DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 2/9/26 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments and amendments submitted 2/9/26 have been fully and carefully considered.
Regarding claim rejections under 35 USC 103, applicant argues that the claim, as amended, fails to be made obvious over the combination of Groenewald et al (US 2022/0387952) in view of Keller et al (US 5,101,633), because the claims require “a distal end region comprising a first orifice fluidly coupled to the fuel input channel and a second orifice fluidly coupled to the air input channel, wherein the first orifice and the second orifice are positioned to create a mixture of the combustion fuel and oxygen downstream from the distal end region; and a tool channel extending to the distal end region, wherein the tool channel is configured to provide access for an ignition component to ignite the mixture, resulting in combustion flames and/or flue gas, wherein the first orifice and the second orifice are positioned to generate a radial and/or transverse component to a flow of the combustion flames and/or the flue”, which Groenewald does not teach these features as admitted (see argument P8) and upon which Keller is relied to teach the claimed orifices with the claimed mixture of the combustion fuel and oxygen downstream from the distal end region and the features of resulting in combustion flames and/or flue gas, wherein the first orifice and the second orifice are positioned to generate a radial and/or transverse component to a flow of the combustion flames and/or the flue which applicant argues Keller cannot be fairly relied upon to teach this limitation (see arguments P8-10). This is respectfully not found persuasive, because Keller’s orifices are positioned in the same way as claimed, and the resulting mixture is expected to occur and the resulting combination features are expected to occur because there is not a claimed difference in the structure, specifically Keller teaches “the fuel component in the fuel-air mixture emerging from the exit openings 20 of the premixing chamber 18 is adjusted such that the mixture is incombustible immediately in front of the head 4 of the burner lance 3. It cannot ignite until encountering an eddy return-flow zone 21, which is present in the combustion chamber 1 and slows it down. As a result, the flame supported by the keep-alive burner does not form until a safe distance from the head 4 of the burner lance 3, and so a flashback of the flame is also reliably prevented, especially in the premixing chamber 18” (Fig 2, C3:L31-41), therefore Keller does appear to teach the same properties of the mixture being formed downstream from the distal end region of the burner, so that the combustion occurs downstream, i.e. distal, from the burner and the resulting combustion flames/flue gas radial/transverse positioning as all structural features are claimed, therefore the functional results would be expected absent a claimed structural difference, see MPEP 2114 and 2173.05(g).
Withdrawn claims will be considered for rejoinder if amended to agree with any potential future claim amendments to elected claims.
The provisional double patenting rejections have been held in abeyance, as no claims have been allowed, and these rejections are therefore maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Regarding claim 21 the new claim recites new limitations of “wherein the combustion fuel and the air remain separated prior to the mixture of the combustion fuel and the air downstream from the distal end region” this limitation implies a structural difference however upon consulting the specification as filed there does not appear to be written support for this claim limitation, applicant’s arguments submitted 2/9/26 with this claim amendment does not address where support for this amendment is found, applicant must either show where support for this limitation is found, or cancel the new matter to overcome this rejection.
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.
Claims 1-11 and 16-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Groenewald et al (US 2022/0387952) in view of Keller et al (US 5,101,633).
Regarding Claim 1, Groenewald teaches a pyrolysis reactor (1400a) (see at least [0125] and Figs. 14A-14B), comprising: a first chamber (tube enclosing chamber (1411)) comprising an end region (the upper end region with respect to Fig. 14A) and defining a first flow path (the top to bottom flow path through chamber (1411) as shown in Fig. 14A) (see at least [0125] and Figs. 14A-B); a second chamber (tube enclosing chamber (1412)) coaxial with and surrounding the first tube (see at least [0125] and Figs. 14A-B), wherein an annulus (the annulus formed by chamber (1412)) between the second tube and the first tube defines a second flow path (the top to bottom flow path through chamber (1412) as shown in Fig. 14A) thermally coupled to the first tube such that a portion of the heat from the combustion is received by the second flow path (see at least [0125] and Figs. 14A-B) and a burner (1410a) coupled to the end region of the first tube such that the burner delivers heat to the first flow path via combustion (see at least [0125] and Fig. 14A).
However, Groenewald does not teach the orifices or tool channel configured to provide access for ignition component as claimed.
Keller teaches a burner arrangement for combustion (see title, abstract) Keller teaches the system comprises combustion chamber 1 to which mixture is fed in main feed channel 2, being coaxial with feed channel 8 and burner lance 3 (i.e. tool channel for ignition component) also being coaxial, where injection nozzle 10 (i.e. orifice) proves feed mixing through swirl vanes 5 “curved in a known way” in feed channel 2, with supplemental nozzles 17 and 20 to further admix oil feed with air leading to vicinity of head 4 of burner lance which is provided with backup fuel channels 16 with exit openings 17 (see Figs 1-2, C1:L65-C3:L41), Keller teaches the mixing design extends service life of burner in a comparatively small size (see C1:L35-45).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the apparatus taught by Groenewald to include the tool channel for ignition component and mixing design of Keller motivated by the teaching of Keller to extend service life of the burner in a comparatively small size; when Groenewald is modified by Keller, as proposed above the expected result of supplemental nozzle 20 , would be expected to be a downstream mixing of oil, through nozzle 17 and/or 20, downstream of the burner lance 3 of Keller, therefore reading upon limitations of wherein the first orifice and the second orifice are positioned to create a mixture of the combustion fuel and oxygen downstream from the distal end region and resulting in combustion flames and/or flue gas, wherein the first orifice and the second orifice are positioned to generate a radial and/or transverse component to a flow of the combustion flames and/or the flue.
Regarding claim 2, in modified Groenewald, Groenewald teaches swirling [0160] and Keller has taught the swirl vanes as claimed.
Regarding claims 3 and 11, in modified Groenewald, Groenewald further teaches selecting materials of construction that do not include stainless steel and of which choosing the alloys claimed would not show unexpected results [0159].
Regarding claim 4, the system of modified Groenewald teaches all limitations as set forth above, therefore the resulting heat transfer would be expected absent a claimed difference.
Regarding claim 5-6, in modified Groenewald, Keller has taught axial angled orifices annularly arranged between channels as claimed.
Regarding claim 7, in modified Groenewald, Keller as set forth above has taught the output nozzle having conical tip as claimed.
Regarding claim 8, in modified Groenewald, Keller as set forth above teaches orifices arranged as claimed.
Regarding claim 9, in modified Groenewald, Groenewald is directed to hydrogen (see title, abstract, [0109]).
Regarding claim 10, in modified Groenewald, Groenewald further teaches preheating [0087,0109].
Regarding claim 21, in modified Groenewald, when incorporating Keller supplemental nozzle 20 as shown by arrows (see Figs 1-2) the mixing of supplemental fuel would cause the mixture to be downstream of reference character 4, the distal end of nozzle (see Figs 1-2).
Regarding claims 22-23, in modified Groenewald, the orifices of Keller are both parallel (10/17) and non-parallel (10/20) and choosing the fuel and air supplies as modified would be in the same manner as claimed.
Regarding claim 24, in modified Groenewald, Keller teaches faceplate at ref character 4 (see Figs 1-2).
Regarding Claim 16, Groenewald teaches a pyrolysis reactor (1400a) (see at least [0125] and Figs. 14A-14B), comprising: a first chamber that is input channel (tube enclosing chamber (1411)) comprising an end region (the upper end region with respect to Fig. 14A) and defining a first flow path (the top to bottom flow path through chamber (1411) as shown in Fig. 14A) (see at least [0125] and Figs. 14A-B); a second chamber that is input channel (tube enclosing chamber (1412)) coaxial with and surrounding the first tube (see at least [0125] and Figs. 14A-B), wherein an annulus (the annulus formed by chamber (1412)) between the second tube and the first tube defines a second flow path (the top to bottom flow path through chamber (1412) as shown in Fig. 14A) thermally coupled to the first tube such that a portion of the heat from the combustion is received by the second flow path (see at least [0125] and Figs. 14A-B) and a burner (1410a) coupled to the end region of the first tube such that the burner delivers heat to the first flow path via combustion (see at least [0125] and Fig. 14A).
However, Groenewald does not teach the orifices or tool channel configured to provide access for ignition component as claimed.
Keller teaches a burner arrangement for combustion (see title, abstract) Keller teaches the system comprises combustion chamber 1 to which mixture is fed in main feed channel 2, being coaxial with feed channel 8 and burner lance 3 (i.e. tool channel for ignition component) also being coaxial, where injection nozzle 10 (i.e. orifice) proves feed mixing through swirl vanes 5 “curved in a known way” in feed channel 2, with supplemental nozzles 17 and 20 to further admix oil feed with air leading to vicinity of head 4 of burner lance which is provided with backup fuel channels 16 with exit openings 17 (see Figs 1-2, C1:L65-C3:L41), Keller teaches the mixing design extends service life of burner in a comparatively small size (see C1:L35-45).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the apparatus taught by Groenewald to include the tool channel for ignition component and mixing design of Keller motivated by the teaching of Keller to extend service life of the burner in a comparatively small size; when Groenewald is modified by Keller, as proposed above the expected result of supplemental nozzle 20 , would be expected to be a downstream mixing of oil, through nozzle 17 and/or 20, downstream of the burner lance 3 of Keller, therefore reading upon limitations of wherein the first orifice and the second orifice are positioned to create a mixture of the combustion fuel and oxygen downstream from the distal end region and resulting in combustion flames and/or flue gas, wherein the first orifice and the second orifice are positioned to generate a radial and/or transverse component to a flow of the combustion flames and/or the flue.
Regarding claim 17, in modified Groenewald, Groenewald teaches swirling [0160] and Keller has taught the swirl vanes as claimed.
Regarding claim 18-19, in modified Groenewald, Keller has taught axial angled orifices annularly arranged between channels as claimed.
Regarding claim 20, in modified Groenewald, Keller as set forth above teaches orifices arranged as claimed.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-11 and 16-24 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-11 and 21-29 of copending Application No. 18/926,134 (reference application) in view of Keller et al (US 5,101,633). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the ‘134 application are substantially overlapping with the instant claims, however do not require the tool channel for ignition component as claimed, however Keller teaches a burner arrangement for combustion (see title, abstract) Keller teaches the system comprises combustion chamber 1 to which mixture is fed in main feed channel 2, being coaxial with feed channel 8 and burner lance 3 (i.e. tool channel for ignition component) also being coaxial, where injection nozzle 10 (i.e. orifice) proves feed mixing through swirl vanes 5 “curved in a known way” in feed channel 2, with supplemental nozzles 17 and 20 to further admix oil feed with air leading to vicinity of head 4 of burner lance which is provided with backup fuel channels 16 with exit openings 17 (see Figs 1-2, C1:L65-C3:L41), Keller teaches the mixing design extends service life of burner in a comparatively small size (see C1:L35-45). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the claims of the ‘134 application to include the tool channel for ignition component and mixing design of Keller motivated by the teaching of Keller to extend service life of the burner in a comparatively small size.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN MILLER whose telephone number is (571)270-1603. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9 - 5.
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 (571) 272-5954. 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 MILLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1772