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 .
DETAILED ACTION
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.
Claims 7-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsumura (JP 2008111591 A), hereinafter Tsumura, in view of Theis (US 20200400308 A1), hereinafter Theis.
Regarding claim 7, Tsumura discloses a gas burner disposed in a facility including a furnace, comprising:
a nozzle where gas fuel flows (“gas nozzle 1 of the gas burner” all citations from the machine translation appended to the foreign reference); and
a primary air supply part for supplying, from around the nozzle (“a primary air flow path 7 provided on the outer peripheral portion of the gas nozzle 1”), primary air whose air ratio to the gas fuel is less than 1 (“In order to reduce the NOx concentration in the combustion gas, the combustion burner of the business boiler usually adopts a two-stage combustion system, and the air ratio in the burner portion is… often set to about 7 to 0.9”),
wherein the nozzle includes:
at least one main hole configured to eject the gas fuel at an ejection angle of not less than 25 degrees and not greater than 45 degrees with respect to a central axis of the gas burner (“A plurality of main holes 2 for ejecting gas to the tip of the gas nozzle 1 at an ejection angle of 35° to 45° to the central axis C”); and
at least one sub hole configured to eject the gas fuel at an ejection angle of not less than 35 degrees and not greater than 55 degrees with respect to the central axis of the gas burner, the ejection angle of the sub hole being greater than the ejection angle of the main hole (“a plurality of auxiliary holes 3… for ejecting gas at an ejection angle of 45° to 55°”).
Tsumura does not disclose wherein the gas fuel flowing in the nozzle has a gas pressure of not less than 300 kPa.
However, it has been held that “[w]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” See MPEP §2144.05(II)(A) (quoting In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Although, it has been further held that "[a] particular parameter must first be recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e. a variable which achieves a recognized result, before determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation. Refer to MPEP §2144.05(II)(B)(quoting In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). In this case, Tsumura discloses an inherent fuel pressure, but does not specifically recite not less than 300 kPa. Achieving not less than 300 kPa is a results-effective variable because Theis states “The above designs can operate on any fuel gas composition including 100% hydrogen, without flashback of the flame into the burner's interior. Moreover, the designs described herein can run at low, medium or high fuel pressure or flame speeds and achieve low NOx emissions and also avoid flashback problems. For example, the burners described herein can operate from 3 bar(g) fuel gas pressure” (paragraph [0037]). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the fuel pressure, because the selection of fuel pressure to achieve low NOx and avoid flashback constitutes the optimization of design parameters, which fails to distinguish the claim.
PNG
media_image1.png
296
388
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
262
282
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
536
390
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 8, Tsumura, as modified by Theis, discloses the gas burner according to claim 7.
Theis further teaches wherein the gas fuel contains hydrogen (“burners are commonly used with various fuel gases, such as natural gas, liquefied petroleum gas (LPG), refinery gas and mixtures thereof. The fuel gases may contain varying amounts of hydrogen depending on their mixture components” paragraph [0002] and “The above designs can operate on any fuel gas composition including 100% hydrogen” paragraph [0037]).
Tsumura does not disclose the claimed fuel. Theis teaches the claimed fuel. The substitution of one known element (“city gas (gas mainly composed of methane and ethane, propane, and butane)”) for another (the hydrogen) would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention, since the substitution of hydrogen taught in Theis would have yielded predictable results, namely, providing a fuel gas for combustion Agrizap, Inc. v. Woodstream Corp., 520 F.3d 1337, 86 USPQ2d 1110 (Fed. Cir. 2008).
Regarding claim 9, Tsumura, as modified by Theis, discloses the gas burner according to claim 8, wherein the ejection angle of the main hole is not less than 25 degrees and not greater than 35 degrees (“a main hole that ejects gas at an injection angle of 35 ° to 45 °” The examiner notes that the ranges overlap at 35°), and the ejection angle of the sub hole is not less than 35 degrees and not greater than 45 degrees (“a sub-hole that ejects gas at an injection angle of 45 ° to 55 °” The examiner notes that the ranges overlap at 45°).
Regarding claim 10, Tsumura, as modified by Theis, discloses the gas burner according to claim 7, wherein the at least one main hole includes a plurality of main holes formed in a tip portion of the nozzle such that the plurality of main holes are disposed around the central axis of the gas burner symmetrically with each other with the central axis of the gas burner therebetween (Figure 2).
Regarding claim 11, Tsumura, as modified by Theis, discloses the gas burner according to claim 7, wherein the at least one sub hole includes a plurality of sub holes formed in a tip portion of the nozzle such that the plurality of sub holes are disposed around the central axis of the gas burner symmetrically with each other with the central axis of the gas burner therebetween (Figure 2).
Regarding claim 12, Tsumura, as modified by Theis, discloses the gas burner according to claim 7, wherein a ratio A1:A2 is between 80:20 and 90:10, where Al is a total opening area of a plurality of the main holes and A2 is a total opening area of a plurality of the sub holes (“the opening-area ratio of the main holes 2 to the auxiliary holes 3 is 80:20 to 90:10”).
Regarding claim 13, Tsumura discloses a gas burner disposed in a facility including a furnace, comprising:
a nozzle where gas fuel containing hydrogen flows; and
a primary air supply part for supplying, from around the nozzle, primary air whose air ratio to the gas fuel is less than 1,
wherein the nozzle includes:
at least one main hole configured to eject the gas fuel at an ejection angle of not less than 25 degrees and not greater than 35 degrees with respect to a central axis of the gas burner (“a main hole that ejects gas at an injection angle of 35 ° to 45 °” The examiner notes that the ranges overlap at 35°); and
at least one sub hole configured to eject the gas fuel at an ejection angle of not less than 35 degrees and not greater than 45 degrees with respect to the central axis of the gas burner, the ejection angle of the sub hole being greater than the ejection angle of the main hole (“a sub-hole that ejects gas at an injection angle of 45 ° to 55 °” The examiner notes that the ranges overlap at 45°), and
Tsumura does not disclose:
the main hole ejection angle excluding 35 degrees;
the sub hole ejection angle excluding 45 degrees;
wherein the gas fuel flowing in the nozzle has a gas pressure of not less than 300 kPa.
However, the court has held a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985). In this case, the claimed upper range of main hole ejection angle extends to 35 degrees but excludes 35 degrees itself (for example, the range includes 34.99 degrees). In Tsumura, the lower range of main hole ejection angle extends to 35 degrees. Similarly, the claimed upper range of sub hole ejection angle extends to 45 degrees but excludes 45 degrees itself (for example, the range includes 44.99 degrees). In Tsumura, the lower range of sub hole ejection angle extends to 45 degrees. In other words, the values can be made arbitrarily close. Machining tolerances could account for the difference between the claimed values and those disclosed by the prior art.
Tsumura does not disclose wherein the gas fuel flowing in the nozzle has a gas pressure of not less than 300 kPa.
However, it has been held that “[w]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” See MPEP §2144.05(II)(A) (quoting In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Although, it has been further held that "[a] particular parameter must first be recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e. a variable which achieves a recognized result, before determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation. Refer to MPEP §2144.05(II)(B)(quoting In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). In this case, Tsumura discloses an inherent fuel pressure, but does not specifically recite not less than 300 kPa. Achieving not less than 300 kPa is a results-effective variable because Theis states “The above designs can operate on any fuel gas composition including 100% hydrogen, without flashback of the flame into the burner's interior. Moreover, the designs described herein can run at low, medium or high fuel pressure or flame speeds and achieve low NOx emissions and also avoid flashback problems. For example, the burners described herein can operate from 3 bar(g) fuel gas pressure” (paragraph [0037]). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the fuel pressure, because the selection of fuel pressure to achieve low NOx and avoid flashback constitutes the optimization of design parameters, which fails to distinguish the claim.
Regarding claim 14, Tsumura, as modified by Theis, discloses a facility comprising:
a furnace (“The fuel is injected into the furnace from the main hole 2 and the sub hole 3 of the gas nozzle 1 at the tip of the gas nozzle 1 disposed at the center of the burner”), and
the gas burner according to claim 7 (Figure 3).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Perthuis (US 5147199 A)
PNG
media_image4.png
446
686
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
406
446
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Mc Gill (US 5284438 A) “As hydrogen content in a refinery fuel gas goes up the adiabatic flame temperature goes up and therefore NO.sub.x formation usually increases. However, when utilizing the burner assembly 10 of the present invention, as the hydrogen content in the fuel goes up, so does the fuel pressure for the equivalent natural gas heat release. This effect is self metering to control NO.sub.x at desired levels because, as the fuel pressure increases, the amount of diluent entering the mixing zone 22 in the burner throat 18, via the meter channels 30, also increases” column 11, line 11
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LOGAN P JONES whose telephone number is (303)297-4309. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:30-5:00 EST.
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 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.
/LOGAN P JONES/Examiner, Art Unit 3762
Prosecution Insights