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 § 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.
Claims 7-14 are 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 7 recites “A device”, but fails to set forth any structure in the claim for which the device is comprised of. “Characterized in that at least one burner for the combustion…combined with at least one plasma burner in a furnace facility” is not considered to be structure of the device. The claim does not state the “at least one burner” is part of the device.
The “combined with at least one plasma burner in a furnace facility” is not considered to be part of the device as the gas burner is improperly recited and it is not clear if the gas burner or the entire device is required to be combined.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "plasma burner" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. This limitation is not recited corrected to claim antecedent basis for “at least one plasma burner.”
Claim 9 does not recite a step in a method.
Regarding claims 10 and 11, applicant recites “only hydrogen”. However, hydrogen is not previously claimed.
Claims 10-14 are rejected due to their dependency on a rejected claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claim does not recite a step in a method. It is not clear if combining the gas burner with a plasma burner in a furnace facility is a step, or could be considered a step in a method.
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.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Esser et al (EP 0030935) with references made to applicant provided machine translation.
Regarding claim 7, Esser discloses, a metallurgical plasma melting furnace for melting metals and alloys, characterized in that, for each plasma burner (3), at least one starting-aid burner ( 4) for liquid or gaseous fuel is disposed adjacent to the plasma burner such that the hot gases of combustion enter the interior of the plasma melting furnace through the same opening in the furnace vessel as the plasma flare, the axes of the plasma burner (3) and of the starting-aid burner ( 4) form only a small angle to each other and intersect in the interior of the plasma melting furnace at the intersection point (5), the starting-aid burner (4) operating only at the start of melt-down (see also figure 1).
During the operation of the metallurgical plasma melting furnace, the starting-aid burners are ignited after the charging. These burners operate with full power immediately and each melt a crater into the feed material; the lower the bulk density of the feed material, the faster the melting, due to the smaller amount of heat required. If the melted crater is of sufficient size that the plasma burner can be operated in a technically safe manner, the plasma burner is ignited. The starting-aid burners are switched off at the latest when the crater formation is concluded, the combustion gas does not transmit any sensible heat to the dumped feed material and the exhaust gas temperatures rise significantly.
The invention should hereinafter be described in more detail on the basis of an exemplary embodiment, with reference to the enclosed schematic representation. The drawing is a cross-section through the plasma melting furnace at a feed-through 2 in the side wall 1. The other feed-throughs are completely analogous to the feed-through 2. In the feed-through 2, there is a conventional plasma burner 3 in a known arrangement. Above this plasma burner 3, a starting-aid burner 4 is mounted, which is operated with liquid or gaseous fuel. The longitudinal axes of the plasma burner 3 and of the starting-aid burner 4 intersect at the intersection point 5. After the charging, the plasma melting furnace is filled with light scrap 6. Thereafter, the starting-aid burner 4 is put into operation. After the effect of the starting-aid burner 4 has resulted in the formation of a crater sufficiently large that the plasma burner 3 can be safely ignited, the plasma burner starts up. The starting-aid burner 4 is switched off when the plasma burner 3 is operated at full power and the exhaust gas temperature as a measurement signal has reached a specific value.
Claim(s) 7, 9, 10, 13-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Romer et al (DE 102020106050) with references made to English Equivalent (US 2023/0021281).
Romer discloses, regarding claims 7 and 9, a method and a device for melting and refining glass, glass-ceramic or in particular glass which can be ceramized to form glass-ceramic, and to glass or glass-ceramic produced according to the method.
For this purpose, H2 burners, a burner for synthetically obtained or fossil methane (CH4), plasma flames, biogas and/or biofuel burners can be used for the additional heating means (paragraph [0044] or [0052]).
Figure 1 shows, by way of example, a plan view of a first exemplary embodiment seen from above, in which plan view the coverings or covers have been omitted for the sake of better understanding. The melting tank of the device 1 for melting glass or glass-ceramic is a fully electric melt-down tank and has a throughput of more than 10 to 200 t/d, and the device 2 for refining glass or glass-ceramic comprises a high-frequency refining tank (paragraphs [0081] to [0084]).
Figure 2 shows a cross-sectional representation of this first exemplary embodiment, in which representation the section runs in the vertical direction approximately at the center of the melting plant, thus approximately at the center of the device 1 melting glass or glass-ceramic and at the center of the device 2 for refining glass or glass-ceramic.
In the device 1 for melting glass or glass-ceramic, rod electrodes 3 for heating the melt are provided, while in the device 2 for refining glass or glass-ceramic one or more induction coils 10 form a high-frequency heating means for the glass within the skull crucible 11, said high-frequency heating means additionally being provided with an additional heating means, which comprises gas burners 4.
This additional heating means with the gas burners 4 can comprise one or more H2 burners, burners for synthetically obtained or produced methane (CH4), plasma flames, a biogas and/or biofuel burner.
Regarding claim 10, the temperature of the burner is increased to 1700oC. (See Paragraph [0044])
Regarding claims 13-14, the gas comprises methane, biogas, biofuel and combinations thereof. In the combination of these, one of them would be considered a catalyst for aiding. (See Claim 18)
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.
Claim(s) 8, 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Esser or Romer, in view of Uhm et al (US 2007/0007257).
The teachings of Esser or Romer have been discussed above. Both references fail to disclose the plasma burner being a microwave plasma burner.
Uhm discloses, generating a plasma using a microwave plasma burner. (See Abstract) It would have been obvious to adapt Esser or Romer in view of Uhm to provide the microwave plasma burner as this is an obvious variant of a plasma burner.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN W JENNISON whose telephone number is (571)270-5930. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 9-5.
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, Ibrahime Abraham can be reached at 571-270-5569. 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.
/BRIAN W JENNISON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights