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 § 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) 1, and 8-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Demuth (US 12,650,223 B2) in view of Sharp (US 2,800,175).
With respect to claim 1 Demuth discloses a combustion system, comprising: a combustion chamber [just downstream of reference character 6 see column 4 lines 55-67]; a first inlet [see annotated Fig. below] for supplying an oxidant into the chamber; a second inlet [reference character 11] for supplying a fuel into the chamber; a third inlet [reference character 12] in fluid communication with the first inlet for supplying oxygen into the chamber; a fourth inlet [reference character 10] for supplying hydrogen into the chamber.
Demuth does not disclose a circulation line for delivering a flue gas from the chamber to the first inlet.
Sharp discloses a furnace having a recirculation line [reference characters 44-45] for recirculating flue gasses to the oxidizer line [see Fig. 3]. Recirculating flue gasses results in a longer more radiant flame with the heat distributed over a larger are of the furnace, preventing localized overheating [column 2 lines 14-18 and column 3 lines 33-39].
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 burner taught by Demuth by recirculating flue gasses to the oxidizer inlet, as taught by Sharp, in order to produce a longer more radiant flame with the heat distributed over a larger are of the furnace, preventing localized overheating [column 2 lines 14-18 and column 3 lines 33-39].
PNG
media_image1.png
417
667
media_image1.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 8 Demuth discloses that oxygen from the third inlet enters the chamber via the first inlet [see annotated Fig. above].
With respect to claim 9 Demuth does not disclose that the second inlet and the fourth inlet are positioned downstream from the first inlet. However, moving inlets 9-12 so that they are downstream of 13 would require only ordinary skill in the art, since such a relocation would not affect the function of Demuth. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing date of the invention to move the second and fourth inlets downstream of the first inlet, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
With respect to claim 10 Demuth discloses that the oxidizer comprises air [column 5 lines 9-20].
Claim(s) 2-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Demuth (US 12,650,223 B2) in view of Sharp (US 2,800,175) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Li et. al (US 2009/0111064 A1).
With respect to claim 2 the combination of Demuth and Sharp do not disclose an upper fifth inlet and a lower fifth inlet for supplying the fuel into the chamber, wherein the upper fifth inlet is positioned above the first inlet and downstream from the first inlet and the lower fifth inlet is positioned below the first inlet and downstream from the first inlet.
Li discloses a burner system that includes a central co-axial burner with upper and lower fuel inlets [reference characters 30] that provide for fuel staging [see paragraph 0034]. Li discloses that increasing the amount of staged fuel relative to fuel to the main burner decreases the amount of NOx produced in the flue gas [see Fig. 2 paragraph 0020 and 0071].
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 system taught by Demuth and Sharp by including fifth upper and lower inlets above and below the main co-axial burner and flame stabilizer, as taught by Li, in order to allow for fuel staging to decrease the amount of NOx produced in the flue gasses [see Fig. 2 paragraph 0020 and 0071 of Li].
With respect to claim 3 the combination of Demuth, Sharp and Li, disclose that the second inlet is positioned between the upper fifth inlet and the lower fifth inlet [see Fig. 1 of Li].
With respect to claim 4 the combination of Demuth, Sharp, and Li, disclose that the second inlet is positioned in substantially vertically alignment with the upper and lower fifth inlets [see Fig. 1 of Demuth and Fig. 1 of Li, where all inlets are in at least substantial vertical alignment].
With respect to claim 5 Demuth discloses that the fuel comprises natural gas [see column 5 lines 5-8].
With respect to claim 6 Demuth discloses that the oxidant comprises air [column 5 lines 9-13].
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Demuth (US 12,650,223 B2) in view of Sharp (US 2,800,175) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Leahy (US 964,031).
With respect to claim 11 the combination of Demuth and Sharp do not disclose a stack having a stack damper.
Leahy discloses ta combustion chamber having a stack [reference character 25’] and a stack damper [reference character 37].
It would have bene obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing date of the invention to modify the system taught by Demuth and Sharp by including a stack and stack damper, as taught by Leahy, in order to direct and regulate the outlet through the flue [pp. 2 lines 95-102 of Leahy].
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Demuth (US 12,650,223 B2) in view of Sharp (US 2,800,175) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Robertson et. al (US 9,909,755 B2).
With respect to claim 12 the combination of Demuth and Sharp do not disclose that the first inlet comprises a plurality of first inlets, and wherein, one of the first inlet of the plurality of first inlets is located on a first wall of the chamber; and another one of the first inlet of the plurality of first inlets is located on a second wall of the chamber.
Robertson discloses multiple identical fuel and oxidizer assemblies [reference characters 49, 26, 41, and 27] disposed on opposite walls of a combustion chamber [see Fig. 9].
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 system taught by the combination of Demuth and Sharp by incorporating multiple identical burner assemblies on opposite walls of the combustion chamber in order to increase the heat load of the combustion chamber.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 13-20 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for indicating allowable subject matter: with regards to independent claims 13 and 20 the closest prior art are Demuth and Sharp which alone or in combination do not provide for the method steps of “supplying oxygen via a third inlet while reducing the air being supplied; circulating a flue gas into the chamber while reducing the supply of air; and supplying the carbon containing fuel via a plurality of fourth inlets and stopping flow of the carbon containing fuel from the second inlet; and supplying hydrogen via a plurality of fifth inlets while reducing flow of the carbon containing fuel from the plurality of fourth inlets” (claim 13) and “supplying the carbon containing fuel via a plurality of second inlets of the second gas line and stopping flow through the first inlet; and supplying hydrogen via a plurality of third inlets while reducing flow of the carbon containing fuel from the plurality of second inlets” (claim 20). For this reason, claims 13, 20 and their associated dependent claims should be allowed.
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
Prosecution Insights