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 Objections
Claim 20 is objected to because of the following informalities: in line 1, “power” should be changed to “the power”. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-4, 6, 7, 9-15, 17 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lorcery (European Patent Publication No. EP 3798561 A1, machine language translation provided and cited below) in view of Irons (“Heat Recovery for Process Efficiency”, Honeywell International, 2020).
Regarding claim 1, Lorcery discloses a crosslinking system for a continuous mat of mineral and/or plant fibers (FIG. 1, [0002]-[0004] of Lorcery, oven for polymerizing mat of mineral fibers), comprising a crosslinking oven for said mat including at least one heating box (FIG. 1, [0005] of Lorcery, oven includes four heating zones or boxes), each heating box being connected to a combustion chamber (FIG. 2, [0034] of Lorcery, hot air supplied to each box by a hot-air generation system including a combustion chamber #24 which is connected to the heating zone #28), and an injection system arranged outside the crosslinking oven and configured to inject air into at least one combustion chamber of a heating box (FIG. 2, [0047] of Lorcery, third injection device #70 which injects a gaseous composition #72 such as air into the combustion chamber #54).
Lorcery does not specifically disclose that the air is hot air and the hot air thus injected replacing a given fraction of hot air produced by at least one burner attached to said at least one combustion chamber. Moreover, Lorcery discloses a burner attached to the combustion chamber for producing hot air (FIG. 2, [0040]-[0044] of Lorcery, burner #42 heats gaseous mixture including air in the combustion chamber), but does not that the air injected into the combustion chamber by the third injection device is heated. Irons, however, discloses a method of capturing waste heat from industrial applications which comprises using the waste heat to preheat make-up air for an oven or furnace (pg. 5 of Irons, air-to-air heat exchangers used for oven/furnace makeup air preheating). According to Irons, recovering waste heat allows for improved efficiency and reduced costs (pg. 2 of Irons). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the third injection device #70 in the system of Lorcery to preheat the air injected into the combustion chamber using recovered heat. One of skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to allow for improved efficiency and reduced costs as taught by Irons (pg. 2 of Irons). Using heated air would necessarily replace some fraction of the hot air produced by the burner
Regarding claim 2, Irons does not specifically disclose that said fraction is between 2% and 40%. Irons, however, discloses heat recovery processes wherein savings of 13 to 51% are achieved (pg. 10, Table of Irons) which would correlate into replacing 13 to 51% of the heat produced by combustion with recovered heat. Irons therefore suggests a heated air replacement range (i.e., 13-51%) that overlaps with that recited in claim 2 (i.e., 2-40%) which would render the claimed range obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. Moreover, the courts have held that where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976) (See MPEP 2144.05(I)).
Regarding claim 3, Irons suggests that the injection system comprises a heater configured to heat ambient air to a given temperature (pg. 5 of Irons, air-to-air heat exchanger used to recover heat used to heat makeup air; heat exchanger can be considered a heater since it heats the makeup air).
Regarding claim 4, Irons does not specifically disclose said given temperature is between 350°C and 1000°C. Irons, however, discloses preheating air using recovered heat to a temperature of 600 to 1600 °F (i.e., 315-871 ℃) (pg. 5 of Irons, air-to-air heat exchangers used for oven/furnace makeup air preheating). Irons therefore discloses a preheated air temperature range (i.e., 315-871 ℃) that overlaps with that recited in claim 2 (i.e., 350-1000 ℃) which would render the claimed range obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. Moreover, the courts have held that where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976) (See MPEP 2144.05(I)).
Regarding claim 6, Irons suggests that the injection system is supplied with preheated air (pg. 5 of Irons, air-to-air heat exchangers used to preheat oven/furnace makeup air).
Regarding claim 7, Irons suggests that at least part of the preheated air comes from a glass melting furnace and/or corresponds to hot recovery air (pg. 5 of Irons, waste or recovered heat used to preheat oven/furnace makeup air).
Regarding claim 9, Lorcery and Irons suggest that the injection system is configured to inject hot air from outside the crosslinking oven (FIG. 2 of Lorcery, air injected into combustion chamber from outside of oven via third injection device #70).
Regarding claim 10, Lorcery and Irons suggest the injection system comprises a hot air supply line arranged between a hot air source arranged outside the crosslinking oven and the at least one combustion chamber (FIG. 2 of Lorcery, air injected into combustion chamber from outside of oven via third injection device #70 which necessarily includes a supply line feeding the combustion chamber; supply line would necessarily be arranged between the heat exchanger and the combustion chamber in the modified system).
Regarding claim 11, Lorcery discloses a manufacturing line for a continuous mat of mineral and/or plant fibers (FIG. 1 of Lorcery), comprising a fiberizing unit for a continuous mat of mineral and/or plant fibers ([0003] of Lorcery), a conveyor for transporting the mat ([0004] of Lorcery, mat conveyed continuously in oven), and Lorcery and Irons suggest a crosslinking system according to claim 1 (see analysis of claim 1 above).
Regarding claim 12, Lorcery discloses a method for crosslinking a continuous mat of mineral and/or plant fibers ([0004] of Lorcery, polymerization of binder sized mineral fiber mat carried out continuously in oven; polymerization of binder would crosslink mineral fibers together), and Lorcery and Irons suggest said method comprising crosslinking the continuous mat of mineral and/or plant fibers with the crosslinking system according to claim 1 (see analysis of claim 1 above).
Regarding claim 13, Lorcery discloses method for manufacturing a continuous mat of mineral and/or plant fibers ([0004] of Lorcery, polymerization of binder sized mineral fiber mat carried out continuously in oven), and Lorcery and Irons suggest said method comprising manufacturing the continuous mat of mineral and/or plant fibers by the manufacturing line according to claim 11 (see analysis of claim 1 above).
Regarding claims 14 and 15, Irons does not specifically disclose that said fraction is between 5% and 30% as recited in claim 14 or that said fraction is between 5% and 20% as recited in claim 15. Irons, however, discloses heat recovery processes wherein savings of 13 to 51% are achieved (pg. 10, Table of Irons) which would correlate into replacing 13 to 51% of the heat produced by combustion with recovered heat. Irons therefore suggests a heated air replacement range (i.e., 13-51%) that overlaps with that recited in claim 14 (i.e., 5-30%) and claim 15 (i.e., 5-20%) which would render the claimed ranges obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. Moreover, the courts have held that where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976) (See MPEP 2144.05(I)).
Regarding claims 17 and 18, Irons does not specifically disclose that said given temperature is between 500°C and 1000°C as recited in claim 17 or that said given temperature is between 700°C and 800°C as recited in claim 18. Irons, however, discloses preheating air using recovered heat to a temperature of 600 to 1600 °F (i.e., 315-871 ℃) (pg. 5 of Irons, air-to-air heat exchangers used for oven/furnace makeup air preheating). Irons therefore discloses a preheated air temperature range (i.e., 315-871 ℃) that overlaps with the ranges recited in claim 17 (i.e., 500-1000 ℃) and claim 18 (i.e., 700-800 ℃) which would render the claimed ranges obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. Moreover, the courts have held that where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976) (See MPEP 2144.05(I)).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5, 8, 16, 19 and 20 are 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.
Regarding claim 5, the closest prior art is to Lorcery. Lorcery discloses a crosslinking system for a continuous mat of mineral and/or plant fibers (FIG. 1, [0002]-[0004] of Lorcery, oven for polymerizing mat of mineral fibers), comprising a crosslinking oven for said mat including at least one heating box (FIG. 1, [0005] of Lorcery, oven includes four heating zones or boxes), each heating box being connected to a combustion chamber (FIG. 2, [0034] of Lorcery, hot air supplied to each box by a hot-air generation system including a combustion chamber #24 which is connected to the heating zone #28), and an injection system arranged outside the crosslinking oven and configured to inject air into at least one combustion chamber of a heating box (FIG. 2, [0047] of Lorcery, third injection device #70 which injects a gaseous composition #72 such as air into the combustion chamber #54). While Irons provide motivation configure the system to inject heated air thus replacing a given fraction of hot air produced by at least one burner attached to said at least one combustion chamber (pg. 5 of Irons, air-to-air heat exchangers used for oven/furnace makeup air preheating), neither Lorcery, Irons nor any of the other prior art references of record teach or reasonably suggest the crosslinking system of claim 5, wherein the heater comprises at least one electric battery whose power is between 100 kW and 900 kW. Claims 19 and 20 depend either directly or indirectly from claim 5 and are therefore also directed to allowable subject matter for the reasons set forth above with respect to claim 5.
Similarly with respect to claim 8 and 16, neither Lorcery, Irons nor any of the other prior art references of record teach or reasonably suggest the crosslinking system of claim 8, wherein the injection system is connected to a hot air emergency exhaust positioned between said injection system and said crosslinking oven or the crosslinking system of claim 16, wherein the heater is an electrical heater.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER W. RAIMUND whose telephone number is (571) 270-7560. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7:00-4:30.
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 Orlando can be reached at (571) 270-5038. 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.
CHRISTOPHER W. RAIMUND
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1746
/CHRISTOPHER W RAIMUND/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1746
Prosecution Insights