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 information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 3/6/2025 is/are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement(s) is/are being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 5531169 Mole et al.
Claim 1 requires “An apparatus for regenerating at least one of a spent sulfuric acid stream or other sulfur-containing stream comprising: a decomposition furnace”. Mole et al. discloses “The process of the present invention may be usefully employed to process any liquid waste material, but is particularly suitable for processing spent or contaminated acid and especially spent sulfuric acid containing water, ammonium sulphate, ammonium bisulfate and various organic species as contaminants.” [Col. 4, Lines 34-39] and “(a) supplying to the furnace through at least one burner located in an end wall thereof a flow of a primary oxidant” [Col. 3 Lines 28-30].
Claim 1 further requires “an inlet for supplying at least one of the spent sulfuric acid stream or the other sulfur-containing stream into the decomposition furnace”. Mole et al. discloses “(d) supplying a flow of liquid waste material to the furnace through a plurality of atomizing lances” [Col. 3, Lines 40-41].
Claim 1 further requires “an inlet for supplying a stream of an oxygen-enriched combustion air into the decomposition furnace”. Mole et al. discloses “(a) supplying to the furnace through at least one burner located in an end wall thereof a flow of a primary oxidant which issues from the at least one burner in a first flow direction and which contains at least 22% vol/vol of oxygen” [Col. 3 Lines 28-32]. Because atmospheric air is 21 vol. % oxygen it is understood that ≥22% vol. % oxygen is considered oxygen enriched.
Claim 1 further requires “an inlet for supplying a pure oxygen stream into the decomposition furnace separately from the supplying of the oxygen-enriched combustion air”. Mole et al. discloses “(e) supplying a flow of secondary oxidant, which contains at least 22% vol/vol of oxygen, to the furnace through a plurality of oxidant lances spaced from the at least one burner so as to supplement the flow of primary oxidant” [Col. 3 Lines 49-53] and “The secondary oxidant may be any oxygen rich gas, but is preferably oxygen enriched air or substantially pure oxygen.” [Col. 8, Lines 41-43]. It is noted that the primary oxidant is similarly limited (“The primary oxidant which is fed to the burner may be any oxygen rich gas, but is preferably oxygen enriched air or substantially pure oxygen.” [Col. 5, Lines 62-64]) and therefore either the primary or secondary oxidant can be oxygen enriched combustion air or pure oxygen in embodiments of Mole et al.
Claim 1 further requires “and an inlet for supplying a combustion fuel stream to the decomposition furnace.”. Mole et al. discloses “(a) supplying to the furnace through at least one burner
located in an end wall thereof a flow of a primary oxidant which issues from the at least one burner in a
first flow direction and which contains at least 22% vol/vol of oxygen, together with a flow of fuel which
issues from the at least one burner” [Col. 3, Lines 28-33].
Claim 2 requires “a supply of spent sulfuric acid in fluid communication with the furnace.”. Mole et al. discloses “The process of the present invention may be usefully employed to process any liquid waste material, but is particularly suitable for processing spent or contaminated acid and especially spent sulfuric acid containing water, ammonium sulphate, ammonium bisulfate and various organic species as contaminants.” [Col. 4, Lines 34-39].
Claim 3 requires “a supply of the other sulfur- containing stream in fluid communication with the furnace.”. Mole et al. discloses “The process of the present invention may be usefully employed to process any liquid waste material, but is particularly suitable for processing spent or contaminated acid and especially spent sulfuric acid containing water, ammonium sulphate, ammonium bisulfate and various organic species as contaminants.” [Col. 4, Lines 34-39], of which the ammonium sulfate and bisulfate are other sulfur containing compounds.
Claim 4 requires “a supply of pure oxygen in fluid communication with the furnace.”. Mole et al. discloses flowing pure oxygen into the furnace (see Claim 1).
Claim 5 requires “a supply of combustion air in fluid communication with the furnace.” Mole et al. discloses oxygen enriched combustion air (see Claim 1) which is understood to be a type of combustion air.
Claim 6 requires “means to combine pure oxygen from the supply of pure oxygen with the combustion air.”. Mole et al. discloses combining the primary and secondary oxidant (combustion air and pure oxygen respectively) in a decomposition furnace (see Claim 1).
Claim 7 requires “a supply of combustion fuel in fluid communication with the combustion fuel stream inlet of the furnace.”. Mole et al. discloses feeding combustion fuel to the furnace (see Claim 1).
Claim 8 requires “the inlet for supplying a stream of an oxygen-enriched combustion air into the decomposition furnace is configured to supply the oxygen-enriched combustion air through one or a plurality of burners of the decomposition furnace.”. Mole et al. discloses feeding oxygen enriched air through at least one burner (see Claim 1) the phrase “at least one burner” is understood to cover embodiments with a plurality of burners.
Claim 9 requires “the inlet for supplying the pure oxygen stream into the decomposition furnace is configured to supply the pure oxygen at or near a periphery of a primary flame of one or a plurality of burners of the decomposition furnace.”. Mole et al. discloses “In the process of the invention, the deficit of oxygen in the primary oxidant flow is supplemented by supplying a secondary oxidant flow to the furnace through lances spaced from the burner(s). Separate lances are normally provided for this purpose, and these are preferably located in the same end wall of the furnace as the burner(s) and particularly preferably, are positioned around the burner(s) between the burner(s) and the liquid waste injecting atomizing lances.” [Col. 7 line 62 to Col. 8 line 2]. Additionally this spacing can be seen in Figure 1 (reproduced below) where the flame comes from burners (2) and the oxygen is injected through lances (3).
PNG
media_image1.png
579
591
media_image1.png
Greyscale
This spacing is understood to be at or near the periphery of the flame coming from the burners.
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) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 5531169 Mole et al.
Claim 10 requires “a first sensor for sensing a first amount of oxygen in the oxygen-enriched combustion air and generating a first signal representing the first amount of oxygen”. Mole et al. does not disclose sensing an amount of oxygen in the oxygen-enriched combustion air supplied to the furnace. However this would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art because the method of Mole et al. requires control over the oxygen to fuel ratio which requires knowing the volume flow of air and the oxygen percentage (“As explained above, the amount of primary oxidant which is fed through the burner(s) is such that the oxygen it provides is below that which is necessary to effect complete combustion of the injected fuel. The primary oxidant:fuel ratio will depend, of course, on the oxygen concentration of the primary oxidant” [Col. 6, Lines 11-16]). When using oxygen enriched air one would necessarily need to know the precise concentration of that enriched air which could be easily achieved using obvious and known means such as an oxygen sensor positioned to measure oxygen concentration before being fed to the furnace.
Claim 10 further requires “a second sensor for sensing a second amount of oxygen in an outlet stream from the decomposition furnace and generating a second signal representing the second amount of oxygen”. Mole et al. discloses “The combustion of sulfuric acid is an example of such a process, when the stochiometric excess of oxygen is preferably controlled such that the combustion gasses exiting the furnace contain from 1 to 4% by volume of oxygen on a dry basis. This control over the oxygen excess may be effected by monitoring the concentration of oxygen in the combustion gasses exiting the furnace and adjusting the secondary oxidant flowrate as appropriate” [Col. 8, Lines 23-31].
Claim 10 further requires “wherein the first and second amounts of oxygen sensed determine an amount of oxygen to be present in the oxygen-enriched combustion air supplied into the decomposition furnace”. In the method of Mole et al. adjusts the amount of oxygen supplied to the secondary oxidant (“This control over the oxygen excess may be effected by monitoring the concentration of oxygen in the combustion gasses exiting the furnace and adjusting the secondary oxidant flowrate as appropriate” [Col. 8 lines 27-31] which may be oxygen enriched air while the primary oxidant is the pure oxygen required by Claim 1 (“The primary oxidant which is fed to the burner may be any oxygen rich gas, but is preferably oxygen enriched air or substantially pure oxygen.” [Col. 5, Lines 62-64]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSHUA MAXWELL SPEER whose telephone number is (703)756-5471. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-5pm EST.
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, Anthony Zimmer can be reached at 571-270-3591. 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.
JOSHUA MAXWELL SPEER
Examiner
Art Unit 1736
/J.M.S./Examiner, Art Unit 1736
/ANTHONY J ZIMMER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1736
