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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of group II, claims 13-20, in the reply filed on 5/22/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 1-12 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 5/22/2026.
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 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) 13-17 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsushita et al. (US 4,045,292), hereafter referred to as Matsushita, in view of 40 CFR 63.7296 (Jan. 20, 2021).
With regard to claim 13: Matsushita teaches a method for monitoring a coke oven batter system including a coke oven battery, a stack, a fuel (fuel gas) supply, and a combustion air supply (Figure 1, Column 2 Line 65-Column 3 Line 25, Column 3 Line 39-Column 4 Line 65, Column 5 Lines 50-68), the method comprising:
Receiving an input from a plurality of sensors (e.g. waste gas analyzers) (Figure 1, Column 2 Line 65-Column 3 Line 25, Column 3 Line 39-Column 4 Line 65, Column 5 Lines 50-68).
And controlling the fuel supply (i.e. the flow rate of fuel gas) to the coke oven battery and a flow rate of fluid through the stack (i.e. the stack draft) (Figure 1, Column 2 Line 65-Column 3 Line 25, Column 3 Line 39-Column 4 Line 65, Column 5 Lines 50-68).
It is implicit that controlling the fuel supply will, at times, involve increasing the fuel supply. Likewise, it is implicit that controlling the flow rate of fluid through the stack (i.e. the stack draft) will, at times, involve decreasing said flow rate.
In the unlikely alternative, Matsushita’s teachings to control of fuel supply (flow rate of fuel gas) and flow rate of fluid through the stack (stack draft) would, to one of ordinary skill in the art, suggest that the method should comprise increasing fuel supply and decreasing stack flow rate (draft) if and when necessary to maintain the desired conditions within the coke oven battery.
Matsushita is silent to determining that an opacity of the stack is less than a first predetermined threshold.
However, since at least January 2021, emissions opacity from coke oven battery stacks have been regulated to a first threshold of a “Daily average of 15 percent opacity for a battery on a normal coking cycle,” 40 CFR 63.7296(a) (Jan. 20, 2021).
Accordingly, a person having ordinary skill in the art a would have been compelled, before the effective filing date, to determine that an opacity of the stack, i.e. the opacity of waste gas issuing therefrom, is less than a first predetermined threshold, daily average of 15 percent opacity, in order to ensure compliance with federal regulations.
With regard to claim 14: Matsushita teaches maintaining a target excess air ratio by correcting stack draft in response to a target excess air ratio and a measured excess air ratio, wherein the measured excess air ratio is calculated based on oxygen levels in the exhaust fluid as determined by a sensor (O2 analyzer) (Column 5 Lines 50-68). Accordingly, it is understood that Matsushita’s method implicitly comprises a step of determining if an oxygen level of in of an exhaust fluid from the coke oven battery (combustion waste gases) is less than, equal to, or above a third predetermined threshold, said third predetermined threshold being an oxygen level corresponding to that of the target excess air ratio.
In the unlikely alternative, Matsushita’s teachings to control of stack draft based on a target excess air ratio and a measured excess air ratio would, to one of ordinary skill in the art, suggest that the oxygen level measured by the sensor should be analyzed to determine whether or not said oxygen level is below, above, or equal to a third predetermined threshold corresponding to the target excess air ratio.
Matsushita is silent to determining that the opacity of the stack is greater than the first predetermined threshold and a second predetermined threshold greater than the first.
However, since at least January 2021, emissions opacity from coke oven battery stacks have been regulated to a second threshold of a “Daily average of 20 percent opacity for a battery on batterywide extended coking,” 40 CFR 63.7296(b) (Jan. 20, 2021). Thus, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to monitor a coke oven battery operating on battery wide extended coking to ensure that said second threshold were not violated.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Matsushita by adding a step of determining, when appropriate, that the stack opacity has exceeded a second predetermined threshold, i.e. a daily average of 20 percent opacity, so that battery operators are made aware that their battery is violating federal regulations, such that compliance can be expediently regained. Note: In determining that the stack opacity has exceeded the second predetermined threshold, it is implicit that the stack opacity has also been determined to be greater than the first predetermined threshold, i.e. a daily average of 15 percent opacity.
With regard to claim 15: Matsushita teaches controlling the fuel supply (i.e. the flow rate of fuel gas) to the coke oven battery (Figure 1, Column 2 Line 65-Column 3 Line 25, Column 3 Line 39-Column 4 Line 65, Column 5 Lines 50-68).
It is implicit that controlling the fuel supply will, at times, involve decreasing the fuel supply.
In the unlikely alternative, Matsushita’s teachings to control of fuel supply (flow rate of fuel gas), to one of ordinary skill in the art, suggest that the method should comprise decreasing the fuel supply if and when necessary to maintain the desired conditions within the coke oven battery.
Matsushita teaches maintaining a target excess air ratio by correcting stack draft in response to a target excess air ratio and a measured excess air ratio, wherein the measured excess air ratio is calculated based on oxygen levels in the exhaust fluid as determined by a sensor (O2 analyzer) (Column 5 Lines 50-68). Accordingly, it is understood that Matsushita’s method implicitly comprises a step of determining, when appropriate, that an oxygen level of in of an exhaust fluid from the coke oven battery (combustion waste gases) is less than the third predetermined threshold, said third predetermined threshold being an oxygen level corresponding to that of the target excess air ratio.
In the unlikely alternative, Matsushita’s teachings to control of stack draft based on a target excess air ratio and a measured excess air ratio would, to one of ordinary skill in the art, suggest that the oxygen level measured by the sensor should be analyzed to determine, when appropriate, that said oxygen level is above the third predetermined threshold corresponding to the target excess air ratio.
With regard to claim 16: Matsushita teaches measuring flue temperature and determining (calculating) the deviation of measured flue temperatures from target flue temperature (Column 3 Lines 40-60). The temperature of the flues is measured at “the hairpin tops of individual flues” (Column 3 Lines 48-53). Accordingly, it is understood that Matsushita comprises determining if a temperature of an exhaust fluid from the coke oven battery, i.e. combustion gas in said flues, is greater than a fourth predetermined threshold, said fourth predetermined threshold being the target flue temperature.
In the alternative, Matsushita’s teaching to measuring flue temperature and determining deviation of measured flue temperature from target temperature would at least suggest measuring the temperature of exhaust fluid (combustion gas) within the flues and determining if it is greater than a fourth threshold (i.e. a target value).
Matsushita is silent to determining that the opacity of the stack is greater than the first predetermined threshold and a second predetermined threshold greater than the first.
However, since at least January 2021, emissions opacity from coke oven battery stacks have been regulated to a second threshold of a “Daily average of 20 percent opacity for a battery on batterywide extended coking,” 40 CFR 63.7296(b) (Jan. 20, 2021). Thus, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to monitor a coke oven battery operating on battery wide extended coking to ensure that said second threshold were not violated.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Matsushita by adding a step of determining, when appropriate, that the stack opacity has exceeded a second predetermined threshold, i.e. a daily average of 20 percent opacity, so that battery operators are made aware that their battery is violating federal regulations, such that compliance can be expediently regained. Note: In determining that the stack opacity has exceeded the second predetermined threshold, it is implicit that the stack opacity has also been determined to be greater than the first predetermined threshold, i.e. a daily average of 15 percent opacity.
With regard to claim 17: Matsushita teaches controlling the flow rate of fluid through the stack (i.e. the stack draft) (Figure 1, Column 2 Line 65-Column 3 Line 25, Column 3 Line 39-Column 4 Line 65, Column 5 Lines 50-68).
It is implicit that controlling the flow rate of fluid through the stack (i.e. the stack draft) will, at times, involve increasing said flow rate.
In the unlikely alternative, Matsushita’s teachings to control flow rate of fluid through the stack (stack draft) would, to one of ordinary skill in the art, suggest that the method should comprise increasing stack flow rate (draft) if and when necessary to maintain the desired conditions within the coke oven battery.
Matsushita teaches measuring flue temperature and determining (calculating) the deviation of measured flue temperatures from target flue temperature (Column 3 Lines 40-60). The temperature of the flues is measured at “the hairpin tops of individual flues” (Column 3 Lines 48-53). Accordingly, it is understood that Matsushita comprises determining, when appropriate, that a temperature of an exhaust fluid from the coke oven battery, i.e. combustion gas in said flues, is greater than a fourth predetermined threshold, said fourth predetermined threshold being the target flue temperature.
In the alternative, Matsushita’s teaching to measuring flue temperature and determining deviation of measured flue temperature from target temperature would at least suggest measuring the temperature of exhaust fluid (combustion gas) within the flues and, when appropriate, determining that it is greater than a fourth threshold (i.e. a target value).
With regard to claim 20: Matsushita teaches measuring oxygen levels in an exhaust fluid (Column 5 Lines 50-68).
Matsushita teaches measuring flue temperature (Column 3 Lines 40-60). The temperature of the flues is measured at “the hairpin tops of individual flues” (Column 3 Lines 48-53). Accordingly, it is understood that Matsushita comprises measuring the temperature of an exhaust fluid from the coke oven battery, i.e. combustion gas in said flues.
In the alternative, Matsushita’s teaching to measuring flue temperature would at least suggest measuring the temperature of exhaust fluid (combustion gas) from the coke oven battery.
Matsushita is silent to calculating rolling averages of said oxygen levels and temperatures.
However, calculation of rolling averages is widely practiced and well within the level of ordinary skill. A person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that calculating a rolling average of a measured property allows one to attain a better picture of how the measured property is behaving on a long-term basis.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Matsushita by calculating the rolling averages of the exhaust fluid oxygen levels and the exhaust fluid temperatures in order to attain a better picture of how said properties are behaving on a long-term basis.
Claim(s) 18 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsushita in view of 40 CFR 63.7296 (Jan. 20, 2021) as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of 40 CFR 63.7324 (Jan. 20, 2021).
With regard to claim 18: Matsushita does not explicitly teach that the step of determining that the opacity of the stack is less than a first predetermined threshold comprises: receiving opacity data from the one or more sensors; and calculating the opacity as a rolling average of the opacity data.
However, since at least January 2021, it has been required that one demonstrate compliance with opacity limits by using a continuous opacity monitoring system (COMS) to measure opacity and, using measured opacity data, calculating hourly and 24 hour averages (40 CFR 63.7324 (Jan. 20, 2021).
Accordingly, a person having ordinary skill in the art a would have been compelled, before the effective filing date, to determine the opacity of the stack by receiving opacity data from at least one sensor (i.e. a continuous opacity monitoring system) and calculating opacity as an hourly and daily average of the opacity data.
As for the requirement that the average be a rolling average, because it is required that one calculate hourly and daily averages, the data for calculating various rolling averages (e.g. 24 hour, 7 day, 30 day, etc.) would be readily available. Calculation of rolling averages is widely practiced and well within the level of ordinary skill. Furthermore, a person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that calculating a rolling average of a measured property allows one to attain a better picture of how the measured property is behaving on a long-term basis.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Matsushita by calculating rolling average(s), e.g. 24 hour, 7 day, 30 day, etc., from the opacity data, in order to gauge the long term behavior of the coke oven stack opacity.
With regard to claim 19: Matsushita does not explicitly teach that the step of determining that the opacity of the stack is less than a first predetermined threshold comprises: receiving opacity data from the one or more sensors; and calculating the opacity as a rolling average of the opacity data.
However, since at least January 2021, it has been required that one demonstrate compliance with opacity limits by using a continuous opacity monitoring system (COMS) to measure opacity and, using measured opacity data, calculating hourly and 24 hour averages (40 CFR 63.7324 (Jan. 20, 2021).
Accordingly, a person having ordinary skill in the art a would have been compelled, before the effective filing date, to determine the opacity of the stack by receiving opacity data from at least one sensor (i.e. a continuous opacity monitoring system) and calculating opacity as an hourly and daily average of the opacity data.
As for the requirement that the average be a rolling average, because it is required that one calculate hourly and daily averages, the data for calculating various rolling averages (e.g. 24 hour, 7 day, 30 day, etc.) would be readily available. Calculation of rolling averages is widely practiced and well within the level of ordinary skill. Furthermore, a person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that calculating a rolling average of a measured property allows one to attain a better picture of how the measured property is behaving on a long-term basis.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Matsushita by calculating rolling average(s), e.g. 24 hour, 7 day, 30 day, etc., from the opacity data, in order to gauge the long term behavior of the coke oven stack opacity.
Matsushita does not teach removing opacity readings from the opacity data that exceed a fifth predetermined threshold.
However, it is common practice to disregard obvious outlier data when calculating averages. For example, one might chose to disregard a single, instantaneous reading that exceeds a threshold value from what is expected, as such a reading would at least appear to be erroneous, and including that reading when calculating an average would skew the average.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Matsushita by removing singular, instantaneous opacity readings from the opacity data that exceed a fifth predetermined threshold, i.e. a predetermined threshold from what is expected, wherein said readings are excluded on the basis that they appear erroneous and are not backed up by additional readings to confirm their validity, in order to obtain an average that is not erroneously skewed.
Citation of Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 2025/0179366 is the publication of a copending application by Inventor. Said copending application contains claims to a similar method. Regardless, no issues of double patenting are observed at this time.
US 4,692,216 teaches a method similar to that of the Matsushita reference relied upon in the rejections above.
US 5,968,320 teaches a method highly relevant to the claimed invention (See Figure 2).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN "LUKE" PILCHER whose telephone number is (571)272-2691. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-5pm.
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, In Suk Bullock can be reached at 5712725954. 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.
/JONATHAN LUKE PILCHER/ Examiner, Art Unit 1772
Prosecution Insights