DETAILED ACTION
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 1-11 and 14-18 and 20 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 “…the burner including…a combustion air conduit coupled at a first end to an opening in the flange on a side of the flange opposite the burner and configured to supply…” [claim 1 lines 6-13], since the combustion air conduit is claimed as part of the burner it cannot be located opposite the burner. For the purposes of examination the claim is interpreted as “…the burner including…a combustion air conduit coupled at a first end to an opening in the flange
Claims 2-11 are rejected on the basis of their dependency from claim 1.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "the reducing" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 14 directly depends on claim 12, which does not require a reducing step.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "the reducing" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 15 directly depends on claim 12, which does not require a reducing step.
Claim 16 recites the limitation "the reducing" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 16 directly depends on claim 12, which does not require a reducing step.
Claim 17 recites the limitation "the reducing" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 17 directly depends on claim 12, which does not require a reducing step.
Claim 18 is rejected on the basis of its dependency on claim 17.
Claim 20 recites the limitation "the reducing" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 20 directly depends on claim 12, which does not require a reducing step.
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) 1-5 and 8-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Jones et. al (US 2002/0197574 A1).
With respect to claim 1 Jones discloses a horizontally-fired burner system1, comprising: a flange [reference character 20] configured to be mounted to an opening of a flame tube or combustion chamber [the combustion chamber is downstream of furnace wall 12] and structured to support a burner [reference character 10] within the flame tube or combustion chamber; a burner mounted to the flange and configured to extend into the flame tube or combustion chamber [see Fig. 3], the burner including: a mixing tube [reference character 42] extending transverse to the flange and having a proximal inlet [see annotated Fig. below] and a distal outlet [at the discharge end of 38], and a plurality of main fuel nozzles [see multiple apertures in 54, each interpreted as a nozzle] positioned adjacent to the proximal inlet of the mixing tube and configured to introduce main fuel into the mixing tube via the proximal inlet; a combustion air conduit [reference character 14] coupled at a first end to an opening in the flange on a side of the flange opposite the burner2 and configured to supply combustion air through the flange to the proximal inlet of the mixing tube [see Fig. 1]; and a second plurality of main fuel nozzles [reference character 82] positioned within the combustion air conduit and configured to introduce main fuel into a combustion air flow upstream of the main fuel nozzle and the proximal inlet of the mixing tube.
PNG
media_image1.png
518
613
media_image1.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 2 Jones discloses a pilot burner [paragraph 0045] positioned adjacent to the distal outlet of the mixing tube and configured to ignite a mixture of combustion air and main fuel flowing from the distal outlet3.
With respect to claim 3 Jones discloses a first main fuel source [reference character 46] operatively coupled to and configured to supply main fuel to the first plurality of main fuel nozzles.
With respect to claim 4 Jones discloses a second main fuel source [reference character 84] operatively coupled to and configured to supply main fuel to the second plurality of main fuel nozzles.
With respect to claim 5 Jones discloses an annular fuel gallery [reference character 77] disposed around the combustion air conduit and configured to supply main fuel to the second plurality of main fuel nozzles.
With respect to claim 8 Jones discloses that the proximal inlet of the mixing tube has a flared shape and the first plurality of main fuel nozzles is arranged in a radially symmetrical pattern concentric with the proximal inlet [see Fig. 1].
With respect to claim 9 Jones discloses a blower [reference character 24] having an output coupled to a second end of the combustion air conduit and configured to blow combustion air through the combustion air conduit to the burner.
With respect to claim 10 Jones discloses a main fuel pipe [reference character 24] coupled to the annular fuel gallery and configured to supply main fuel to the annular gallery and the second plurality of main fuel nozzles.
With respect to claim 11 Jones discloses that the flange and burner are configured to be horizontally fired [paragraph 0017].
Claim(s) 12-16 and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Jones et. al (US 2002/0197574 A1).
With respect to claim 12 Jones discloses a start-up method for a horizontally-fired burner system, comprising: introducing a flow of combustion air [see “combustion air” in Fig. 1] into a mixing tube [reference character 42] of a horizontally-fired burner [see paragraph 0017], positioned in a flame tube or combustion chamber [combustion chamber is downstream of 12], via a combustion air conduit [reference character 14] and a proximal inlet of the mixing tube [see annotated Fig. below]; introducing a first flow of main fuel [see “primary fuel gas” in Fig. 1] into the proximal inlet of the mixing tube via a first plurality of main fuel nozzles [see multiple apertures in 54, each interpreted as a nozzle] positioned adjacent to the proximal inlet; igniting a combustion reaction near a distal outlet of the mixing tube [see paragraph 0045], supported by a mixture of fuel and air; and introducing a second flow of main fuel [see “secondary fuel gas” in Fig. 1] into the combustion air conduit via a second plurality of main fuel nozzles [reference character 82] positioned upstream of the first plurality of main fuel nozzles and the proximal inlet.
PNG
media_image1.png
518
613
media_image1.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 13 Jones discloses that during or after introducing the second flow of main fuel, reducing a volume of the first flow of main fuel into the mixing tube. Note that Jones provides a primary fuel gas valve [reference character 48] for regulating the flow of primary fuel gas [see paragraph 0021], and although Jones does not explicitly disclose reducing a volume of first flow of main fuel into the mixing tube a person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that after the system is started, as shown in Fig. 1, it must eventually be shut off, which would require reducing to zero the volume of the first flow of main fuel into the mixing tube, therefore the method step is interpreted as being implicit to the operation of the burner.
With respect to claim 14 Jones discloses that the reducing the volume of the first flow of main fuel into the mixing tube includes completely stopping the first flow of main fuel into the mixing tube. Note that Jones provides a primary fuel gas valve [reference character 48] for regulating the flow of primary fuel gas [see paragraph 0021], and although Jones does not explicitly disclose reducing a volume of first flow of main fuel into the mixing tube a person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that after the system is started, as shown in Fig. 1, it must eventually be shut off, which would require reducing to zero the volume of the first flow of main fuel into the mixing tube, therefore the method step is interpreted as being implicit to the operation of the burner.
With respect to claim 15 Jones discloses that the reducing the volume of the first flow of main fuel into the mixing tube includes reducing the first flow of main fuel until a ratio of the volumes of the first flow relative to the second flow is approximately 40:60 [see paragraph 0043, where “…the fuel gas used to form the primary fuel gas-air mixture in the burner apparatus 10…is in the range of from about 5% to about 50% by volume of the total fuel gas discharged into the furnace”4].
With respect to claim 16 Jones discloses that the reducing the volume of the first flow of main fuel into the mixing tube includes reducing the first flow of main fuel until a ratio of the volumes of the first flow relative to the second flow is approximately 50:50 [see paragraph 0043, where “…the fuel gas used to form the primary fuel gas-air mixture in the burner apparatus 10…is in the range of from about 5% to about 50% by volume of the total fuel gas discharged into the furnace”5].
With respect to claim 21 Jones discloses prior to performing the introducing the first flow of main fuel: providing a pilot fuel supply to a pilot burner positioned adjacent to the distal outlet of the mixing tube [see paragraph 0017]; and igniting the pilot fuel at the pilot burner [see paragraph 0017]. Jones discloses a pilot light assembly, a source of gas for the assembly, and a dedicated igniter. A person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the pilot burner must be near the distal outlet of the burner to achieve ignition and must be ignited prior to establishing fuel flow through the burner in order to prevent the accumulation of an explosive mixture. These operations are interpreted as intrinsic to the operation of a burner ignited by a pilot light and would be recognized as such by a person having ordinary skill in the art.
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) 22-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jones et. al (US 2002/0197574 A1) in view of Smirnov et. al (US 2014/0080072 A1).
With respect to claim 22 Jones does not disclose that after performing the igniting the combustion reaction: reducing flow of the pilot fuel supply to the pilot burner.
Smirnov discloses a burner outlet [reference character 24] and a pilot burner [reference character 129] with a pilot flame [reference character 124] where “[o]nce the furnace/radiant tube has reached the desired temperature, the controller can turn off the pilot flame…” [paragraph 0044].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing date of the invention to modify the method taught by Jones by shutting off fuel to the pilot burner when the combustion chamber reaches the desired temperature, as taught by Smirnov, in order to conserve fuel and not contribute to excess emissions.
With respect to claim 23 Jones does not disclose that after performing the igniting the combustion reaction: stopping the pilot fuel supply to the pilot burner after the flame from the main fuel is stabilized.
Smirnov discloses a burner outlet [reference character 24] and a pilot burner [reference character 129] with a pilot flame [reference character 124] where “[o]nce the furnace/radiant tube has reached the desired temperature, the controller can turn off the pilot flame…” [paragraph 0044].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing date of the invention to modify the method taught by Jones by shutting off fuel to the pilot burner when the combustion chamber reaches the desired temperature, as taught by Smirnov, in order to conserve fuel and not contribute to excess emissions.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 19 is 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VIVEK K SHIRSAT whose telephone number is (571)272-3722. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00AM-5:20AM.
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.
/VIVEK K SHIRSAT/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3762
1 See paragraph 0017 “[a]s will be understood by those skilled in the art, gas burner apparatus can be mounted vertically, horizontally or at angles without affecting the burner operation” [paragraph 0017].
2 See 112(b) rejection above.
3 A person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the pilot burner must be near the distal outlet of the burner to achieve ignition and must be ignited prior to establishing fuel flow through the burner in order to prevent the accumulation of an explosive mixture. These operations are interpreted as intrinsic to the operation of a burner ignited by a pilot light and would be recognized as such by a person having ordinary skill in the art.
4 A 5:95-50:50 ratio of first flow to second flow, which encompasses the claimed ratio.
5 A 5:95-50:50 ratio of first flow to second flow, which encompasses the claimed ratio.
Prosecution Insights