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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The IDS filed 2/28/2025 cites over 700 references. Furthermore, Examiner’s tools were unable to generate an automated search string for retrieving the US patent documents from said IDS (necessitating manual retrieval of each of said documents). Examiner has considered said IDS, but considering the time constraints placed on patent examination, it should be understood that said consideration is of low quality.
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 12, 20 and 21 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 12 recites the limitation "the openings" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 20 recites the limitation "the first vent" in lines 2 and 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 21 recites the limitation "the second vent" in lines 2 and 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 3-10, 16, and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yang (CN 111151089 A).
With regard to claims 1, 3-10: Yang teaches an emissions recovery system for use in an industrial facility (Espacenet Abstract, paragraphs [0007] and [0019]-[0021] of Espacenet Translation), the system comprising:
Ducting having a first end region fluidically coupled to a baghouse (cyclone filter bag integrated dust treatment assembly) 12 and a second end region opposite the first end region, wherein the ducting is configured to operate under a vacuum (Figures 1-5, especially Figure 4; paragraphs [0019]-[0021] of Espacenet Translation).
A first vent (i.e. a vent attached to first coal leveling fume hood 4) fluidically coupled to the second end region, wherein the first vent is positionable at a first distance from a first opening corresponding to a charging door of a coke oven (i.e. a door through which coal leveling is being performed), and wherein the first vent is configured to collect emissions particles released from the first opening (Figures 1-5, especially Figure 4; paragraphs [0019]-[0021] of Espacenet Translation; see annotated Figure 4 below).
A second vent (a first of two vents attached to second coal leveling fume hood 5) fluidically coupled to the second end region, wherein the second vent is positionable at a second distance from the first vent and configured to collect emissions particles released from the first opening (Figures 1-5, especially Figure 4; paragraphs [0019]-[0021] of Espacenet Translation; see annotated Figure 4 below).
A first third vent (a second one of the two vents attached to the second coal leveling fume hood 5) fluidically coupled to the second end region and positionable at a third distance from the first opening and configured to collect emission particles released from the first opening (Figures 1-5, especially Figure 4; paragraphs [0019]-[0021] of Espacenet Translation; see annotated Figure 4 below).
A hood assembly (second coal leveling fume hood) 5 attached to the first third vent and configured to direct emissions particles released from at least the first opening toward the first third vent (Figures 1-5, especially Figure 4; paragraphs [0019]-[0021] of Espacenet Translation; see annotated Figure 4 below).
A second third vent (one of two vents attached to coke pushing fume hood 6) fluidly coupled to the second end region, positionable at a third distance from the first opening and configured to collect emission particles released from the first opening (albeit not at the same time as the first, second, and first third vents), and further positionable to collect emissions particles released from a second opening corresponding to a pushing door of the coke oven (Figures 1-5, especially Figure 4; paragraphs [0019]-[0021] of Espacenet Translation); said third vent 6 comprising a hood assembly configured to direct emissions particles released from the opening toward the third vent
A hood assembly (coke pushing fume hood) 6 attached to the second third vent and configured to direct emissions particles released from at least the first opening toward the second third vent (Figures 1-5, especially Figure 4; paragraphs [0019]-[0021] of Espacenet Translation; see annotated Figure 4 below).
PNG
media_image1.png
768
888
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The first, second, and third distances all necessarily include both lateral and vertical distances components.
The first vent and the second vent are each positionable about an axis along the respective lengths thereof (Figures 1-5, especially Figure 4; paragraphs [0019]-[0021] of Espacenet Translation; see annotated Figure 4 above).
The first vent and the second vent are each positionable along a lateral distance from the opening (Figures 1-5, especially Figure 4; paragraphs [0019]-[0021] of Espacenet Translation; see annotated Figure 4 above).
The first vent and the second vent are each positionable along a vertical distance from the opening (Figures 1-5, especially Figure 4; paragraphs [0019]-[0021] of Espacenet Translation; see annotated Figure 4 above).
With regard to claims 1, 8-10, and 16: Yang teaches an emissions recovery system for use in an industrial facility (Espacenet Abstract, paragraphs [0007] and [0019]-[0021] of Espacenet Translation), the system comprising:
Ducting having a first end region fluidically coupled to a baghouse (cyclone filter bag integrated dust treatment assembly) 12 and a second end region opposite the first end region, wherein the ducting is configured to operate under a vacuum (Figures 1-5, especially Figure 4; paragraphs [0019]-[0021] of Espacenet Translation).
A first vent (i.e. a vent attached to first coal leveling fume hood 4) fluidically coupled to the second end region, wherein the first vent is positionable at a first distance from an opening corresponding to a charging door of a coke oven (i.e. a door through which coal leveling is being performed), and wherein the first vent is configured to collect emissions particles released from the opening (Figures 1-5, especially Figure 4; paragraphs [0019]-[0021] of Espacenet Translation; see annotated Figure 4 below).
A second vent (one of two vents attached to coke pushing fume hood 6) fluidically coupled to the second end region, wherein the second vent is positionable at a second distance from the first vent and configured to collect emissions particles released from the opening (Figures 1-5, especially Figure 4; paragraphs [0019]-[0021] of Espacenet Translation; see annotated Figure 4 below).
An induced draft fan 13 coupled to the ducting and configured to apply a pressure within the ducting 13 (Figures 1-5, especially Figure 1; paragraphs [0019]-[0021] of Espacenet Translation).
A diverter (one or more of a plurality of valves 8) coupled to the second end region of the ducting and configured to fully or partially divert the pressure applied by the induced draft fan between the first vent and the second vent (Figures 1-5, especially Figure 4; paragraphs [0019]-[0021] of Espacenet Translation; see annotated Figure 4 below).
A first hood assembly positioned to at least partially encase the first vent (first coal leveling fume hood) 4 (Figures 1-5, especially Figure 4; paragraphs [0019]-[0021] of Espacenet Translation; see annotated Figure 4 below).
A second hood (coke pushing fume hood) 6 assembly spaced apart from the first hood and positioned to at least partially encase the second vent (Figures 1-5, especially Figure 4; paragraphs [0019]-[0021] of Espacenet Translation; see annotated Figure 4 below).
Wherein the first vent is configured to be positioned over a charging end of a charging ram (coal leveler) (Figures 1-5, especially Figure 4; paragraphs [0019]-[0021] of Espacenet Translation; see annotated Figure 4 below).
Wherein the second vent is configured to be positioned over a charging end of a pusher ram spaced laterally apart from the charging ram (Figures 1-5, especially Figure 4; paragraphs [0019]-[0021] of Espacenet Translation; see annotated Figure 4 below).
Wherein the diverter is capable of diverting the pressure primarily to the first vent when the charging ram is in operation (Figures 1-5, especially Figure 4; paragraphs [0019]-[0021] of Espacenet Translation; see annotated Figure 4 below).
And wherein, the diverter is capable of diverting the pressure primarily to the second vent when the pusher ram is in operation (Figures 1-5, especially Figure 4; paragraphs [0019]-[0021] of Espacenet Translation; see annotated Figure 4 below).
PNG
media_image2.png
768
888
media_image2.png
Greyscale
The first and second distances all necessarily include both lateral and vertical distances components.
The first vent and the second vent are each positionable about an axis along the respective lengths thereof (Figures 1-5, especially Figure 4; paragraphs [0019]-[0021] of Espacenet Translation; see annotated Figure 4 above).
The first vent and the second vent are each positionable along a lateral distance from the opening (Figures 1-5, especially Figure 4; paragraphs [0019]-[0021] of Espacenet Translation; see annotated Figure 4 above).
The first vent and the second vent are each positionable along a vertical distance from the opening (Figures 1-5, especially Figure 4; paragraphs [0019]-[0021] of Espacenet Translation; see annotated Figure 4 above).
With regard to claim 17: Yang teaches an emissions recovery system for use in an industrial facility (Espacenet Abstract, paragraphs [0007] and [0019]-[0021] of Espacenet Translation), the system comprising:
A base ducting portion having a first end region fluidically coupled to a baghouse (cyclone filter bag integrated dust treatment assembly) 12 and a second end region opposite the first end region, wherein the base ducting portion is configured to operate under a vacuum (Figures 1-5, paragraphs [0019]-[0021] of Espacenet Translation).
A plurality of vents, i.e. hoods 5 and 6, each having a first end region and a second end region opposite the first end region, wherein the vent is positionable at an opening and configured to collect emissions particles released at the opening (Figures 1-5, especially Figure 4, paragraphs [0019]-[0021] of Espacenet Translation).
Wherein each of said vents 5 and 6 is associated with:
A first ducting branch extending from the second end region of the base ducting portion to the first end region of the respective vent 5 or 6 (Figures 1-5, especially Figure 4, paragraphs [0019]-[0021] of Espacenet Translation).
And a second ducting branch extending from the second end region of the base ducting portion to the second end region of the respective vent 5 or 6 (Figures 1-5, especially Figure 4, paragraphs [0019]-[0021] of Espacenet Translation).
Claim(s) 1, 3, 8-10, 15, 17, 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Pruitt (US 5,447,606).
With regard to claims 1 and 3: Pruitt teaches an emissions recovery system for use in an industrial facility, specifically a coke oven system (Figures 1-4 and 9-10, columns 3-7), the recovery system comprising:
Ducting 124, etc. having a first end region fluidically coupled to a baghouse (filter assembly) 132 and a second end region opposite the first end region, wherein the ducting is configured to operate under a vacuum (Figures 1-4 and 9-10, especially Figure 3, columns 3-7).
A first vent (outlet duct section) 56 fluidically coupled to the second end region, wherein the first vent is positionable at a first distance from an opening, i.e. a door 14 of a coke oven 10, and configured to collect emissions particles released from the opening; and (Figures 1-4 and 9-10, especially Figure 3, columns 3-7).
A second vent (outlet duct section) 58 fluidically coupled to the second end region, wherein the second vent is positionable at a second distance from the first vent and configured to collect emissions particles released from the opening (Figures 1-4 and 9-10, especially Figure 3, columns 3-7).
With regard to claim 8: The first vent and the second vent are each positionable about an axis along the respective lengths thereof (Figures 1-5, especially Figure 4; paragraphs [0019]-[0021] of Espacenet Translation; see annotated Figure 4 above).
With regard to claim 9: The first vent and the second vent are each positionable along a lateral distance from the opening (Figures 1-5, especially Figure 4; paragraphs [0019]-[0021] of Espacenet Translation; see annotated Figure 4 above).
With regard to claim 10: The first vent and the second vent are each positionable along a lateral distance from the opening (Figures 1-5, especially Figure 4; paragraphs [0019]-[0021] of Espacenet Translation; see annotated Figure 4 above).
With regard to claim 15: The system further comprises two temperature control valves 146 coupled to the ducting between the first end region and the second end region, and configured to allow air from outside the ducting into the ducting to reduce a temperature therein (Figures 1-4 and 9-10, especially Figure 3, columns 3-7).
With regard to claim 17: Pruitt teaches an emissions recovery system for use in an industrial facility, specifically a coke oven system (Figures 1-4 and 9-10, columns 3-7), the recovery system comprising:
A base ducting portion 124, etc. having a first end region fluidically coupled to a baghouse (filter assembly) 132 and a second end region opposite the first end region, wherein the base ducting portion is configured to operate under a vacuum (Figures 1-4 and 9-10, especially Figure 3, columns 3-7).
A vent (elongated hood) 50 having a first end region and a second end region opposite the first end region, wherein the vent is positionable at an opening, i.e. a door 14 of a coke oven 10, and configured to collect emissions particles released at the opening (Figures 1-4 and 9-10, especially Figure 3, columns 3-7).
A first ducting branch 118 extending from the second end region of the base ducting portion 124, etc. to the first end region of the vent 50 (Figures 1-4 and 9-10, especially Figure 3, columns 3-7).
A second ducting branch 120 extending from the second end region of the base ducting portion to the second end region of the vent (Figures 1-4 and 9-10, especially Figure 3, columns 3-7).
With regard to claims 19 and 20: The first ducting branch and the second ducting branch each include a first sub-branch and a second sub branch which diverge at y-shaped valve body 146; wherein the first sub-branch of the first ducting branch is fluidically coupled to the first end region of the first vent, and the first sub-branch of the second ducting branch is fluidically coupled to the second end region of the first vent. (Figures 1-4 and 9-10, especially Figure 3, columns 3-7).
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.
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.
Claim(s) 11 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang in view of Nijhawan (US 4,247,370).
With regard to claims 11 and 12: Yang anticipates the limitations of claim 1 in multiple different ways. See 102 rejections above for details.
Yang does not explicitly teach that the first vent and the second vent each include a housing and a faceplate coupled to the housing, and wherein the faceplate includes a plurality of openings configured for emissions particles released from the opening to pass therethrough, wherein the first vent and the second vent each include a closure assembly configured to selectively modify a size of the openings of the first vent and the second vent, respectively.
However, vents with such housing, faceplates, and closure assemblies are known in the art. For example, Nijhawan teaches such a vent (Columns 5 and 6, Figures 3-6). Such faceplates are understood to allow one to control the flow of fluid through a vent.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Yang in view of Nijhawan by providing the first vent and the second vent each with: i) a housing, ii) a faceplate coupled to the housing, wherein the faceplate includes a plurality of openings configured for emissions particles released from the opening to pass therethrough, and iii) a closure assembly configured to selectively modify a size of the openings, in order to obtain a system wherein the flow of fluid through the vents can be controlled.
Claim(s) 13 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang.
With regard to claim 13: Yang anticipates the limitations of claim 1 in multiple different ways. See 102 rejections above for details.
Yang comprises a plurality of valves 8 coupled to the ducting and capable of limiting an airflow within the ducting as from the second end region to the first end region (Figures 1-5, especially Figure 4; paragraphs [0019]-[0021] of Espacenet Translation; see annotated Figure 4 below).
PNG
media_image3.png
768
888
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Yang does not explicitly teach that the valves are non-return valves.
However, non-return valves are an obvious variation on valves, and are understood to be desirable for preventing backflow. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Yang by configuring one or more of the valves 8 as non-return valves.
With regard to claim 14: Yang anticipates the limitations of claim 1 in multiple different ways. See 102 rejections above for details.
Yang does not explicitly teach a spark arrester coupled to the ducting between the first end region and the second end region, and configured to extinguish embers within the ducting.
However, spark arresters (e.g. quenchers, sprayers, etc.) are well known in the art and would be recognized as advantageous in a coking system, as coking involves high temperatures and combustible materials.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Yang by adding at least one spark arrester coupled to the ducting between the first end region and the second end region, and configured to extinguish embers within the ducting, in order to avoid or mitigate combustion within the ducting.
Claim(s) 11 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pruitt in view of Nijhawan (US 4,247,370).
With regard to claims 11 and 12: Pruitt anticipates the limitations of claim 1 as described in the 102 rejections above.
Pruitt does not explicitly teach that the first vent and the second vent each include a housing and a faceplate coupled to the housing, and wherein the faceplate includes a plurality of openings configured for emissions particles released from the opening to pass therethrough, wherein the first vent and the second vent each include a closure assembly configured to selectively modify a size of the openings of the first vent and the second vent, respectively.
However, vents with such housing, faceplates, and closure assemblies are known in the art. For example, Nijhawan teaches such a vent (Columns 5 and 6, Figures 3-6). Such faceplates are understood to allow one to control the flow of fluid through a vent.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Pruitt in view of Nijhawan by providing the first vent and the second vent each with: i) a housing, ii) a faceplate coupled to the housing, wherein the faceplate includes a plurality of openings configured for emissions particles released from the opening to pass therethrough, and iii) a closure assembly configured to selectively modify a size of the openings, in order to obtain a system wherein the flow of fluid through the vents can be controlled.
Claim(s) 13 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pruitt.
With regard to claim 13: Pruitt anticipates the limitations of claim 1 as described in the 102 rejections above.
Pruitt comprises a plurality of valves 146 coupled to the ducting and capable of limiting an airflow within the ducting as from the second end region to the first end region (Figures 1-4 and 9-10, especially Figure 3, columns 3-7).
Pruitt does not explicitly teach that the valves are non-return valves.
However, non-return valves are an obvious variation on valves, and are understood to be desirable for preventing backflow. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Pruitt by configuring one or more of the valves as non-return valves.
With regard to claim 14: Pruitt anticipates the limitations of claim 1 as described in the 102 rejections above.
Pruitt does not explicitly teach a spark arrester coupled to the ducting between the first end region and the second end region, and configured to extinguish embers within the ducting.
However, spark arresters (e.g. quenchers, sprayers, etc.) are well known in the art and would be recognized as advantageous in a coking system, as coking involves high temperatures and combustible materials.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Pruitt by adding at least one spark arrester coupled to the ducting between the first end region and the second end region, and configured to extinguish embers within the ducting, in order to avoid or mitigate combustion within the ducting.
Claim(s) 1, 2, and 18-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pruitt in view of JP 2012224790 A.
With regard to claims 18-21: Pruitt teaches all of the limitations of claim 17 as described in the 102 rejections above.
Pruitt is silent to a second vent having a first end region and a second end region opposite the first end region; wherein the second vent is positionable at the opening and configured to collect emissions particles released at the opening; wherein the first ducting branch further extends from the second end region of the base ducting portion to the first end region of the second vent; and wherein the second ducting branch further extends from the second end region of the base ducting portion to the second end region of the second vent.
However, it is well-known in the art to provide emission capture systems for coke ovens with a second vent positioned near (e.g. slightly behind) first vent. For example, JP 5703929 B2 teaches an emissions capture system for use with a coke oven, said system comprising a first vent (dust collection hood) 4 and a second vent (auxiliary dust collection hood) 11(Figure 1, paragraphs [0017], [0019], [0022], [0028] of Espacenet Translation). A person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that an advantage of a second vent, i.e. an auxiliary dust collection hood, is increased dust collection effectiveness/efficiency, i.e. particulate matter which escapes capture by a first dust collection hood can be captured by the auxiliary hood.
JP 5703929 B2 teaches that both the first vent 4 and the second vent 11 should be wide enough to cover the opening of the coking chamber which they are to be placed against/near (paragraphs [0022] and [0028] of Espacenet translation). Thus, a person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that a second vent, i.e. an auxiliary dust collection hood, should have a similar width to a primary a first vent with which it is paired. Accordingly, in contemplating the addition of a second (auxiliary) vent to the system of Pruitt, a person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that such a second vent should be as wide as the first vent 50 and therefore, should be provided with two extraction ports, one at either end thereof (as is the case with the vent 50; see Pruitt at Figure 3 and Column 4 Lines 40-61), in order to facilitate effective extraction of gas and dust captured by the second vent.
A person having ordinary skill in the art would subsequently recognize that there are effectively only two options for connecting such a second (auxiliary vent) to the system of Pruitt. Specifically, one could either: 1) provide a pair of ducts branching from the base ducting portion 124; or 2) provide a pair of ducts, each duct branching from a respective one of the first ducting branch or the second ducting branch (and thereby forming second sub-branches thereof). These options are effectively obvious variations on one another, but a person having ordinary skill in the art would expect the second option to be slightly superior because the additional ducts would not need to be as long in the case of the second option as they would need to be in the first (thereby requiring less construction material).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Pruitt in view of JP 2012224790 A by adding a second vent functional as an auxiliary vent, said second vent being as wide as the first vent 50 and provided with two extraction ports, one at either end thereof, said two extraction ports connected to a respective one of the first and second ducting branches by respective second sub-branches thereof, in order to obtain an emissions capture device having increased dust collection effectiveness/efficiency (thanks to the presence of the second vent), wherein the second vent is an appropriate width and is provided with a suitably arranged pair of extraction ports to facilitate effective extraction of gas and dust captured thereby, and wherein the second vent is integrated into the system of Pruitt by a minimal amount of additional ducting.
With regard to claims 1 and 2: The system of modified Pruitt as discussed above in the rejection of claims 18-21 above satisfies the limitations of claims 1 and 2. In other words, the system recited in claims 1 and 2 is obvious over Pruitt in view of JP 2012224790 A on substantially the same basis as claims 18-21.
With regard to claim 22: Pruitt teaches a coking system (Figures 1-4 and 9-10, columns 3-7), the coking system comprising:
A coke oven 10 including a charging door 14 at a charging side of the coke oven. (Figures 1-4 and 9-10, columns 3-7).
And an emissions recovery system, including:
Ducting fluidically coupled to a baghouse (filter assembly) 132 and an induced draft fan (exhaust blower) 140, the ducting having a first ducting branch 118 and a second ducting branch 120 (Figures 1-4 and 9-10, columns 3-7).
And a first vent (elongated hood) 50 at a first distance from the charging door 14 (Figures 1-4 and 9-10, columns 3-7).
Pruitt is silent to a second vent at a second distance from the charging door, wherein each of the first vent and the second vent includes a first end fluidically coupled to the first ducting branch and a second end fluidically coupled to the second ducting branch.
However, it is well-known in the art to provide emission capture systems for coke ovens with a second vent positioned near (e.g. slightly behind) first vent. For example, JP 5703929 B2 teaches an emissions capture system for use with a coke oven, said system comprising a first vent (dust collection hood) 4 and a second vent (auxiliary dust collection hood) 11(Figure 1, paragraphs [0017], [0019], [0022], [0028] of Espacenet Translation). A person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that an advantage of a second vent, i.e. an auxiliary dust collection hood, is increased dust collection effectiveness/efficiency, i.e. particulate matter which escapes capture by a first dust collection hood can be captured by the auxiliary hood.
JP 5703929 B2 teaches that both the first vent 4 and the second vent 11 should be wide enough to cover the opening of the coking chamber which they are to be placed against/near (paragraphs [0022] and [0028] of Espacenet translation). Thus, a person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that a second vent, i.e. an auxiliary dust collection hood, should have a similar width to a primary a first vent with which it is paired. Accordingly, in contemplating the addition of a second (auxiliary) vent to the system of Pruitt, a person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that such a second vent should be as wide as the first vent 50 and therefore, should be provided with two extraction ports, one at either end thereof (as is the case with the vent 50; see Pruitt at Figure 3 and Column 4 Lines 40-61), in order to facilitate effective extraction of gas and dust captured by the second vent.
A person having ordinary skill in the art would subsequently recognize that there are effectively only two options for connecting such a second (auxiliary vent) to the system of Pruitt. Specifically, one could either: 1) provide a pair of ducts branching from the base ducting portion 124; or 2) provide a pair of ducts, each duct branching from a respective one of the first ducting branch or the second ducting branch (and thereby forming second sub-branches thereof). These options are effectively obvious variations on one another, but a person having ordinary skill in the art would expect the second option to be slightly superior because the additional ducts would not need to be as long in the case of the second option as they would need to be in the first (thereby requiring less construction material).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Pruitt in view of JP 2012224790 A by adding a second vent positioned at a second distance from the charging door and functional as an auxiliary vent, said second vent being as wide as the first vent 50 and provided with two extraction ports, one at either end thereof, said two extraction ports connected to a respective one of the first and second ducting branches by respective second sub-branches thereof, in order to obtain an emissions capture device having increased dust collection effectiveness/efficiency (thanks to the presence of the second vent), wherein the second vent is an appropriate width and is provided with a suitably arranged pair of extraction ports to facilitate effective extraction of gas and dust captured thereby, and wherein the second vent is integrated into the system of Pruitt by a minimal amount of additional ducting.
With regard to claim 23: Modified Pruitt is silent to a third vent a third distance from the charging door, wherein the third vent includes a first end fluidically coupled to the first ducting branch and a second end fluidically coupled to the second ducting branch.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Pruitt by adding a second auxiliary vent (which would constitute a third vent) configured and integrated into the system in substantially the same manner as the first auxiliary vent (i.e. the second vent), but arranged at a different distance from the charging door in a different location, in order to obtain a system having further increased dust collection effectiveness/efficiency.
With regard to claim 24: The induced draft fan 140 is capable of establishing a variable vacuum within the ducting (Pruitt: Figures 1-4 and 9-10, columns 3-7).
With regard to claims 1 and 2: The system of modified Pruitt as discussed above in the rejection of claim 22 above satisfies the limitations of claims 1 and 2. In other words, the system recited in claims 1 and 2 is obvious over Pruitt in view of JP 2012224790 A on substantially the same basis as claim 22.
Claim(s) 11 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pruitt in view of JP 2012224790 A, as applied to claims 1 and 2 above, and in further view of Nijhawan.
With regard to claims 11 and 12: Modified Pruitt does not explicitly teach that the first vent and the second vent each include a housing and a faceplate coupled to the housing, and wherein the faceplate includes a plurality of openings configured for emissions particles released from the opening to pass therethrough, wherein the first vent and the second vent each include a closure assembly configured to selectively modify a size of the openings of the first vent and the second vent, respectively.
However, vents with such housing, faceplates, and closure assemblies are known in the art. For example, Nijhawan teaches such a vent (Columns 5 and 6, Figures 3-6). Such faceplates are understood to allow one to control the flow of fluid through a vent.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Pruitt in view of Nijhawan by providing the first vent and the second vent each with: i) a housing, ii) a faceplate coupled to the housing, wherein the faceplate includes a plurality of openings configured for emissions particles released from the opening to pass therethrough, and iii) a closure assembly configured to selectively modify a size of the openings, in order to obtain a system wherein the flow of fluid through the vents can be controlled.
Claim(s) 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pruitt in view of JP 2012224790 A, as applied to claim 22 above, and in further view of Yang.
With regard to claim 25: Modified Pruitt is silent to a third vent at a third distance from the charging door; and a diverter coupled to the ducting and configured to primarily divert the pressure applied by the induced draft fan to either (i) the first vent and the second vent or (ii) the third vent based on an operating mode of the coking system.
Yang teaches a coke oven system comprising an emissions recovery system (Espacenet Abstract, paragraphs [0007] and [0019]-[0021] of Espacenet Translation), the system comprising:
Ducting having a first end region fluidically coupled to a baghouse (cyclone filter bag integrated dust treatment assembly) 12 and a second end region opposite the first end region, wherein the ducting is configured to operate under a vacuum (Figures 1-5, especially Figure 4; paragraphs [0019]-[0021] of Espacenet Translation).
A first vent (first coal leveling fume hood) 4 fluidically coupled to the second end region, wherein the first vent is positionable at a first distance from a first opening corresponding to a charging door of a coke oven (i.e. a door through which coal leveling is being performed), and wherein the first vent is configured to collect emissions particles released from the first opening (Figures 1-5, especially Figure 4; paragraphs [0019]-[0021] of Espacenet Translation).
A second vent (second coal leveling fume hood) 5 fluidically coupled to the second end region, wherein the second vent is positionable at a second distance from the first vent and configured to collect emissions particles released from the first opening (Figures 1-5, especially Figure 4; paragraphs [0019]-[0021] of Espacenet Translation).
A third vent (coke pushing fume hood) 5 fluidly coupled to the second end region, positionable at a third distance from the first opening and configured to collect emission particles released from the first opening (albeit not at the same time as the first, second, and first third vents), and further positionable to collect emissions particles released from a second opening corresponding to a pushing door of the coke oven (Figures 1-5, especially Figure 4; paragraphs [0019]-[0021] of Espacenet Translation)
And a diverter (one or more of the valves 8, see annotated Figure 4 below) coupled to the second end region of the ducting and configured to fully or partially divert the pressure applied by the induced draft fan between the first and second vents 4 and 5 and the third vent 6, i.e. the valves forming said diverter is/are capable of diverting applied pressure (vacuum) away from the first and second vent and/or the third vent, and thereby diverting said pressure to the other vents (Figures 1-5, especially Figure 4; paragraphs [0019]-[0021] of Espacenet Translation; see annotated Figure 4 below).
PNG
media_image4.png
768
888
media_image4.png
Greyscale
The third vent in Yang is positioned over a pushing ram specifically for capturing emissions from a pushing operation (Figures 1-5, paragraphs [0019]-[0021] of Espacenet Translation).
The diverter(s) in Yang allow for pressure (vacuum/suction) to be applied specifically to the vent(s) at which it is needed, thereby avoiding wasting energy when only one or some of the vents are needed (Figures 1-5, paragraphs [0019]-[0021] of Espacenet Translation).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Pruitt in view of Yang by adding:
1) a third vent at a third distance from the charging door, in order to provide Pruitt with a means of capturing emission specifically from a pushing operation; and
2) a diverter coupled to the ducting and configured to primarily divert the pressure applied by the induced draft fan to either (i) the first vent and the second vent or (ii) the third vent based on an operating mode of the coking system, in order to provide Pruitt with a means of applying pressure (vacuum/suction) specifically to the vent(s) at which it is needed, thereby avoiding wasting energy when only one or some of the vents are needed.
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
