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 § 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 1-8, 10-13 and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 3,255,966 A (hereinafter “HOFFERT”).
PNG
media_image1.png
866
882
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claims 1-3, 6-8 and 11, HOFFERT discloses a burner (10) for partial oxidation having at least two channels (E, F), which are designed as a central channel (E) and as at least one annular channel (F) surrounding the central channel, through each of which a fluid can flow for implementing the partial oxidation, wherein an insulation element (64) is arranged on an inner face of a wall (24) of at least one channel (F) of the at least two channels (E, F) along at least part of an axial length of said at least one channel (F);
further having at least one cooling channel (28, 30), through each of which a cooling fluid (see Col. 3, Lns. 2-4: “The coolant (e.g. water) connections to these paths are shown at 32 and at 34.”) for cooling the burner can flow, wherein the at least one cooling channel (28, 30) annularly surrounds the at least two channels (E, F), wherein the insulation element (64) is arranged on the inner face of the wall (24) of the channel (F) of the at least two channels (E, F) adjacent to the at least one cooling channel (28, 30), at least along part of an axial length of this adjacent channel (F);
wherein the at least one channel (F) is configured to be connected to a fluid supply (see 12) for supplying a preheated fluid and/or a preheated fuel (see Col. 3, Lns. 53-55: “As is generally practiced, partial oxidation requires a preheating of the gaseous reactants in the order of 400°--600° F, or higher”);
wherein the insulation element (64) extends in the at least one channel (F) in the axial direction up to a burner tip (C);
wherein the insulation element (64) is designed as a tube or tubular element (see Col. 3, Lns. 34-37: “The inner tubular member 24 of the outer wall member A is also provided with insulation and internal liner 64 to insure a uniform annular passage F for the hydrocarbon gas.”);
wherein the insulation element (64) is made of a thermally insulating material (see Col. 1, Lns. 34-38: “Because of the reactivity of oxygen with the metal from which a suitable burner may be fabricated, it is extremely important to prevent the burner elements from reaching those temperatures at which their rapid oxidation takes place.”);
wherein the at least one channel is configured to be connected to a fluid supply for supplying a preheated fuel (see again Col. 3, Lns. 53-55: “As is generally practiced, partial oxidation requires a preheating of the gaseous reactants in the order of 400°--600° F, or higher”).
HOFFERT does not disclose wherein the insulation element is made of a mica material.
Nonetheless, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify HOFFERT wherein the insulation element is made of a mica material, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. Mica is known for both its electrical and thermal insulation properties, highly valued for its ability to withstand extreme temperatures (up to 1000°C - 1200°C). Because mica is known to be thermally insulative and can withstand continuous temperatures over 1000°C without breaking down therefore, mica comprises a suitable material which would prevent the burner’s metallic elements from reaching those temperatures at which their rapid oxidation takes place (see again Col. 1, Lns. 34-38: “Because of the reactivity of oxygen with the metal from which a suitable burner may be fabricated, it is extremely important to prevent the burner elements from reaching those temperatures at which their rapid oxidation takes place.”).
Regarding Claim 4, HOFFERT does not disclose wherein the insulation element is removable from the at least one channel.
Nonetheless, HOFFERT further discloses “While it has been suggested that the inner conduit member be locked in position with respect to the outer conduit member, this tends to set up objectionable stresses in the burner assembly and requires expansion devices which are complicated and readily serve as a source of leaks. In our preferred construction, the inner and outer conduit members are free to move with respect to each other, being guided by the spacers 74.” See Col. 3, Lns. 56-64.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify HOFFERT wherein the insulation element (64) is removable from the at least one channel (F), since it has been held that constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill in the art. In re Dulberg, 289 F.2d 522, 523, 129 USPQ 348, 349 (CCPA 1961). Furthermore, modifying HOFFERT wherein said insulation element is free to move relative to the at least one channel would further HOFFERT’s desire to avoid objectionable stresses in the burner assembly and also avoids the need for expansion devices.
Regarding Claims 5, 16 and 17, HOFFERT does not explicitly disclose wherein the insulation element is arranged in the at least one channel at least from a rear end of the at least one channel (120) as viewed in the flow direction to a position which is at a predeterminable axial distance from a front end of the at least one channel as viewed in the flow direction, and/or wherein the insulation element is arranged in the at least one channel at least from a fluid port for supplying a fluid into the at least one channel to a position which is at a predeterminable axial distance from a front end of the at least one channel as viewed in the direction of flow.
Nonetheless, HOFFERT states at Col. 3, Lns. 34-37: “The inner tubular member 24 of the outer wall member A is also provided with insulation and internal liner 64 to insure a uniform annular passage F for the hydrocarbon gas.”
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify HOFFERT wherein the insulation element is arranged in the at least one channel at least from a rear end of the at least one channel as viewed in the flow direction to a position which is at a predeterminable axial distance from a front end of the at least one channel as viewed in the flow direction, and/or wherein the insulation element is arranged in the at least one channel at least from a fluid port for supplying a fluid into the at least one channel to a position which is at a predeterminable axial distance from a front end of the at least one channel as viewed in the direction of flow, since HOFFERT’s desire to create a uniform annular passage F suggests that all of tubular member 24 is covered by the insulation so as to create said uniform annular passage F and furthermore, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art (i.e., in the present case, providing insulation to a wall surface of a burner channel), discovering the optimum or workable ranges (i.e., the extent over which the insulation extends) involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05(I). Further yet, arranging the insulation as claimed would assist in maximizing the insulation effect.
Regarding Claims 10 and 12-13, HOFFERT does not disclose wherein a thickness of a wall of the insulation element is in an area between 25% and 175% of a thickness of the wall of the at least one channel, particularly in an area between 50% and 150% of the thickness of the wall of the at least one channel, particularly in an area between 75% and 125% of the thickness of the wall of the at least one channel.
Nonetheless, HOFFERT does disclose in the broader discussion of insulation, see Col. 3, Lns. 25-37, that:
“As a part of a commercial installation, it is found desirable to line the inner surface of the innermost tubular member 38 with an insulating liner, generally indicated at 60, and to utilize a thin wall for the major length of this tubular member 38.
In a similar manner, the outer surface of the tubular member 36 of the inner wall member B is also of reduced section and is provided with suitable insulation and liner, generally indicated at 62.
The inner tubular member 24 of the outer wall member A is also provided with insulation and internal liner 64 to insure a uniform annular passage F for the hydrocarbon gas.”
Therefore, HOFFERT discloses the use of a thin wall in combination with insulation and the desire to maintain a uniform annular passage F.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify HOFFERT wherein a thickness of a wall of the insulation element is in an area between 25% and 175% of a thickness of the wall of the at least one channel, particularly in an area between 50% and 150% of the thickness of the wall of the at least one channel, particularly in an area between 75% and 125% of the thickness of the wall of the at least one channel, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art (i.e., in the present case, burner walls of a given thickness comprising insulation of a given thickness), discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05(I). Furthermore, increasing insulation thickness directly improves thermal insulation by extending the heat conduction path and suppressing convection, resulting in a higher R-value and thus a lower heat transfer. Greater insulation thickness reduces heat loss by enhancing resistance to heat flow. Generally, doubling the thickness of an insulation material doubles its R-value, providing better thermal resistance and lower heat loss.
Claims 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HOFFERT in view of CN 104029454 A (hereinafter “LIU”).
Regarding Claims 14 and 15, HOFFERT does not disclose wherein the mica material contains muscovite or phlogopite.
LIU teaches a high-temperature nano reflection heat insulation film comprising a mica material which contains muscovite or phlogopite (see para. [0023] of the provided English translation: “This embodiment of the substrate film is mica resistance, high-temperature fiber paper, fibre cloth at high temperature or high temperature non-woven fabrics, the substrate film is best film material by muscovite, phlogopite, synthetic mica or calcined mica. one surface is glass fibre gridding cloth, the other face composite mica foil layer, wherein the total thickness is 0.05 to 0.30 millimetres, the best thickness is 0.10 to 0.14 millimetres, the highest using temperature can reach 800 to 1200 degrees centigrade.”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to further modify HOFFERT wherein the mica material contains muscovite or phlogopite as taught and/or suggested by LIU, since such a modification would provide a mica material useable in high temperature environments, such as those experienced during burner operation, reaching 800 to 1200 degrees centigrade.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on July 8th, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Hoffert et al. are completely silent as to materials for insulating liners 60, 62 and 64. In particular, Hoffert et al make no suggestion of using mica as a material for insulating liners 60, 62 and 64. Applicant further argues that “There is a wide range of possible high-temperature insulation materials (e.g., ceramics, refractories, fiber-based materials) and nothing in the Hoffert et al. disclosure points towards selection of mica.” And finally, Applicant argues that a “design choice” modification cannot modify the operation of a device and makes the unsupported allegation that “Clearly, the selection of the type of insulating material would impact the flow of gasses through the burner and thus modify the operation thereof.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Firstly, Hoffert et al.’s silence as to the materials used for insulating liners 60, 62 and 64 which suggests that various insulating materials are feasible. Applicant admits that there exist a wide range of possible high-temperature insulation materials, providing examples such as ceramics, refractories and fiber-based materials. Although not mentioned by Applicant, mica also falls within the mentioned wide range of possible high-temperature insulation materials. Because Hoffert et al. suggests that a wide range of insulation materials can be used as evidenced by the lack of specificity, mica is an obvious design choice option. Moreover, Hoffert et al. does not disclose any relationship between the choice of insulation and flow characteristics of the gasses used, therefore, since a variety of insulating materials are possible, mica would satisfactorily allow the flow of gasses through the burner and thus would not modify the operation thereof.
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.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final 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, Helena Kosanovic can be reached at (571) 272-9059. 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
Prosecution Insights