burner is unstable, or that a flame out event is likely, and, in which event, corrective actions are taken, or the burner is shut down, to restore stable operation and prevent a flame out from occurring: wherein a control and regulation module (6) is set up for regulating the flame properties of the flame on the basis of reference parameters stored in memory (see para. [0021]: “The flame stabilization metering module 6 used in the inventive flame out prevention system 2 preferably comprises: a housing 12: a microprocessor or other computer processing unit (CPU) 14; and at least one computer readable medium, device, or other computer readable storage component 16. The one or more computer readable storage components 16 can be permanently installed in the module housing 12 or can consist of, or can include, a component, e.g., a thumb drive or other portable memory device, which is removably installed in or removably connected to the module 6. The flame stabilization metering module 6 also includes a program code which is embodied on or in the one or more computer readable storage components 16.”), by means of changing the hydrogen amount and/or the combustion air amount (see para. [0030]: “Alternatively or in addition, at any time that a warning set point or a shutoff set point for the UV and/or IR wave period or amplitude of burner flame 10 is reached, the program code can optionally cause the flame stabilization and metering module 6 to automatically act, in accordance with the programmed procedure, to: (i) adjust the air level to the burner; (ii) adjust the fuel pressure to the burner; and/or (iii) adjust the fuel composition to the burner.”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to further modify YAMAGAMI in view of MAITANI and THOMAS wherein said control and regulation module is set up for regulating the flame properties of the flame on the basis of reference parameters stored in memory, by means of changing the hydrogen amount and/or the combustion air amount as taught and/or suggested by ZINK, since ZINK states that the flame scanner as directed in Fig. 1 at the flame base of the flame “provides UV and/or IR wave period and amplitude information for a burner flame and (ii) a flame stabilization metering module determines whether the wave period and amplitude of the flame have reached warning and shutoff set points for the burner, thus indicating that the operation of the burner is unstable, or that a flame out event is likely, and, in which event, corrective actions are taken, or the burner is shut down, to restore stable operation and prevent a flame out from occurring” (see ZINK, the Abstract).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over YAMAGAMI in view of MAITANI and THOMAS as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of US 5,487,266 A (hereinafter “BROWN”).
Regarding Claim 10, YAMAGAMI in view of MAITANI and THOMAS does not disclose wherein the UV sensor is set up for UV resonance absorption spectroscopy.
BROWN teaches combustion control for producing low NOx emissions through use of flame spectroscopy, wherein a UV sensor (see 335) is set up for UV resonance absorption spectroscopy (see the Abstract: “Combustion in a gas turbine is controlled through use of flame spectroscopy in order to achieve low NOx emissions in the exhaust. By detecting and monitoring the combustion flame in the turbine to determine intensity of ultraviolet spectral lines, and dynamically adjusting the fuel/air ratio of the fuel mixture such that this intensity remains below a predetermined level associated with a desired low level of NOx emissions, the engine produces significantly reduced NOx emissions in its exhaust but at a sufficiently high combustion flame temperature to avoid any undue risk of flame-out, thereby assuring stable, safe and reliable operation.”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to further modify YAMAGAMI in view of MAITANI and THOMAS wherein the UV sensor is set up for UV resonance absorption spectroscopy as taught and/or suggested by BROWN, since BROWN’s Abstract states: “Combustion in a gas turbine is controlled through use of flame spectroscopy in order to achieve low NOx emissions in the exhaust. By detecting and monitoring the combustion flame in the turbine to determine intensity of ultraviolet spectral lines, and dynamically adjusting the fuel/air ratio of the fuel mixture such that this intensity remains below a predetermined level associated with a desired low level of NOx emissions, the engine produces significantly reduced NOx emissions in its exhaust but at a sufficiently high combustion flame temperature to avoid any undue risk of flame-out, thereby assuring stable, safe and reliable operation.” Therefore, incorporating the teachings of BROWN would assist YAMAGAMI in lowering NOx emissions in the exhaust and help avoid an undue risk of flame-out.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure because the references are either in the same field of endeavor or are reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the applicant was concerned. Please see form PTO-892 (Notice of References Cited) attached to, or included with, this Office Action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JORGE A PEREIRO whose telephone number is (571)270-3932 and whose fax number is (571) 270-4932. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9:00 - 5:00 EST.
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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JORGE A PEREIRO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3799