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 .
Priority
This application makes reference to or appears to claim subject matter disclosed in Application No. 17490084, filed 09/30/2020 under 35 U.S.C. 119(e), 120, 121, 365(c) or 386(c)
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-4, 7-10 and 12-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huber (US 20130086950) and Bauer (US 20080276652) and Rue, Submerged Combustion Melting of Glass © 2011 The American Ceramic Society and Wiley Periodicals, Inc. referred to as Rue herein after and included in the parent application SN 17490084 and evidenced by KR 20170126454 or Demott (US 20160185642).
Regarding claims 1 and 7, Huber discloses,
a submerged combustion melting system (100), comprising:
a submerged combustion melting furnace including:
a tank (109b) including a floor (112), a roof (114) burners (104a/b, 106a/b) enter through floor
a perimeter wall extending between the floor and the roof (perimeter wall comprising (108a/b, 109a/b)
the hopper (120) enters upstream, a molten glass outlet at a downstream end of the tank (118), and an exhaust outlet (122) capable of the exhaust gases exiting into the flue;
and an exhaust system (shown in embodiments Fig 1-4) in fluid communication with the interior of the tank via the outlet, and including:
[0054] in fluid communication with the exhaust outlet a liquid-cooled transition structure fluidly connecting the exhaust passage and the exhaust structure (at least claim 15), Therefore, Huber suggests cooling is carried out and including fluid-cooled perimeter panels.
Huber discloses a type of fume hood (136) and explicitly discloses the exhaust structure comprising the hood may comprise refractory lined metal [0057]/[0076] and cooled panels which may function as a barrier and structural support.
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide a refractory lining to the hood as motivated by Huber’s disclosure to manufacture the exhaust system parts of metal lined with refractory as a barrier as suggested by Huber with known expectation that the refractory lining is a suitable construction panel for an exhaust structure of a glass submerged combustion melter.
The fume hood at the top of the exhaust stack of Huber thus in fluid communication with, and extending to a hood outlet from, the fluid-cooled flue, and including refractory-lined walls.
Huber does not use the claim language of “a dilution air duct inlet and a dilution air input duct having an outlet in fluid communication with the dilution air duct inlet of the refractory-lined hood, and non-cooled, non-refractory outlet conduit extending away from the refractory- lined hood.”
Huber discloses “an air inspirator” may be fluidly connected to the exhaust stack and may comprise a hood or multiple hoods [0055]. The only difference between Huber and the claimed invention of claim 1 is the discussion of the air dilution input duct connecting to said claimed hood.
In analogous art of submerged combustion melting of glass Bauer discloses a submerged combustion melter having an exhaust outlet and exhaust system having a flue (240-Fig 1) in fluid communication with a hood shown 2-d in Fig 1 as the “box” coming off of the flue (240).
It is clear to a skilled artisan that the exhaust from the submerged melting chamber of Huber must continue out of the exhaust stack, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a rectangular hood as depicted in Bauer in place of the canopy hood depicted by Huber.
Huber does not recite the exact claim language of the “dilution air duct” however; Huber discloses “an air inspirator” may be fluidly connected to the exhaust hood which is considered air dilution.
In an analogous art of discussing the study and development of submerged combustion melting, Rue discloses a submerged combustion melter in Fig 2 shows:
The rectangular melt chamber was changed into an octagonal configuration as shown in
Fig. 2. This change eliminated all 90° corners where batch could collect and remain un-melted. Once assembled, a 3-cm monolithic layer of high-alumina castable refractory was applied to all surfaces. Figure 2 shows a side view, collapsed in the X-axis; a top view of the pilot-scale SCM melter design; and locations of the feeder, exhaust gas ports, melt discharge tap, and six burners.
Annotated Fig 2 of Rue is included below:
PNG
media_image1.png
758
1367
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Fig 2 of Rue does not describe a hood in detail regarding Fig 2; however the construction shown in Fig 2 appears to indicate a hood extending from a flue outlet as required by claim 1.
Rue appears to show a submerged combustion melter with a hood in communication with the flue that a skilled artisan could and would create the construction of Fig 2 above. Examiner believes one skilled in the art of submerged combustion melting and part of the Industrial Technology Program, the USDOE solicited glass manufacturers to develop the bottom melter for the production of industrial glasses—a transformational Next Generation Melting System (NGMS) of the 1990s (Rue- page 264 1st Column, last paragraph) would be inclined to create the construction of Fig 2 as a mere engineering choice obvious to a skilled artisan with no unexpected results.
Huber discloses “an air inspirator” may be fluidly connected to the exhaust however does not not indicate a duct or “ductwork”
Fig 5 (b) of Rue depicts various conduit ductwork on the exhaust stack thus it is obvious to a skilled artisan to use a conduit, or ductwork, into the hood of the combined teachings of Huber and Rue as motivated to provide air to the hood and dilute the exhaust combustion products prior to being released into the environment, burn off remaining fuels, control the velocity of the exhaust, pre-heat gas to be recycled in the burners. These are all known reasons for a skilled artisan to have an air inlet and outlet of a duct with an exhaust hood as indicated by Huber and also evidenced by KR 20170126454.
Regarding claims 12 and 3, Huber shows a 2-d version of the hood off the flue in Fig 2 where it is unclear how the horizontal portion extends and Bauer shows a hood structure meeting the limitations of claim 3 as labeled in the rejection of Figure 1.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to determine the configuration and size of the hood for the exhaust gas to enter after the flue because It has been held that a mere change in shape without affecting the functioning of the part would have been within the level of ordinary skill in the art and merely a matter of obvious engineering choice.
The present specification does not indicate a specific criticality commensurate with the shape claimed in claims 2-3. It is the opinion of the Examiner this is likely a product of ordinary skill and common sense and not innovation.
Regarding claim 4, Huber discloses “an air inspirator” may be fluidly connected to the exhaust stack and may comprise a hood or multiple hoods [0055]. The combined teachings of Huber and Rue make obvious the hood construction extending off the flue as claimed in present claims 1 and 3. Rue further makes obvious using ductwork to add air to the hood as motivated to dilute the exhaust before exiting to the environment claim 1.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to rearrange the conduit for inspiration of air into the exhaust hood, since it have been held that a mere rearrangement of element without modification of the operation of the device involves only routine skill in the art. One would have been motivated to rearrange the air inlet for the purpose of contacting the exhaust prior to exiting the exhaust system without unexpected results.
Regarding claims 8-9, The combined teachings of Bauer, Huber, and Rue make obvious the refractory lined hood configuration of claim 1 (see the rejection of claim 1 above).
Huber discloses “an air inspirator” may be fluidly connected to the exhaust stack and may comprise a hood or multiple hoods [0055]. Huber does not disclose the arrangement of the air inspirator. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to rearrange the conduit for inspiration of air into the exhaust hood, since it have been held that a mere rearrangement of element without modification of the operation of the device involves only routine skill in the art. One would have been motivated to rearrange the air inlet for the purpose of contacting the exhaust prior to exiting the exhaust system. The extension recited in claim 8 appears to be a mere aspect of the construction and would not provide any unexpected results. A skilled artisan adding air to an exhaust hood via known conduits for use in a submerged combustion exhaust system (see Fig 5 of Rue) would be motivated to place the conduit to add air (known dilution or control the temperature of the exhaust) as necessary with the predicted result of adding air to the exhaust.
In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019,86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950)
Shifting the location of an element would not have modified the operation of device. In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ7 (CCPA 1975) The particular placement of an element was held to be obvious.
It has generally been recognized that to shift location of parts when the operation of the device is not otherwise changed is within the level of ordinary skill in the art, In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70; In re Gazda, 104 USPQ 400.
Regarding claim 10, It has been established that the claimed fluid-cooled flue and rectangular exhaust hood are known structures for a submerged combustion melter and , see the rejections of claims 12 and 1, the connection of a duct to the hood yields a dilution air inlet. Claim 10 merely recites a shape of the ductwork of the exhaust hood. Absent any unexpected results Examiner states this is merely an obvious engineering choice to a skilled artisan and one would be motivated to optimize the ductwork to maintain flow of the gases while yielding a small footprint, thus more cost-efficient structure.
Regarding claim 13, all of the limitations of claim 13 are rejected above, see the rejections of claims 12 and 1, the connection of a duct to the hood yields a dilution air inlet.
Regarding claim 14, it would be obvious to provide multiple dilution air inlet ports as motivated to dilute the exhaust prior to releasing it to the environment. MPEP 2144.03 indicates the court held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huber (US 20130086950) and Rue, Submerged Combustion Melting of Glass © 2011 The American Ceramic Society and Wiley Periodicals, Inc. referred to as Rue herein after and included in the parent application SN 17490084 and evidenced by KR 20170126454 and further in view of Demott (US 20160185642)
Regarding claim 11, The combined teachings of Huber and Rue do not disclose oblique angled baffles in the melter.
In analogous art of a submerged combustion melter (1) with a melting chamber (3) having a fluid-cooled wall (Fig 2) [0058]-[0059] Demott discloses baffles (7) in chamber (5) extending at different oblique angles (Fig 2) to prevent any melt projections being entrained in the fumes.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the melter of Huber with baffles as motivated to prevent any melt being entrained in the exhaust fumes and providing a cleaner gas output to the environment.
Claim(s) 2, 6 and 15-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huber (US 20130086950) and Rue, Submerged Combustion Melting of Glass © 2011 The American Ceramic Society and Wiley Periodicals, Inc. referred to as Rue herein after and included in the parent application SN 17490084 and evidenced by KR 20170126454 or Demott (US 20160185642) and further in view of and Bauer (US 20080276652).
Regarding claims 2 , 6, and 15 and 19, Huber depict a fluid cooled flue with fluid-cooled panelsdoes not depict the angles and panels of the flue claimed in claims 2 and 6.
Analogous art Bauer discloses a flue construction for a submerged combustion melter that extends along a first central longitudinal vertical axis, a central longitudinal oblique axis extending from the first central longitudinal vertical axis, and a second central longitudinal vertical axis extending from the central longitudinal oblique axis as depicted below:
PNG
media_image2.png
668
822
media_image2.png
Greyscale
KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007), the Supreme Court held that “obvious to try" was a valid rationale for an obviousness finding, for example, when there is a "design need" or "market demand" and there are a "finite number" of solutions. 550 U.S. at 421, 82 USPQ2d at 1397 ("The same constricted analysis led the Court of Appeals to conclude, in error, that a patent claim cannot be proved obvious merely by showing that the combination of elements was ‘[o]bvious to try.’ ... When there is a design need or market pressure to solve a problem and there are a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense.
Based on the disclosure of Huber to manufacture the exhaust stack in different shapes, it would be obvious to a skilled artisan to attempt a variety of angled shapes of the exhaust stack extending away from the furnace within the technical grasp with the predictable result of the exhaust gas to be expelled from the melter.
Additionally, Prior art Rue Page 273; Column 1; last paragraph states, Bottom melting offers an 80% capital cost reduction for the melter, primarily resulting from the eliminating of most refractory and reducing footprint by 85%. Thus it can be seen that there is design need and market demand for a glass melting furnace with a smaller footprint. Therefor there is definite motivation to attempt altering the configuration of the flue in Huber with angles such that the exhaust gas must travel the same distance downstream from the melter to the hood in a smaller footprint.
Regarding claim 16, Huber does not use the claim language of “a dilution air duct inlet and a dilution air input duct having an outlet in fluid communication with the dilution air duct inlet of the refractory-lined hood, and non-cooled, non-refractory outlet conduit extending away from the refractory- lined hood.”
Huber discloses “an air inspirator” may be fluidly connected to the exhaust stack and may comprise a hood or multiple hoods [0055]. The only difference between Huber and the claimed invention of claim 1 is the discussion of the air dilution input duct connecting to said claimed hood.
In analogous art of submerged combustion melting of glass Bauer discloses a submerged combustion melter having an exhaust outlet and exhaust system having a flue (240-Fig 1) in fluid communication with a hood shown 2-d in Fig 1 as the “box” coming off of the flue (240).
Huber does not recite the exact claim language of the “dilution air duct” however; Huber discloses “an air inspirator” may be fluidly connected to the exhaust hood which is considered air dilution.
In an analogous art of discussing the study and development of submerged combustion melting, Rue discloses a submerged combustion melter in Fig 2 shows:
The rectangular melt chamber was changed into an octagonal configuration as shown in
Fig. 2. This change eliminated all 90° corners where batch could collect and remain un-melted. Once assembled, a 3-cm monolithic layer of high-alumina castable refractory was applied to all surfaces. Figure 2 shows a side view, collapsed in the X-axis; a top view of the pilot-scale SCM melter design; and locations of the feeder, exhaust gas ports, melt discharge tap, and six burners.
Annotated Fig 2 of Rue is included below:
PNG
media_image1.png
758
1367
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Fig 2 of Rue does not describe a hood in detail regarding Fig 2; however the construction shown in Fig 2 appears to indicate a hood extending from a flue outlet as required by claim 1.
Rue appears to show a submerged combustion melter with a hood in communication with the flue that a skilled artisan could and would create the construction of Fig 2 above. it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a rectangular hood as depicted in Bauer in place of the canopy hood depicted by Huber. Examiner believes one skilled in the art of submerged combustion melting and part of the Industrial Technology Program, the USDOE solicited glass manufacturers to develop the bottom melter for the production of industrial glasses—a transformational Next Generation Melting System (NGMS) of the 1990s (Rue- page 264 1st Column, last paragraph) would be inclined to create the construction of Fig 2 as a mere engineering choice. The rectangular hood having an upstream wall, downstream wall and a downstream horizontal portion.
Huber discloses “an air inspirator” may be fluidly connected to the exhaust however does not not indicate a duct or “ductwork”
Fig 5 (b) of Rue depicts various conduit ductwork on the exhaust stack thus it is obvious to a skilled artisan to use a conduit, or ductwork, into the hood of the combined teachings of Huber and Rue as motivated to provide air to the hood and dilute the exhaust combustion products prior to being released into the environment, burn off remaining fuels, control the velocity of the exhaust, pre-heat gas to be recycled in the burners. These are all known reasons for a skilled artisan to have an air inlet and outlet of a duct with an exhaust hood as indicated by Huber and also evidenced by KR 20170126454.
Regarding claim 17, none of the prior art cited depicts the claimed protrusion with an excurvature upper surface however this is common sense to any skilled artisan or homeowner. An exhaust hood over a household kitchen gas fired oven has a curved ductwork, or excurvature upper surface to release the exhaust from the hood.
Claim(s) 5 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huber (US 20130086950) and Bauer (US 20080276652) and Rue, Submerged Combustion Melting of Glass © 2011 The American Ceramic Society and Wiley Periodicals, Inc. referred to as Rue herein after and evidenced by KR 20170126454 or Demott (US 20160185642) as applied above and further in view of Harman (US 2526658)
Regarding claims 5 and 18, The combined teachings of Huber, Bauer and Rue as applied to claim 1 above do not teach a cleanout port in the hood as required by claim 5.
In an analogous art, Harman discloses an apparatus for discharging combustion gases from a combustion melting furnace or kiln (for example, Col 3; lines 22-43).
Harman teaches the combustion exhaust gases from the kiln rise (Col 4; lines 15-19) flowing from the kiln into a chute that is in fluid communication with (25) which acts as a gas cleaner to separate the flue dust. Harman discloses the particles within the combustion gases 3 flow down to hopper (26) through the hood gas cleaner and the remaining exhaust exists through stack (30).
It would be obvious to modify the submerged combustion melter made obvious by Huber, Bauer and Rue such that a cleanout device is on the lower end of the hood as motivated to remove condensed particles from the exhaust gas while having an outlet at a higher level, thus upper wall, than the clean out to allow the remaining exhaust gases to exit the hood into the environment without undesirable particles.
KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007), the Supreme Court held that “obvious to try" was a valid rationale for an obviousness finding, for example, when there is a "design need" or "market demand" and there are a "finite number" of solutions. 550 U.S. at 421, 82 USPQ2d at 1397 ("The same constricted analysis led the Court of Appeals to conclude, in error, that a patent claim cannot be proved obvious merely by showing that the combination of elements was ‘[o]bvious to try.’ ... When there is a design need or market pressure to solve a problem and there are a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense.
The combined teachings of Huber, Bauer and Rue as well as the Department of Energy cited in Rue, that there is a design need and market demand for cleaner exhaust gas released into the environment though they do not discuss the combustion system in detail. Harman discloses a structure for removing condensed particles through a bottom of a hood and releasing remaining combustion by products through the upper portion. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the apparatus made obvious by the above prior art with a lower cleanout port and upper outlet in the hood to release combustion gases with less particulates into the atmosphere.
Double Patenting
A rejection based on double patenting of the “same invention” type finds its support in the language of 35 U.S.C. 101 which states that “whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process... may obtain a patent therefor...” (Emphasis added). Thus, the term “same invention,” in this context, means an invention drawn to identical subject matter. See Miller v. Eagle Mfg. Co., 151 U.S. 186 (1894); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Ockert, 245 F.2d 467, 114 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1957).
A statutory type (35 U.S.C. 101) double patenting rejection can be overcome by canceling or amending the claims that are directed to the same invention so they are no longer coextensive in scope. The filing of a terminal disclaimer cannot overcome a double patenting rejection based upon 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as claiming the same invention as that of claims 1 and 3 of prior U.S. Patent No. 12258289. This is a statutory double patenting rejection. There are no dimensions to the refractory lined hood vertical portion in claim 1 of prior U.S. Patent No. 12258289 and thus a part of the vertical portion of th4e hood in claim 3 of the instant application anticipates this vertical portion.
Claim 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as claiming the same invention as that of claim 4 of prior U.S. Patent No. 12258289. This is a statutory double patenting rejection.
Claim 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as claiming the same invention as that of claim 5 of prior U.S. Patent No. 12258289. This is a statutory double patenting rejection.
Claim 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as claiming the same invention as that of claim 6 of prior U.S. Patent No. 12258289. This is a statutory double patenting rejection.
Claim 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as claiming the same invention as that of claim 6 of prior U.S. Patent No. 12258289. This is a statutory double patenting rejection.
Claim 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as claiming the same invention as that of claim 7 of prior U.S. Patent No. 12258289. This is a statutory double patenting rejection.
Claim 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as claiming the same invention as that of claim 8 of prior U.S. Patent No. 12258289. This is a statutory double patenting rejection.
Claim 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as claiming the same invention as that of claim 9 of prior U.S. Patent No. 12258289. This is a statutory double patenting rejection.
Claim 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as claiming the same invention as that of claim 10 of prior U.S. Patent No. 12258289. This is a statutory double patenting rejection.
Claim 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as claiming the same invention as that of claim 11 of prior U.S. Patent No. 12258289. This is a statutory double patenting rejection.
Claim 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as claiming the same invention as that of claim 13 of prior U.S. Patent No. 12258289. This is a statutory double patenting rejection.
Claim 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as claiming the same invention as that of claim 14 of prior U.S. Patent No. 12258289. This is a statutory double patenting rejection.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JODI COHEN FRANKLIN whose telephone number is (571)270-3966. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8 am-4 pm.
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, Alison Hindelang can be reached at (571) 270-7001. 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.
JODI COHEN FRANKLIN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1741
/JODI C FRANKLIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1741
Prosecution Insights