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 Objections
Claims 20 and 21 are objected to because of the following informalities: in claim 20 at line 5, the claim recited “the first end portion”. There is no antecedent basis for this. The Examiner believes it should be “the first annular end portion”. Appropriate correction is required. Based on its dependence on claim 20, claim 21 is also objected to.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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) 13, 14, 16, 19, and 22-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ruhl (US 5609833 A).
Regarding claim 13, Ruhl teaches a premixing burner (FIG. 13, unit 100) intended to be mounted in a combustion chamber (FIG. 13, main combustion chamber 114), said burner being configured to be supplied with oxidant and with fuel (abstract, the assembly mixes oxygen and gaseous fuel), said burner comprising; a central annular shroud (see FIG. A below); and a peripheral annular shroud (see FIG. A below), the central shroud being positioned inside the peripheral shroud so as to form an annular space between said central and peripheral shrouds (FIG. A, the central and peripheral annular shrouds are positioned so as to form a space between them), the burner comprising at least one injection of fuel and at least one injection of oxidant into the annular space so as to premix the fuel and the oxidant in said annular space (FIG. 13, mixed fuel and oxygen cycle through the main combustion chamber 114 and enters the space between shrouds), wherein the central shroud comprises a first angled portion defining a central angle with a central longitudinal axis of said burner, wherein the peripheral shroud comprises a second angled portion defining a peripheral angle with the central longitudinal axis of said burner, the central angle being between zero degrees and the degree of the peripheral angle (FIG. A, the central shroud forms an angle with the horizontal axis of the assembly, the peripheral shroud forms an angle with the horizontal axis of the assembly, and the central shroud angle is between zero degrees and the peripheral shroud angle), and wherein the first angled portion and the second angled portion define a convergent zone such that the fuel and oxidant are oriented in the direction of the central longitudinal axis (FIG. 13, the passageway that the shrouds lead into have a horizontal wall shape that orients the mix parallel to the horizontal axis).
PNG
media_image1.png
600
528
media_image1.png
Greyscale
FIG. A
Regarding claim 14, Ruhl teaches that the peripheral angle and the central angle are measured counterclockwise (FIG. A, using a protractor, one could measure the angles mentioned above from top to bottom (i.e., counterclockwise)).
Regarding claim 16, Ruhl teaches that the central shroud comprises a first linear portion (see FIG. B below) substantially parallel to the central longitudinal axis located upstream of the first portion angled in the direction of travel of the oxidant (see FIG. B below), wherein the peripheral shroud comprises a second linear portion (see FIG. B below) substantially parallel to the central longitudinal axis located upstream of the second angled portion (see FIG. B below), said second linear portion being arranged opposite the first linear portion (see FIG. B below), wherein the annular space comprises a linear premixing zone delimited transversely by the first linear portion and the second linear portion (FIG. B, the space between the two linear portions), said linear premixing zone having a linear length measured along the central longitudinal axis (FIG. B, the horizontal length of the space between the two linear portions up until the end of the first linear portion) and a spacing measured between the first linear portion of the central shroud and the second linear portion of the peripheral shroud in a direction perpendicular to the central longitudinal axis (FIG. B, the vertical distance between the two linear portions), said spacing being constant along the linear length (FIG. B, the spacing is constant along the length of the first linear portion), said linear premixing zone being delimited longitudinally by a proximal end located on the side of the convergent zone and by a distal end opposite the proximal end along the central longitudinal axis (FIG. B, the space has two ends).
PNG
media_image2.png
372
317
media_image2.png
Greyscale
FIG. B
Regarding claim 19, Ruhl teaches that the linear premixing zone is fluidly connected to an oxidant supply (FIG. 13, the premixing zone receives both fuel and oxidant).
Regarding claim 22, Ruhl teaches a combustion chamber (FIG. 13, combustion chamber 114) delimited laterally by a wall (FIG. 13, facing 106), said wall comprising an opening (FIG. 13, the hole in the facing 106 in which the burner 110 rests) through which the burner can be inserted into said combustion chamber (FIG. 13), wherein a longitudinal end of the peripheral shroud is located in the combustion chamber and is arranged at a first insertion length measured from the opening and along the central longitudinal axis (FIG. 113, the shroud of FIG. A rests a particular length away from the opening in facing 106).
Regarding claim 23, Ruhl teaches that the burner comprises fuel injection devices arranged in the peripheral shroud (FIG. 13, the fuel and oxidant come into the leftmost space through the peripheral shroud), said fuel injection devices being able to inject fuel through an injection end (the portion out of which the mixture comes), the longitudinal end and the injection end being separated from one another by an offset length of between zero and the first insertion length measured along the central longitudinal axis (FIG. 13, the point at which the mixture is injected is located between the facing 106 and the rightmost end of the peripheral shroud), the injection end being arranged upstream of the longitudinal end in the direction of travel of the oxidant (FIG. 13, the point at which the mixture is injected is located between the facing 106 and the rightmost end of the peripheral shroud).
Regarding claim 24, Ruhl teaches that two fuel injection devices (FIG. 13, the two points at the top and bottom at which fuel and oxidant are reintroduced to the mixer) arranged in opposed position by a center of the burner are separated by a distance (FIG. 13), wherein each fuel injection device has an injection diameter (every injector has a diameter), said distance being between a summed distance of the second end diameter of the second end portion of the peripheral shroud and the injection diameter and a distance from the wall corresponding to an equivalent diameter of said wall and the injection diameter (FIG. 13, the injectors are separated by a length defined by the dimensions of the assembly).
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) 15, 17, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ruhl as applied to claims 13, 14, 16, 19, and 22-24 above.
Regarding claim 15, Ruhl fails to teach that the peripheral angle is between 30 degrees and 70 degrees.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to make the angle between the peripheral shroud and a horizontal axis shown in FIG. A between 30 and 70 degrees, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art (Ruhl, FIG. A, shows an angle between 90 and 0 degrees), discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves (MPEP 2144.05 II. A) only routine skill in the art.
In addition, it is observed that shroud angle is a result effective variable because affects how the fuel and oxygen mix. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to make the angle between the peripheral shroud and a horizontal axis shown in FIG. A between 30 and 70 degrees, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)).
Regarding claim 17, Ruhl fails to teach that the linear length is at least equal to 3 times said spacing.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to make the length of the linear portions of FIG. B at least 3 times the vertical distance between the linear portions, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art (Ruhl, FIG. B, shows a length and distance of different values), discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves (MPEP 2144.05 II. A) only routine skill in the art.
In addition, it is observed that this ratio is a result effective variable because affects how the fuel and oxygen mix. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to make the length of the linear portions of FIG. B at least 3 times the vertical distance between the linear portions, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)).
Regarding claim 18, Ruhl teaches a fuel injection system arranged in the linear premixing zone at a fuel injection distance measured from the distal end (FIG. 13, as illustrated by the leftmost arrows, fuel and oxidant are injected into the mixing zone of FIG. B).
Ruhl fails to teach the fuel injection distance being at least equal to 0.5 times said spacing.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to make the fuel injection distance at least equal to 0.5 times said spacing, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art (Ruhl, FIG. B, the fuel and oxidant are injected with some spatial relation to the ends of the zone), discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves (MPEP 2144.05 II. A) only routine skill in the art.
In addition, it is observed that this ratio is a result effective variable because affects how the fuel and oxygen mix. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to make the fuel injection distance at least equal to 0.5 times said spacing, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)).
Claim(s) 20 and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ruhl as applied to claims 13, 14, 16, 19, and 22-24 above in further view of Miller (US 20170356645 A1).
Regarding claim 20, Ruhl fails to teach that the central shroud comprises a first annular end portion defining a first end diameter and arranged downstream of the first portion angled in the direction of movement of the oxidant, wherein the peripheral shroud comprises a second end portion defining a second end diameter and arranged downstream of the second portion angled in the direction of travel of the oxidant, wherein the first end portion and the second end portion are substantially parallel to the longitudinal central axis of the burner and together define an end duct capable of ejecting at least part of the fuel/oxidant mixture from the burner in a direction substantially parallel to the longitudinal central axis.
However, Miller teaches that the central shroud comprises a first annular end portion (FIG. 1, the rightmost straight portion of second tile structure 42) defining a first end diameter (FIG. 1, the diameter of the second tile structure 42) and arranged downstream of the first portion angled in the direction of movement of the oxidant (FIG. 1), wherein the peripheral shroud comprises a second end portion (FIG. 1, the rightmost straight portion of first tile structure 40) defining a second end diameter (FIG. 1, the diameter of the first tile structure 40) and arranged downstream of the second portion angled in the direction of travel of the oxidant (FIG. 1), wherein the first end portion and the second end portion are substantially parallel to the longitudinal central axis of the burner and together define an end duct capable of ejecting at least part of the fuel/oxidant mixture from the burner in a direction substantially parallel to the longitudinal central axis (FIG. 1, the rightmost straight portions propel mixture out parallel to a central horizontal axis).
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the teachings of Ruhl by including a straight portion at the end of the portions of FIG. A, as taught by Miller, with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention. At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Ruhl with these aforementioned teachings of Miller with the motivation of further inducing turbulent flow for mixing by having exiting gas hit an angled wall.
Regarding claim 21, the combination of Ruhl and Miller teaches that the first end portion has a first end length measured along the longitudinal axis, wherein the second end portion has a second end length measured along the central longitudinal axis (Miller, FIG. 1, the straight portions each have a length).
The combination of Ruhl and Miller fails to teach the first end length being less than or equal to the second end length.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to make the first end length less than or equal to the second end length, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art (Miller, FIG. 1, the straight portions each habe a length), discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves (MPEP 2144.05 II. A) only routine skill in the art.
In addition, it is observed that this ratio is a result effective variable because affects how the fuel and oxygen mix. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to make the first end length less than or equal to the second end length, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM C. WEINERT whose telephone number is (571)272-6988. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00-5:00 ET.
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.
/WILLIAM C WEINERT/Examiner, Art Unit 3762
/Allen R. B. Schult/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3762
Prosecution Insights