DETAILED ACTION
Application Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . This action is in response to Applicant’s submission dated 02/29/2024. Claim(s) 43–58 are pending.
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.
Claims 43, 45, 48–49, 51, 53, & 56–57 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2010/0107821 to Wang et al.
With regard to claims 43 & 51, Wang discloses a burner for feeding solid material and reaction gas into a reaction shaft (2) of a suspension smelting furnace and its associated method of use (abstract), wherein the burner (1) comprises: a feeder pipe (104) for feeding solid material into the reaction shaft (2) of the suspension smelting furnace (¶ 0047; Figs. 1 & 2), a gas supply device (102) for feeding reaction gas into the reaction shaft (2) of the suspension smelting furnace (Fig. 2; ¶ 0047), wherein the gas supply device (102) comprises a reaction gas chamber (¶ 0047), which surrounds the feeder pipe (104) (Fig. 2), wherein the gas supply device (102) opens to the reaction shaft (2) of the suspension smelting furnace through an annular opening (Fig. 2; ¶ 0047), wherein the reaction gas chamber (102) being at least partly laterally outwardly limited by an inner wall section (101) tapering towards the annular opening and by a top structure (Fig. 2), and wherein the gas supply device (102) comprises at least one inlet channel (105) opening into the reaction gas chamber device for feeding reaction gas into the reaction gas chamber (102) through a feed opening of said at least one inlet channel (105) (Fig. 2; ¶¶ 0047–0048), and a gas deflection member (106, 1061) in the reaction gas chamber (102) (Fig. 2; ¶ 0047), wherein the gas deflection member (106, 1061) limiting at least one through opening leading through the gas deflection member (106, 1061) (¶ 0050), and wherein said feed opening of said at least one inlet channel (105) being configured to direct reaction gas towards the inner wall section (101) tapering towards the annular opening and/or configured to direct reaction gas towards the gas deflection member (106, 1061) (Fig. 2).
With regard to claims 45 & 53, Wang further discloses said at least one inlet channel (105) passes through the top structure of the reaction gas chamber (Fig. 2).
With regard to claims 48 & 56, Wang further discloses the gas deflection member (106, 1061) comprises a surrounding structure that surrounds the feeder pipe (104) (Fig. 2).
With regard to claims 49 & 57, Wang further discloses the surrounding structure of the gas deflection member (106, 1061) being at the inner wall section tapering towards the annular opening (Fig. 2; begins at inner wall tapered section and extends to the annular opening).
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 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.
Claims 44 & 52 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang in view of US 2020/0325026 to Koo.
Wang fails to disclose said at least one inlet channel penetrates into the reaction gas chamber so that said at least one inlet channel has a channel section inside the reaction gas chamber and so that said feed opening of said at least one inlet channel is inside the reaction gas chamber. Koo teaches an inlet channel (103) that penetrates into the reaction gas chamber so that said at least one inlet channel (103) has a channel section inside the reaction gas chamber and so that said feed opening of said at least one inlet channel (103) is inside the reaction gas chamber (Fig. 2; ¶ 0044). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the burner of Wang with the inlet channel of Koo because such a combination would have had the added benefit of being able to specifically direct the reaction gas to a desired location within the reaction chamber.
Claims 46–47, 50, 54–55 & 58 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang.
With regard to claims 46 & 54, Wang fails to disclose said channel section is bent and/or angled away from the central axis A of the burner to direct reaction gas from the feed opening towards the inner wall section tapering towards the annular opening between the top structure and the gas deflection member. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to install the inlet channel section at an angle away from the central axis, since to shift the location of parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) (Claims to a hydraulic power press which read on the prior art except with regard to the position of the starting switch were held unpatentable because shifting the position of the starting switch would not have modified the operation of the device.); In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975) (the particular placement of a contact in a conductivity measuring device was held to be an obvious matter of design choice).
With regard to claims 47 & 55, Wang fails to disclose a plurality of inlet channels passing through the top structure in a configuration symmetrical to a central axis A of the burner so that each of said plurality of inlet channels having a channel section inside the reaction gas chamber, wherein each said channel section being bent and/or angled away from the central axis A of the burner to direct reaction gas from the feed opening towards the inner wall section tapering towards the annular opening between the top structure and the gas deflection member, and the feed openings of the inlet channels being arranged in a configuration symmetrical to a central axis A of the burner. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use a plurality of inlet channels arranged symmetrically and at an angle from the central axis, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) (Claims at issue were directed to a water-tight masonry structure wherein a water seal of flexible material fills the joints which form between adjacent pours of concrete. The claimed water seal has a “web” which lies in the joint, and a plurality of “ribs” projecting outwardly from each side of the web into one of the adjacent concrete slabs. The prior art disclosed a flexible water stop for preventing passage of water between masses of concrete in the shape of a plus sign (+). Although the reference did not disclose a plurality of ribs, the court held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced.).
With regard to claims 50 & 58, Wang fails to disclose the surrounding structure comprises an annular disc comprising an inner circumference and an outer circumference. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to use a surrounding structure in the shape of an annular disc with an inner and outer circumference, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the shape of a component. A change in shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art when the choice of shape has no significant impact on the operation of the invention. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: see attached PTO-892. Applicant is encouraged to review the cited references prior to submitting a response to this office action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID J LAUX whose telephone number is (571)270-7619. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30-5:30 M-F.
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, 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 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.
/DAVID J LAUX/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3762
June 27, 2026
Prosecution Insights