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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: 67 (Figs. 1 and 7-9); Te (Figs. 1 and 7-8); 27 (Fig. 4); 84 (Fig. 9). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to because Fig. 7 includes reference number 74 in the upper right, pointing to circle Te. However 74 is described in the specification and shown in Fig. 6 as a crusher. 74 in Fig. 7 does not appear to be a crusher as disclosed. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-2 and 7 are objected to because of the following informalities (line numbers referenced as numbered on Applicant’s claim sheets):
Claim 1, line 15: “said evaporated water” should be --the evaporated water-- because the exact limitation has not been previously recited as such.
Claim 1, line 24, “said sensed temperature” should be --the sensed temperature-- because the exact limitation has not been previously recited as such.
Claim 2, line 26: “the flow volume” should be --a flow volume--. While a flow necessarily has some volume, a particular flow volume has not been previously recited.
Claim 7, line 11: The degree symbol has a line under it that should be removed.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 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 limitation "the amount of gas from said gas outlet" in line 21. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The claim has not recited any gas from the gas outlet, and it is unclear if this “gas” is the same as the “exhaust gas”, or if it is some other gas.
Claim 2 also recites the limitation "the flow of said gas from said gas outlet" in line 28. A particular “flow” has not been previously recited, and it is likewise unclear what “gas” is being referenced.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the speed of said driving force" in line 30. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. A driving force does not necessarily have a speed, and no speed has been previously recited.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "said sodium carbonate monohydrate" in lines 8-9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2 and 4-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harcuba ‘342 (US 4,684,342) in view of Pieper ‘891 (DE 19707891 A1 - English language translation provided herewith and referenced herein).
Regarding claim 1, as best the Examiner understands the claims, Harcuba ‘342 teaches:
a glass melting furnace configured to melt glass sample, the glass sample comprising glass batch material (glass tank 5, Fig. 1; column 2, lines 26-28, 37-39; column 3, lines 38-39; column 4, lines 61-64), said melting producing exhaust gas (column 2, lines 55-59; column 4, lines 26-28, 33-35)
a rotary drum heat exchanger (drum 10; column 3, lines 19-26) having a chamber containing said glass sample (inside 11 of drum 10, Fig. 1; column 4, lines 21-24) and at least one heat exchange tube in said chamber (pipe 31, Figs. 1-2) having a gas outlet (vent pipe 40, Fig. 1; column 3, lines 43-45)
said at least one heat exchange tube being in fluid communication with said exhaust gas so as to transfer heat from said exhaust gas in said at least one heat exchange tube to said glass sample in said chamber, to heat said glass sample and evaporate water from said glass sample to dry said glass sample, the evaporated water forming water vapor in said chamber (column 4, lines 26-68)
said chamber being in communication with said glass melting furnace for introduction of the dried glass sample into said glass melting furnace (Fig. 1; column 2, lines 26-28; column 3, lines 38-39; column 4, lines 61-64).
Harcuba ‘342 is silent regarding the glass batch comprising soda ash, or cullet, or post-consumer cullet, or any combination thereof. However, the glass sample and glass batch constitute material worked upon by the claimed apparatus, rather than a structure of the apparatus. It has been held that inclusion of the material worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims. See MPEP 2115.
Harcuba ‘342 is silent regarding volatilizing any organic impurities in the glass sample. Again, the glass sample, and any organic impurities therein, constitutes material worked upon by the claimed apparatus, rather than a structure of the apparatus. Further, such volatilizing would depend on the manner of operating the apparatus, rather than on specific structure of the apparatus, e.g., temperature of the exhaust gas and/or glass sample during use. It is considered that the apparatus of Harcuba ‘342 is capable of volatilizing any organic impurities in the glass sample.
Harcuba ‘342 is silent regarding the glass melting furnace burning fossil fuels. However, Harcuba ‘342 discusses in the background that pre-heating glass sample is done in melting furnaces generating combustion gases or flue gases. In analogous art of glass melting, Pieper ‘891 suggests heating a glass melting furnace with fossil fuels (¶ [0001], [0016], [0021]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Harcuba ‘342 by making it burn fossil fuels as a known fuel source for a glass melting furnace, as suggested by Pieper ‘891.
Harcuba ‘342 is silent regarding a controller in communication with a temperature sensor configured to sense the temperature of said exhaust gas and with a valve positioned to regulate an amount of gas from the gas outlet of the at least one heat exchange tube that is combined with the exhaust gas prior to the exhaust gas being introduced in the at least one heat exchange tube, the controller configured to activate the valve in response to the sensed temperature. In analogous art of glass sample pre-heating, Pieper ‘891 suggests a controller (controller 17a, regulator 14a) in communication with a temperature sensor (temperature measuring device 17) configured to sense the temperature of exhaust gas from glass melting (¶ [0022], [0023]), and in communication with a valve (control valves 5a, 7b) positioned to regulate an amount of gas from a gas outlet (exhaust pipe 5) of at least one heat exchange tube (product preheater 1) that is combined with the exhaust gas prior to the exhaust gas being introduced in the at least one heat exchange tube, the controller configured to activate the valve in response to the sensed temperature (¶ [0020], [0022], [0023]; Fig. 1) for the benefit of controlling a temperature of the gases passed into the at least one heat exchange tube, thereby preventing detrimental overheating of the glass sample in the at least one heat exchange tube (¶ [0006], [0013], [0023], [0027], [0028]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Harcuba ‘342 with a controller in communication with a temperature sensor configured to sense the temperature of said exhaust gas and with a valve positioned to regulate an amount of gas from the gas outlet of the at least one heat exchange tube that is combined with the exhaust gas prior to the exhaust gas being introduced in the at least one heat exchange tube, the controller configured to activate the valve in response to the sensed temperature for the benefit of controlling a temperature of the gases passed into the at least one heat exchange tube, thereby preventing detrimental overheating of the glass sample in the at least one heat exchange tube, as suggested by Pieper ‘891.
Regarding claim 2, Harcuba ‘342 is silent regarding a flow volume sensor positioned to sense a flow volume of said exhaust gas prior to said exhaust gas being introducing into said at least one heat exchange tube, and with a driving force for driving a flow of the gas from the gas outlet of said at least one heat exchange tube, said controller configured to control a speed of said driving force in response to the sensed flow volume. Pieper ‘891 suggests a controller (controller 17a, regulator 14a) as described above, and further suggests a flow volume sensor (pressure measuring probe 14) positioned to sense a flow volume of said exhaust gas prior to said exhaust gas being introducing into said at least one heat exchange tube (Fig. 1; ¶ [0024]), and with a driving force for driving a flow of the gas from the gas outlet of said at least one heat exchange tube (blower 7a, blower 13; ¶ [0023]-[0024]), said controller configured to control a speed of said driving force in response to the sensed flow volume (¶ [0023]-[0024]) for the benefit of controlling mixing of gases to achieve desired temperatures and maintaining a constant pressure in the furnace (¶ [0023]-[0024]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Harcuba ‘342 with a flow volume sensor positioned to sense a flow volume of said exhaust gas prior to said exhaust gas being introducing into said at least one heat exchange tube, and with a driving force for driving a flow of the gas from the gas outlet of said at least one heat exchange tube, said controller configured to control a speed of said driving force in response to the sensed flow volume for the benefit of controlling mixing of gases to achieve desired temperatures and maintaining a constant pressure in the furnace, as suggested by Pieper ‘891.
Regarding claims 4-5, Pieper ‘891 further suggests the controller receives a pre-determined temperature set point and actuates the valve such that said sensed temperature reaches the pre-determined set point (¶ [0023]).
Regarding claims 6-7, Harcuba ‘342 and Pieper ‘891 suggest the transfer of heat is capable of raising the temperature of the glass sample to above 109°C (Pieper ‘891 ¶ [0023]), which Applicant’s specification describes as the temperature range sufficient to dehydrate sodium carbonate monohydrate (specification p. 12).
Regarding claims 8-9, the glass sample constitutes material worked upon by the claimed apparatus, rather than a structure of the apparatus. It is considered that the apparatus of Harcuba ‘342 is capable of use with glass sample having a largest dimension not exceeding 25 mm or 15 mm.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harcuba ‘342 (US 4,684,342) and Pieper ‘891 (DE 19707891 A1 - English language translation provided herewith and referenced herein) in view of Trinks ‘571 (US 1,933,571).
Regarding claim 3, Pieper ‘891 further suggests the driving force comprises a fan which is controlled by the controller in order to control the flow of gases (blower 7a, blower 13; ¶ [0023]-[0024]), but does not specifically suggest that the fan has a variable speed motor, and the controller controls the speed of the motor. In analogous art of glass melting, Trinks ‘571 suggests utilizing a fan with a variable speed motor in order to control the flow of exhaust gases in a glass melting furnace (p. 2, right column, lines 96-98). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Harcuba ‘342 and Pieper ‘891 by making the fan motor be a variable speed motor, and the controller controlling the speed of the motor, as a known manner of controlling the flow of exhaust gases in a glass melting furnace, as suggested by Trinks ‘571.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harcuba ‘342 (US 4,684,342) and Pieper ‘891 (DE 19707891 A1 - English language translation provided herewith and referenced herein) in view of Bojner ‘517 (US 2,715,517).
Regarding claim 10, Harcuba ‘342 suggests an inner heat exchange tube (31, Fig. 1) and an outer heat exchange tube (13, Fig. 1), but is silent regarding spacing between the plurality of tubes. Harcuba ‘342 utilizes ribs and projections to increase heat exchange surface area in the heat exchanger (ribs 32, 36, projections 12a, Figs. 1-2; column 4, lines 1-10, 40-47). In analogous art of glass sample heating, Bojner ‘517 suggests a rotary drum heat exchanger (Figs. 1-4) having a plurality of spaced heat exchange tubes (tubes 1, Figs. 1-4) as an alternative manner of increasing heat exchange surface area in a heat exchanger, and specifically to increase heat exchange surface area of the material being treated in contact with the heated heat exchange tubes (column 1, lines 13-24, 24-26; column 3, lines 17-24). While Bojner ‘517 does not suggest specific spacing between the plurality of tubes, the motivation of Bojner ‘517 to optimize heat exchange surface area of the material being treated in contact with the heated heat exchange tubes would lead on of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing sate of the claimed invention to select an arrangement and spacing of the plurality of tubes to achieve desired heat exchange and flow of the material through the rotary drum heat exchange. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Harcuba ‘342 with a plurality of spaced heat exchange tubes, and to select a spacing between the plurality of tubes, as a manner of increasing heat exchange to the glass sample, and for the benefit of achieving desired heat exchange and flow of the glass sample through the rotary drum heat exchange, as suggested by Bojner ‘517.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harcuba ‘342 (US 4,684,342) and Pieper ‘891 (DE 19707891 A1 - English language translation provided herewith and referenced herein) in view of Kobayashi ‘206 (US 2017/0121206 A1).
Regarding claim 11, Harcuba ‘342 is silent regarding a regenerative heat exchange in communication with the rotary drum heat exchanger. In analogous art of glass melting, Kobayashi ’206 suggests a glass melting furnace with a regenerative heat exchanger and a glass sample direct and/or indirect heat exchanger, wherein exhaust gas from the melting furnace is fed to the regenerative heat exchanger and to the glass sample heat exchanger for the benefit of utilizing additional residual heat from the glass melting process and disposing of volatilized byproducts form the glass sample heating process (¶ [0003], [0009]-[0017], [0044]-[0045], [0050]-[0053], [0057]-[0058]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Harcuba ‘342 and Pieper ‘891 with a regenerative heat exchange in communication with the rotary drum heat exchanger or the benefit of utilizing additional residual heat from the glass melting process and disposing of volatilized byproducts form the glass sample heating process, as suggested by Kobayashi ‘206.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Erin Snelting whose telephone number is (571)272-7169. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 8:00 to 5:00.
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, Alison Hindenlang can be reached at (571) 270-7001. 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.
/ERIN SNELTING/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1741