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 “wire mesh” and “flow diffuser” in Claim 5 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 § 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.
Claims 1-8, 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gattupalli (US2015/0165414 A1) in view of Taylor (US5326257A).
Regarding to Claim 1, Gattupalli teaches a method of mixing a fuel with an oxidant, comprising:
mixing the fuel with the oxidant to form a first combustible gas mixture having predominantly non-plug flow (Fig. 1, Part 12 area, and fuel Part 22 and oxidant Part 26 would be delivered to Part 12 to mix, Paragraphs 15, 16).
Gattupalli fails to explicitly disclose, but Taylor teaches a method, comprising:
transitioning the first combustible gas mixture into a second combustible gas mixture having predominantly plug flow [Taylor teaches a chamber comprises a lower inlet to receive air and fuel mixture (Taylor, Col. 3, Line 67-Col. 4, Line 11). Taylor further teaches the mixture would pass through a mechanism to the upper level of the chamber to become a predominantly plug flow to minimize the temperature variations (Taylor, Col. 4, Lines 12-29). When applying the teachings of Taylor to Gattupalli, one with ordinary skill in the art would understand and add a mechanism in the chamber Part 12 to allow the mixture pass through the mechanism to become a predominantly plug flow to minimize the temperature variations (Taylor, Col. 4, Lines 12-29).]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Gattupalli to incorporate the teachings of Taylor to add a mechanism in the chamber to allow the mixture pass through the mechanism to become a predominantly plug flow in order to minimize the temperature variations (Taylor, Col. 4, Lines 12-29).
Regarding to Claim 2, Gattupalli in view of Taylor teaches the modified method, further comprising:
combusting the second combustible gas mixture to form one or more combustion products (Gattupalli, Paragraph 20); and
mixing the one or more combustion products with a feedstock contained in a reaction chamber, wherein, as a result of the mixing, energy is transferred from the one or more combustion products to the feedstock and causes the feedstock to decompose (Gattupalli, Paragraph 23).
Regarding to Claim 3, Gattupalli in view of Taylor teaches the modified method, wherein mixing the fuel with the oxidant comprises using one or more of:
jet in crossflow mixing;
axial swirl mixing; and
radial swirl mixing (Gattupalli, Paragraphs 15, 16).
Regarding to Claim 4, Gattupalli in view of Taylor teaches the modified method, wherein transitioning the first combustible gas mixture into the second combustible gas mixture comprises flowing the first combustible gas mixture through a flow straightener (Taylor, Fig. 2, Part 46, Col. 4, Lines 12-29).
Regarding to Claim 5, Gattupalli in view of Taylor teaches the modified method, wherein the flow straightener comprises a wire mesh or a flow diffuser (Taylor, Fig. 2, Part 46, Gattupalli, Fig. 1, Part 14 area. Since the Applicant fails to provide any drawings to show the limitations, the examiner considered the teachings of the references would reflect the limitations under the broadest reasonable interpretation).
Regarding to Claim 6, Gattupalli in view of Taylor teaches the modified method, wherein the flow straightener comprises a perforated plate (Taylor, Fig. 2, Part 46, Col. 4, Lines 12-29).
Regarding to Claim 7, Gattupalli in view of Taylor teaches the modified method, wherein the relative diameters and lengths of perforations in the perforated plate are selected to promote transitioning of one or more non-plug flow characteristics of the first combustible gas mixture into one or more plug flow characteristics (Taylor, Fig. 2, Part 46, Col. 4, Lines 12-29. Since the Applicant fails to provide any detail regarding to the limitations in the Specification, the examiner considered the teachings of the reference would reflect the limitations under the broadest reasonable interpretation).
Regarding to Claim 8, Gattupalli fails to explicitly disclose, but Taylor teaches a method, wherein mixing the fuel with the oxidant comprises:
flowing at least one of the fuel and the oxidant through a perforated plate; and
after flowing the at least one of the fuel and the oxidant through the perforated plate, mixing the fuel with the oxidant to form the first combustible gas mixture having predominantly non-plug flow [Taylor teaches a perforated plate to be used to allow a fuel to pass through uniformly to minimize temperature variations (Taylor, Col. 4, Lines 12-29). When applying the teachings of Taylor to Gattupalli, one with ordinary skill in the art would understand and add a perforated plate to at least one of the fuel and oxidant injectors to minimize the temperature variations (Taylor, Col. 4, Lines 12-29).]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Gattupalli to incorporate the teachings of Taylor to add a perforated plate to at least one of the fuel and oxidant injectors in order to minimize the temperature variations (Taylor, Col. 4, Lines 12-29).
Regarding to Claim 11, Gattupalli in view of Taylor teaches the modified method, wherein the oxidant comprises pure oxygen (Gattupalli, Paragraph 12).
Regarding to Claim 12, Gattupalli in view of Taylor teaches the modified method, wherein the oxidant comprises air (Taylor, Col. 3, Line 67-Col. 4, Line 11).
Regarding to Claim 13, Gattupalli in view of Taylor teaches the modified method, wherein the feedstock comprises a hydrocarbon (Gattupalli, Paragraph 22).
Claims 9, 10, 14-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gattupalli (US2015/0165414 A1) and Taylor (US5326257A) as applied to Claims 1, 2 above, and further in view of Breidenstein (US2024/0110526 A1).
Regarding to Claim 9, Gattupalli and Taylor fail to explicitly disclose, but Breidenstein teaches a method, wherein mixing the fuel with the oxidant comprises:
flowing either the fuel or the oxidant in an axial direction; and
while flowing either the fuel or the oxidant in the axial direction, flowing the other of the fuel and the oxidant in a direction tangential to the axial direction to mix the fuel with the oxidant [Breidenstein teaches a system comprises a chamber and a fuel is delivered in an axial direction, and an oxidant is delivered in a tangential direction (Breidenstein, Fig. 1, Part 100, Part 120 would be delivered in different direction to Part 112) to reduce the heat and emission (Breidenstein, Paragraph 52).]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Gattupalli and Taylor to incorporate the teachings of Breidenstein to deliver oxidant and fuel in certain directions in order to reduce the heat and emission (Breidenstein, Paragraph 52).
Regarding to Claim 10, Gattupalli and Taylor fail to explicitly disclose, but Breidenstein teaches a method, wherein the fuel comprises non-decomposed feedstock recycled from a previous reaction cycle [Breidenstein teaches a recycle line to recycle exhaust gas back to a chamber to improve the efficiency of energy (Bredienstein, Fig. 1, Part 126, Paragraph 46). When applying the teachings of Brediestein, one with ordinary skill in the art would understand and add a recycle line to recycle the previous reaction gas back to chamber to improve the efficiency of energy (Bredienstein, Fig. 1, Part 126, Paragraph 46).]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Gattupalli and Taylor to incorporate the teachings of Breidenstein to add a recycle line to recycle the previous reaction gas back to chamber in order to improve the efficiency of energy (Bredienstein, Fig. 1, Part 126, Paragraph 46).
Regarding to Claim 14, Gattupalli and Taylor fail to explicitly disclose, but Breidenstein teaches a method, wherein:
one or more combustion products from a previous reaction cycle are contained in a combustion chamber connected to the reaction chamber; and
the method further comprises flowing the second combustible gas mixture into the combustion chamber and thereby causing the one or more combustion products from the previous reaction cycle to be ejected from the combustion chamber by the second combustible gas mixture [Breidenstein teaches a recycle line to recycle exhaust gas back to a chamber to improve the efficiency of energy (Bredienstein, Fig. 1, Part 126, Paragraph 46). When applying the teachings of Brediestein, one with ordinary skill in the art would understand and add a recycle line to recycle the previous reaction gas back to chamber to improve the efficiency of energy (Bredienstein, Fig. 1, Part 126, Paragraph 46).]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Gattupalli and Taylor to incorporate the teachings of Breidenstein to add a recycle line to recycle the previous reaction gas back to chamber in order to improve the efficiency of energy (Bredienstein, Fig. 1, Part 126, Paragraph 46).
Regarding to Claim 15, Gattupalli in view of Taylor and Breidenstein teaches the modified method, wherein, as a result of the second combustible gas mixture having predominantly plug flow, mixing between the second combustible gas mixture and the one or more combustion products from the previous reaction cycle is substantially reduced (Gattupalli, Fig. 1 and apply the teachings of Breidenstein, Fig. 1 would reflect the limitations under the broadest reasonable interpretation).
Regarding to Claim 16, Gattupalli in view of Taylor and Breidenstein teaches the modified method, wherein the one or more combustion products from the previous reaction cycle are ejected out of a feedstock reactor that comprises the combustion chamber and the reaction chamber, or are forced into the reaction chamber (Gattupalli, Fig. 1 and apply the teachings of Breidenstein, Fig. 1 would reflect the limitations under the broadest reasonable interpretation).
Regarding to Claim 17, Gattupalli in view of Taylor and Breidenstein teaches the modified method, wherein the one or more combustion products from the previous reaction cycle comprise one or more of: CO2; CO; N2; and H2O (Breidenstein, Paragraph 49).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YI-KAI WANG whose telephone number is (313)446-6613. The examiner can normally be reached Flexible.
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, Lindsay Low can be reached at 5712721196. 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.
/YI-KAI WANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3747
Prosecution Insights