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 Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
Heat transport device in claim 1, modified by the functional language of “configured to transport process heat from the regenerative thermal oxidation device to the second combustion chamber”, while not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
The Applicant’s PGPUB describes the heat transport device in para. 33, “The heat transport device 130 comprises one or more lines for transporting the process heat 103, and optionally one or more controllable means for setting the process heat 103 routed per time unit from the RTO device 110 to the second combustion chamber 120. Similarly, the heat transport device 130 may comprise one or more sensors for measuring the process heat 103 routed per time unit from the RTO device 110 to the second combustion chamber 120 and, if necessary, other parameters of the process heat 103.”
Fluid supply device in claim 4, modified by the functional language of “configured to supply the first fluid flow to the regenerative thermal oxidation device only after a first predetermined temperature has been reached in the first combustion chamber”, while not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
The Applicant’s PGPUB describes the fluid supply device in para. 67, “The fluid supply device 240 further comprises a control flap 245, which is configured to supply fresh air 206 to the first fluid flow 201 in a controlled and thus selective manner.”
Fluid supply device in claim 5, modified by the functional language of “configured to supply the second fluid flow to the second combustion chamber only after a second predetermined temperature has been reached in the second combustion chamber”, while not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
The Applicant’s PGPUB describes the fluid supply device in para. 68, “Via a second fluid supply device in the form of a control flap 260, a second fluid flow 202 different from the first fluid flow 201 may be supplied to the second combustion chamber 220.”
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 2, 5, 9, and 17 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.
Regarding claim 2. The phrase "in particular" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
For the purpose of substantive examination, Examiner will consider the claim as if not requiring the limitation following in particular.
Regarding claim 5. The claim recites, “… a fluid supply device for the first fluid flow, which is configured to supply the second fluid flow …” It is unclear how the claimed fluid supply device for the first fluid flow is configured to supply the second fluid flow.
For the purpose of substantive examination, Examiner will consider the claim as if reciting, “… a fluid supply device for the second fluid flow, which is configured to supply the second fluid flow …”
Regarding claim 9. The claim recites “… the bypass is configured to route the part of the flue gas …” Each of the bypass and the part of the flue gas lack antecedent basis.
For the purpose of substantive examination, Examiner will consider claim 9 as dependent upon claim 8, for which proper antecedent basis has been properly established for these limitations.
Regarding claim 17. The phrase "in particular" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
For the purpose of substantive examination, Examiner will consider the claim as if not requiring the limitation following in particular.
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) 1-2, 4-6, 8, 10-12, 15-17, and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by DE 102006034032 A1 to Noll, cited in Applicant’s 3/27/24 IDS.
Note: Reference is made to the attached translation of Noll.
Regarding claim 1. Noll teaches a fluid purification system (fig. 1) comprising:
a regenerative thermal oxidation device (thermal reactor 102) with a first combustion chamber (combustion chamber 104) and at least one regenerator (regenerators 106),
wherein the regenerative thermal oxidation device is configured to purify a first fluid flow by means of regenerative thermal oxidation (p. 5 para. 4, “The antechamber 108 every regenerator 106 is about one with a raw gas valve 136 provided raw gas branch line 138 with a raw gas supply line 140 connected by which the exhaust gas purification device 100 from an exhaust gas source (not shown), the exhaust gas to be purified, which is hereinafter referred to as raw gas, is supplied.”) and emit a first flue gas flow (p. 5 para. 5, “Furthermore, the antechamber 108 every regenerator 106 via one with a clean gas valve 142 Provided clean gas branch line 144 with a clean gas discharge line 146 connected by which the means of the exhaust gas purification device 100 Purified exhaust gas, which is referred to below as clean gas, to an exhaust chimney 148 is passed over which the clean gas is discharged to the environment.”);
a second combustion chamber separate from the regenerative thermal oxidation device (evaporation chamber 174, which can be seen as separate from the thermal reactor 102) which is configured to purify a second fluid flow different from the first fluid flow by means of thermal oxidation (p. 7 para. 4, “Further, the evaporation chamber 174 with a pilot burner 206 provided to provide for sudden and strong [Calorific Value Fluctuations] and / or lack of carrier gas amount required for the evaporation of the liquid medium evaporation energy or to be able to initiate a pre-reaction with partial burning of the organic substances contained in the liquid medium.”) and emit a second flue gas flow (p. 7 para. 8, “After passing the dust filter 216 The mixture of carrier gas and vaporized liquid medium passes through a to the lower end of the evaporation chamber 174 connected admixing line 222 which is upstream of the [Raw Gas Feed Blower] 158 into the raw gas supply line 140 flows there to mix there with the raw gas coming from the raw gas source.”),
wherein the second flue gas flow is discharged from the fluid purification system past the regenerative thermal oxidation device (as seen in fig. 1, the second flue gas 222 is discharged from the overall system after passing through and going past the thermal reactor 102, by being exhausted by the exhaust chimney 148); and
a heat transport device (carrier gas supply line 198, as interpreted under 112(f)) configured to transport process heat from the regenerative thermal oxidation device to the second combustion chamber to set a temperature in the second combustion chamber (p. 7 paras. 1-3, “For supplying a pure gas serving as a carrier gas from the combustion chamber 104 is the upper area of the interior 178 the evaporation chamber 174 via a carrier gas supply line 198 with the combustion chamber 104 of the thermoreactor 102 connected. In order to lower the temperature of the carrier gas, is also a [Raw gas proportioning line] 200 provided downstream of the raw gas supply fan 158 from the raw gas supply line 140 branches off and into the [Carrier gas supply line] 198 empties. In the [Raw gas proportioning line] 200 is a, for example, pneumatically controllable, control valve 202 provided by means of which the supply of raw gas through the [Raw gas proportioning line] 200 to the carrier gas in the carrier supply line 198 depending on the means of a temperature sensor 204 measured temperature of the mixture of carrier gas and raw gas in the [Carrier gas supply line] 198 , downstream of the confluence of the raw gas feed line 200 , is controllable.” Where the gas 198 having a controlled temperature is understood to at least partially set the temperature in the evaporation chamber 174).
PNG
media_image1.png
533
760
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2. Noll teaches the fluid purification system according to claim 1, wherein the temperature in the second combustion chamber is set at least substantially passively, the temperature of the gas in the carrier gas supply line 198 at least partially sets the temperature of the evaporation chamber 174).
Regarding claim 4. Noll teaches the fluid purification system according to claim 1, further comprising a fluid supply device for the first fluid flow (raw gas valve 136, as interpreted under 112(f)), which is configured to supply the first fluid flow to the regenerative thermal oxidation device only after a first predetermined temperature has been reached in the first combustion chamber (it is understood that the RTO would only supply raw gas when at operating conditions, otherwise the gas would not be purified).
Regarding claim 5. Noll teaches the fluid purification system according to claim 1, further comprising a fluid supply device for the second fluid flow (liquid medium pump 188, as interpreted under 112(f)), which is configured to supply the second fluid flow to the second combustion chamber only after a second predetermined temperature has been reached in the second combustion chamber (it is understood that the evaporation chamber 174 would only be supplied with the liquid to be evaporated when at a certain temperature, otherwise, the liquid would not be evaporated as intended).
Regarding claim 6. Noll teaches the fluid purification system according to claim 1, wherein the heat transport device is configured to transport the process heat in the form of flue gas from the regenerative thermal oxidation device to the second combustion chamber (carrier gas 198), and
wherein the flue gas flows through the second combustion chamber to set the temperature in the second combustion chamber (as noted above, the temperature of the carrier gas would at least partially affect the temperature of the evaporation chamber 174).
Regarding claim 8. Noll teaches the fluid purification system according to claim 6, wherein the heat transport device is configured to dissipate the flue gas from the first combustion chamber of the regenerative thermal oxidation device (carrier gas 198, where the carrier gas is flue gas) and/or from a bypass of the regenerative thermal oxidation device (optional limitation), and
wherein the bypass is configured to route a part of the flue gas past the at least one regenerator of the regenerative thermal oxidation device in a controlled manner (optional limitation).
Regarding claim 10. Noll teaches the fluid purification system according to claim 1, wherein the regenerative thermal oxidation device further comprises at least one burner (burner 116) configured to burn an additional fuel in a controlled manner in order to set a temperature in the first combustion chamber (fuel gas supply line 118, where the burner is understood to set the temperature of the first combustion chamber).
Regarding claim 11. Noll teaches the fluid purification system according to claim 10, wherein the at least one burner is configured to burn the additional fuel during heating of the regenerative thermal oxidation device to set the temperature in the first combustion chamber to a predetermined range of values (p. 4 para. 12, “Further, in the [Fresh air supply line] 120 and in the fuel gas supply line 118 motor or magnetically operated control valves 126 respectively. 128 provided by means of which the supply of fresh air or fuel gas to the combustion chamber 104 as a function of a combustion chamber temperature, by means of a temperature sensor 130 is measured, is controllable.” Thus the temperature of the RTO is set to a desired value),
wherein the regenerative thermal oxidation device comprises at least one outlet for dissipating flue gas (clean gas branch lines 144),
wherein the at least one regenerator is arranged between the at least one outlet and the first combustion chamber (regenerators 106 are between the combustion chamber 104 and the clean gas branch lines 144), and
wherein the at least one outlet is configured to generate a volume flow of the flue gas through the at least one regenerator for warming up the at least one regenerator after setting the temperature in the first combustion chamber to the predetermined range of values (exhaust mode of the regenerator 106).
Regarding claim 12. Noll teaches the fluid purification system according to claim 1, further comprising:
a first combustion air supply device configured to feed first combustion air into the first combustion chamber in a controlled manner (p. 4 paras. 10-11, “The burner 116 is also via a [Fresh air supply line] 120 supplied the required for the combustion process combustion air. In the fresh air supply line 120 are a fresh air intake fan 122 and a check valve 124 arranged.”); and/or
a second combustion air supply device configured to feed second combustion air into the second combustion chamber in a controlled manner (p. 7 para. 5, “The pilot burner 206 is a fuel gas via a fuel gas supply 208 and fresh air as an oxidant via a [Fresh air supply line] 210 fed.”).
Regarding claim 15. Noll teaches the fluid purification system according to claim 1, wherein the second fluid flow has a higher calorific value than the first fluid flow (not taught, p. 2 para. 7, “… low-calorific liquid residues and wastewater …”) and/or
wherein a pollutant concentration in the second fluid flow is higher than in the first fluid flow (optional limitation) and/or
wherein a volume flow of the second fluid flow is lower than a volume flow of the first fluid flow (optional limitation) and/or
wherein the second fluid flow contains at least one corrosive substance (optional limitation), one polluting substance (p. 2 para. 7, “… low-calorific liquid residues and wastewater …”) and/or one substance damaging the at least one regenerator (p. 2 para. 7, “… low-calorific liquid residues and wastewater …” where an unevaporated liquid is understood to damage a heated regenerator, per se).
Regarding claim 16. The claim is rejected using substantially the same rationale as applied to claim 1.
Regarding claim 17. The claim is rejected using substantially the same rationale as applied to claim 2.
Regarding claim 19. The claim is rejected using substantially the same rationale as applied to claims 4 and 5.
Regarding claim 20. Noll teaches the method according to claim 16, wherein setting the temperature in the second combustion chamber by means of process heat comprises:
transporting flue gas from the regenerative thermal oxidation device to the second combustion chamber (via carrier gas supply line 198),
flowing flue gas through the second combustion chamber to set the temperature in the second combustion chamber (the temperature in the evaporation chamber 174 is at least partially set by virtue of the carrier gas 198 flowing through it).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3, 7, 13-14, and 18 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 9 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 3. Noll, applied to claim 1, represents the closest prior art of record to the claimed invention. The prior art fails to teach, “wherein the heat transport device is configured to dissipate the process heat from the regenerative thermal oxidation device only after a predetermined temperature has been reached in the first combustion chamber”, in addition to the rest of the claim.
Instead, the carrier gas supply line 198 is not shown having any valves that could accomplish this. Furthermore, while p. 2 para. 8 describes the temperature of the mixture of carrier gas and vaporized liquid depending at least partially on the temperature of the carrier gas before entering the evaporation chamber, it does not disclose only providing the carrier gas at a minimum temperature, as claimed, and instead would have been understood to accomplish the evaporation of the liquid 186 by virtue of the heat provided by the pilot burner, see p. 7 para. 4, “Further, the evaporation chamber 174 with a pilot burner 206 provided to provide for sudden and strong [Calorific value fluctuations] and / or lack of carrier gas amount required for the evaporation of the liquid medium evaporation energy or to be able to initiate a pre-reaction with partial burning of the organic substances contained in the liquid medium.”
Regarding claim 18. The claim would be allowable for substantially the same reason as claim 3.
Regarding claim 7. Noll, applied to claim 6, represents the closest prior art of record to the claimed invention. The prior art fails to teach, “wherein the heat transport device is configured to set a volume flow of the flue gas transported from the regenerative thermal oxidation device to the second combustion chamber depending on the temperature in the second combustion chamber and/or a predetermined range of values to which the temperature in the second combustion chamber is to be set.”, in addition to the rest of the claim.
Instead, Noll teaches the carrier gas 198 being supplied below a maximum temperature and a supply of raw gas controlled based on that maximum temperature, p. 7 para. 2, “In order to lower the temperature of the carrier gas, is also a [Raw gas proportioning line] 200 provided downstream of the raw gas supply fan 158 from the raw gas supply line 140 branches off and into the [Carrier gas supply line] 198 empties.” Furthermore, it would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art control the volume of carrier gas, as claimed, since the volume of raw gas is controlled instead.
Regarding claim 9. Noll, applied to claim 8, represents the closest prior art of record to the claimed invention. The prior art fails to teach, “wherein the bypass is configured to route the part of the flue gas past the at least one regenerator of the regenerative thermal oxidation device during an over-autothermal operation of the regenerative thermal oxidation device.”, in addition to the rest of the claim.
Instead, Noll teaches the flue gas being routed back to an evaporation chamber 174, which is upstream of the RTO. Furthermore, it would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to route the flue gas pas the regenerator, as claimed, since that is opposite to what is desired.
Regarding claim 13. Noll, applied to claim 1, represents the closest prior art of record to the claimed invention. The prior art fails to teach, “further comprising an induced draft coupled to both the regenerative thermal oxidation device and the second combustion chamber and configured to generate at least the first flue gas flow from the regenerative thermal oxidation device and the second flue gas flow from the second combustion chamber to the induced draft.”, in addition to the rest of the claim.
Instead, Noll teaches a raw gas supply fan 158, which could at best only be considered as an induced draft coupled to the evaporation chamber 174, see location in fig. 1. Furthermore, since the admixing line 222 feeds solely into the RTO 102, it would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to arrange an induced draft to generate both the first and second flue gas flows to the induced draft, as claimed.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Kurt J Wolford whose telephone number is (571)272-9945. The examiner can normally be reached 6:30 AM - 4:00 PM.
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 G 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.
/KURT J WOLFORD/Examiner, Art Unit 3762 /MICHAEL G HOANG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3762
Prosecution Insights