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 .
DETAILED ACTION
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:
Claim 2 recites “a flow control device for adjusting a flow rate of hot gas generated in the cooling device”. This uses the nonce term device modified with functional language “flow control” and “for adjusting a flow rate of hot gas generated in the cooling device”. This is interpreted as a flap per Paragraph 0075. The same interpretation will be used in claims, 7, 8, 16, and 26.
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 1-24 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 1 recites “wherein the hot gas line system for supplying the hot gas generated in the cooling device communicates through at least one quaternary air hot gas line with at least one raw gas line in the raw gas line system”. It is unclear how there can be multiple fourth air hot gas lines. It is unclear if quaternary requires three other lines of the same type or is simply a label. For examination purposes Examiner will consider this to be a label. The same issue occurs in claim 15.
Claim 9 recites “SCNR”. It is unclear what this comprises. It is also noted that the abbreviation has not been established in a claim from which this depends. For examination purposes Examiner will consider this to mean SNCR per the abbreviation in claim 8.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-7, 10-17, 22-27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. PGPUB 20080038682 to Erpelding et al. (Erpelding) in view of WO2019016029 to Stender et al. (Stender).
Regarding claims 1, Erpelding teaches a heat exchanger (1, Figure 1 and 3) that is connected to a calciner (4, Figures 1 and 3), wherein the input material can be continuously supplied to the calciner via the heat exchanger (shown in Figures 1-3) for heating in order to transform the input material into an intermediate product (This is considered intended use. Additionally the raw meal, 2, is heated by the heat exchanger), a kiln for converting the intermediate product into the process product by thermal treatment (3, Figures 1-3), wherein raw gas is produced from converting the intermediate product into the process product (This is considered intended use. Additionally clinkers are formed per the disclosure), a raw gas line system having a first raw gas line (2 and/or 50, Figure 2) which extends from the kiln to the calciner and through which the raw gas can flow from the kiln into the calciner (shown in Figures 1-3), a cooling device (12, Figures 1 and 3) for cooling the process product after the thermal treatment in the kiln by transferring heat from the process product to a cooling gas containing oxygen, as a result of which a hot gas containing oxygen is generated (this is considered intended use), and a waste air purification device (5, Figure 3) for oxidizing raw gas, which is connected to the calciner via the raw gas line system (shown in Figure 3), wherein a hot gas line system which is used for supplying hot gas generated from the cooling device to the raw gas line system is attached to the raw gas line system (dotted lines extending from 12, Figure 1-3), wherein the hot gas line system for supplying the hot gas generated in the cooling device communicates through at least one quaternary air hot gas line with at least one raw gas line in the raw gas line system (multiple connections at least at 44 or 45 shown in Figures 1-3), through which raw gas from the heat exchanger can flow into the waste air purification device (flowpath from 1 leads to 5, Figures 1 and 3).
Erpelding is silent on wherein the waste air purification device is a regenerative thermal oxide (RTO) device for regenerative thermal raw gas oxidation.
Stender teaches wherein the waste air purification device is a regenerative thermal oxide (RTO) device for regenerative thermal raw gas oxidation (10, Figure 2 is disclosed as an RTO). 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 the teachings of Erpelding with the teachings of Stender to provide wherein the waste air purification device is a regenerative thermal oxide (RTO) device for regenerative thermal raw gas oxidation. Doing so would prevent harmful gasses from escaping the device and/or provide an equivalent alternative.
Regarding claim 2, Erpelding teaches wherein the quaternary air hot gas line includes a flow control device (Paragraph 0028) for adjusting a flow rate of hot gas generated in the cooling device through the quaternary air hot gas line, to adjust temperature and/or oxygen content of the raw gas flowing through the at least one raw gas line to the waste air purification device, in such a way that the raw gas is prevented from igniting locally in the raw gas line system (this is considered intended use).
Regarding claim 3, the modified device of Erpelding teaches wherein the at least one raw gas line connects the heat exchanger to a raw gas cooling device arranged in the raw gas line system to cool the raw gas supplied to the waste air purification device (11, Figures 1 and 3 per Erpelding. The gas supplied to the purification device is cooled after it is purified. This is also shown at 56 of Stender in Figure 2).
Regarding claim 5, Erpelding is silent on wherein the at least one quaternary air hot gas line opens into a raw gas line in the raw gas line system, which is used to supply raw gas cooled in the raw gas cooling device to the waste air purification device.
Stender teaches wherein the at least one quaternary air hot gas line opens into a raw gas line in the raw gas line system, which is used to supply raw gas cooled in the raw gas cooling device to the waste air purification device (56, Figure 2). 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 the teachings of Erpelding with the teachings of Stender to provide wherein the at least one quaternary air hot gas line opens into a raw gas line in the raw gas line system, which is used to supply raw gas cooled in the raw gas cooling device to the waste air purification device. Doing so would allow the temperature of the gas to be controlled prior to purification.
Regarding claim 6, Erpelding teaches wherein the hot gas line system for supplying the hot gas generated in the cooling device to the calciner has a tertiary air hot gas line which is connected to the first raw gas line, so that hot gas generated in the cooling device can be supplied through the calciner to the heat exchanger (44 or 45, Figure 2, whichever was not called out previously).
Regarding claim 7, Erpelding teaches wherein a flow control device (Paragraph 0028) for adjusting a quantity of hot gas supplied to the calciner through the tertiary air hot gas line such that carbon monoxide is generated during combustion in the calciner (this is considered intended use).
Regarding claim 10, Erpelding teaches a separating device for separating solids from the raw gas flowing from the heat exchanger into the waste air purification device (20, Figure 3).
Regarding claim 11, Erpelding teaches wherein the separating device is a filter, as a particle separator or a cyclone for filtering out solid particles from a gaseous fluid (20 is a dust removal means which is at least a filter and/or a particle separator)
Regarding claim 12, Erpelding teaches characterized by wherein at least one device to adjust a quantity of hot gas flowing through the hot gas line system per unit of time (Paragraph 0028).
Regarding claim 13, Erpelding teaches wherein the kiln is a rotary kiln (Paragraph 0030).
Regarding claim 14, Erpelding teaches in a cement plant for converting input material in the form of crushed limestone mixed with aggregates into clinker (this is considered intended use. The device produces clinkers).
Regarding claim 15, the structure taught in claim 1 in its ordinary operation would perform the method of claim 15.
Regarding claim 16, the structure taught in claim 2 in its ordinary operation would perform the method of claim 16 and it is noted that the device in its normal operation is not on fire.
Regarding claim 17, the structure taught in claim 1 in its ordinary operation would perform the method of claim 17 because an RTO has regenerators.
Regarding claim 22, the modified device of Erpelding teaches wherein solid particles are separated from the raw gas before it is supplied into the device for the regenerative thermal oxidation of raw gas (58, Figure 2 of Stender is upstream of the rto and Erpelding teaches a dust removal means 20 prior to a gas purification unit).
Regarding claims 23, the modified device of Erpelding teaches wherein the input material is crushed limestone mixed with aggregates and an end product is clinker (Stender discloses limestone which in its normal use would include aggregates and additionally Erpelding teaches cement clinker production which in its normal use would include limestone and aggregates).
Regarding claims 24 and 27, the modified device of Erpelding teaches wherein carbon monoxide is produced in the calciner (Stender explicitly discloses carbon monoxide which is a known product of the processes used in both Erpelding and Stender).
Regarding claim 25, the structure taught in claim 2 in its ordinary operation would perform the method of claim 25 and additionally teaches clinker production up to approximately 1450 degrees C (Paragraph 0037 discloses 850C).
Regarding claim 26, the structure taught in claims 2 and 16 in its ordinary operation would perform the method of claim 26.
Claim(s) 9 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Erpelding in view of Stender and U.S. PGPUB 20120315590 to Hansen et al. (Hansen).
Regarding claim 9, Erpelding is silent on wherein an SCNR device is arranged in the calciner.
Hansen teaches wherein an SCNR device is arranged in the calciner (shown in at least Figure 4 and throughout the following Figures). 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 the teachings of Erpelding with the teachings of Hansen to provide wherein an SCNR device is arranged in the calciner. Doing so would reduce NOX emissions.
Regarding claim 20, the structure taught in claim 9 in its ordinary operation would perform the method of claim 20.
Claim(s) 4 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Erpelding in view of Stender and U.S. PGPUB 20110159449 to Salmento (Salmento).
Regarding claim 4, Erpelding is silent on wherein an organic rankine cycle (ORC) system is arranged in the raw gas line system, to which raw gas can be supplied from the heat exchanger through the at least one raw gas line and hot gas can be supplied from the at least one quaternary air hot gas line, in order to convert the heat entrained therein into mechanical and/or electrical energy.
Salmento teaches wherein an organic rankine cycle (ORC) system is arranged in the raw gas line system, to which raw gas can be supplied from the heat exchanger through the at least one raw gas line and hot gas can be supplied from the at least one quaternary air hot gas line, in order to convert the heat entrained therein into mechanical and/or electrical energy (Paragraphs 0020 and 0026). 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 the teachings of Erpelding with the teachings of Salmento to provide wherein an organic rankine cycle (ORC) system is arranged in the raw gas line system, to which raw gas can be supplied from the heat exchanger through the at least one raw gas line and hot gas can be supplied from the at least one quaternary air hot gas line, in order to convert the heat entrained therein into mechanical and/or electrical energy. Doing so would increase the energy efficiency of the device.
Regarding claim 19, the structure taught in claim 4 in its ordinary operation would perform the method of claim 19.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8, 18, 21 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 and correcting any 112 issues.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEVEN S ANDERSON II whose telephone number is (571)272-2055. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5.
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, Michael Hoang can be reached at 574-272-6460. 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.
/STEVEN S ANDERSON II/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3762
