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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed April 7th, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant argues that Liu discloses a rotatable inner ring 32 that rotates with airfoils 24 and the airfoils actively rotate and are connected only with the inner ring (Remarks, pages 5-6). The Examiner respectfully disagrees and contends that Liu never states that the airfoils rotate and Applicant has provided no explanation or citation in Liu to explain how such a conclusion was arrived at. The applicant's position on this point is considered to be speculative attorney's argument unsupported by objective technical evidence on the issue. Arguments of counsel cannot take the place of evidence in the record. See In re Schulze, 346 F.2d 600, 602, 145 USPQ 716, 718 (CCPA 1965); In re Pearson, 494 F.2d 1399, 1405, 181 USPQ 641, 646 (CCPA 1974).
Liu discloses it is the gas stream which rotates rather than the airfoil 24: “axial swirler preferably provides a rotational movement around the lateral axis of the mixing channel, to which the axial swirler is applied. As a result, from each mixing channel such rotating fuel/air mixture is entering a radially inner part of the swirler, in which the rotation around the swirler axis is initiated” (Liu, para. [0014]) and “The axial swirler 20 is a device that provides a rotational movement to the fluid flowing through the swirler passage 16” (Liu, para. [0045]). While, Liu seems to show the blades are only connected to the inner ring in Figure 7, Liu appears to show they are connected to the frame 23 in Figure 8 and they also appear to be connected in Figure 3 and Figure 5. Furthermore, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). In this case, Kim also discloses the blades (vanes 12) are connected to a stationary shaft (section 21) and a sleeve (shell 17, Fig. 4). Thus, the argument is not persuasive.
The Applicant argues that Kim’s device is unable to realize rotation of quench gas around a stationary shaft and an increased flow rate and instead Kim’s device generates turbulent disordered flow which is opposite to the ordered swirling flow around a fixed shaft as claimed and Kim’s device produces pressure loss and a reduction in flow velocity (Remarks, page 6). It is noted that “ordered swirling flow” is not a claim limitation. Again, the Applicant has provided no citation in Kim and this argument is likewise considered to be speculative attorney's argument unsupported by objective technical evidence on the issue. Arguments of counsel cannot take the place of evidence in the record. See In re Schulze, supra and In re Pearson, supra.
In fact, Kim teaches minimizing pressure loss (col. 3, lines 2-5 and lines 15-22) to generate swirling flow around the stationary shaft (col. 3, line 16, Fig. 4, shaft 21) and in the device of Kim, the reduced cross-sectional area of flow (reduced by the cross-sectional area of the shaft 21 and vanes/blades 12) would serve to increase the flow rate around the stationary shaft due to the restricted cross section. Thus, the argument is not persuasive.
Applicant appears to argue that “a rotating shaft” as recited in claim 1 and claim 8 is actually a stationary shaft (Remarks, page 8). It is noted that where applicant acts as his or her own lexicographer to specifically define a term of a claim contrary to its ordinary meaning, the written description must clearly redefine the claim term and set forth the uncommon definition so as to put one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the applicant intended to so redefine that claim term. See Process Control Corp. v. Hyd Reclaim Corp., 190 F.3d 1350, 1357, 52 USPQ2d 1029, 1033 (Fed. Cir. 1999). In this case, the specification never mentions that the shaft is stationary and states:
PNG
media_image1.png
175
517
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim Objections
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 8 recites “the quench gas port” (singular) in line 4 and “the quench gas ports” (plural) in line 6. It seems the second instance in line 6 should be singular for clarity.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-3 and 5-8 are 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.
Claim 1 now recites “wherein the blade shaft is a stationary shaft”. The specification and claims as originally filed are silent as to a stationary shaft. The specification states: “enabling quench air in the quench air ports to rotate with the blade shaft as a rotating shaft under an action of the guide blades” (para. [0022]), “the quench air rotates with the blade shaft as the rotating shaft” (para. [0025]), and “the method comprises: enabling quench air in the quench air ports to rotate with the blade shaft as a rotating shaft under an action of the guide blades,” (claim 8).
Claims 2-3 and 5-8 are likewise rejected by virtue of their dependence on claim 1.
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 1-3 and 5-8 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 1 now recites “wherein the blade shaft is a stationary shaft” in line 13 and “rotate with the blade shaft as a rotating shaft under an action of guide blades” in line 14 and it is unclear what is meant by these apparently contradictory limitations. As discussed above, the specification never discloses that the blade shaft is stationary and there is not no explanation as to how the blade shaft could be a stationary shaft and a rotating shaft.
Claims 2-3 and 5-8 are rejected by virtue of their dependence on claim 1.
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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-2 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ran et al. (previously attached translation of CN 207330863U) in view of Liu (US 20120017595), Kim (US 6158412), Tetsuto (previously attached translation of JP 2000234724A) and Tang et al. (previously attached translation of CN 101392191A).
Regarding claim 1, Ran et al. discloses a quench device (Abstract, “chill” is equivalent to the limitation of “quench”) for improving mixing effect (para. [0013]) of quench gas (chilled air or steam, syngas, carbon dioxide or a mixture thereof, para. [0005]) and synthesis gas (para. [0010]) as shown below:
PNG
media_image2.png
794
1327
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Ran et al. discloses the device comprises a plurality of quench gas ports (chilled air nozzles 7, para. [0010]) installed on a dry pulverized coal gasifier body (“pulverized coal gasifier” and “coal powder”, para. [0002]) wherein a cross section of the dry pulverized coal gasifier body is a first imaginary circle (Fig. 2, shown above), and the plurality of quench gas ports are arranged along a circumference of the first imaginary circle (shown above); a number of the quench gas ports is a positive even number (Fig. 2, four), and every two quench gas ports form a rotary hedging group (being approximately across from each other); two quench gas ports of a same rotary hedging group are arranged on the circumference of the first imaginary circle and symmetrically arranged around a center of the first imaginary circle (shown above);
Ran et al. does not disclose a guide wheel.
However, Ran et al. states the quench nozzles (chilled air nozzles) form a swirl flow (para. [0013]) and Liu discloses the use of a device which is analogous art at least because it is reasonably pertinent to the problem of inducing swirling flow in a gas mixing chamber (chamber 3, Fig. 1, “swirler for mixing fuel and air”, Abstract) and Liu teaches using a guide wheel (axial swirlers 20, Fig. 7 and Fig. 8) in each port (Fig. 6 ).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of Ran et al. wherein the device includes a guide wheel installed in the quench gas ports wherein the guide wheel is used for guiding quench gas, wherein at least one rotary hedging group (such as all of them, Liu, Fig. 3 and Fig. 6) is provided with the guide wheel.
The person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to utilize a guide wheel in order to induce a good swirling flow (Ran et al., para. [0018], Liu, “swirler”, Abstract) by applying a rotational or curling movement (Liu, para. [0046]) to gas leaving the gas ports.
Ran et al. does not disclose a guide wheel with a blade sleeve, blades and blade shaft.
However, Liu et al. further teaches the guide wheel comprises a guide blade sleeve (frame 23), guide blades (airfoils 24) and a blade shaft (inner ring 32) as shown below:
PNG
media_image3.png
558
886
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Liu further teaches the guide blade sleeve is installed in the ports and connected with the quench gas ports (Fig. 3, shown above); the guide blades and the blade shaft are arranged in the guide blade sleeve, and the guide blades are fixedly connected with the blade shaft and the guide blade sleeve where the blade shaft is stationary, the guide wheel is configured to enable gas in the gas port to rotate with the blade shaft as a rotating shaft (in view of Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks page 5 and page 8, “a rotating shaft”, as best understood, is a stationary shaft having gas in rotational motion around it. Lui, para. [0013]) under the action of the guide blade and enable a flow rate of the quench gas to increase (the blades must necessarily increase the flow rate at least at their location because they decrease the cross-sectional area of the flow path thereby increasing velocity, as indicated by the following continuity equation using area, A, and velocity, V: A1V1 = A2V2); the guide blade sleeve is installed in the gas ports and connected with the gas ports as shown above.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of Ran et al. wherein the guide wheel comprises a guide blade sleeve, guide blades and a blade shaft, the guide blades and the blade shaft are arranged in the guide blade sleeve, and the guide blades are fixedly connected with the blade shaft and the guide blade sleeve, wherein the blade shaft is a stationary shaft and the guide wheel is configured to enable quench gas in the quench gas port to rotate with the blade shaft as a rotating shaft (in view of Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks page 5, “a rotating shaft”, as best understood, is a stationary shaft having gas in rotational motion around it) under the action of the guide blades and enable a flow rate of the quench gas to increase; the guide blade sleeve is installed in the quench gas ports and connected with the quench gas ports.
Assuming, arguendo, that Liu does not disclose a guide blade shaft and sleeve; Kim discloses a device which is analogous art at least because it is reasonably pertinent to the problem of inducing swirling flow (“to create swirling”, Abstract) to improve mixing of gases (col. 1, line 17) and Kim further teaches a guide wheel (Fig. 4) installed within a port (such as a “port” feeding an intake manifold of an engine, Fig. 6, col. 4, lines 35-37 or a “port” feeding a catalytic converter: “exhaust tube(s) upstream of the catalytic converter”, Abstract) and Kim teaches wherein the guide wheel comprises a guide blade sleeve (shell 17), guide blades (vanes 12) and a blade shaft (element 19/section 21, Fig. 4) the guide blade sleeve is used for being installed in the port and being connected with the port (such as in a tube feeding a manifold, Fig. 6 or catalytic converter, Abstract) the guide blades and the blade shaft are arranged in the guide blade sleeve, and the guide blades are fixedly connected with the blade shaft and the guide blade sleeve (Fig. 4, col. 5, lines 5-8) as shown below:
PNG
media_image4.png
511
751
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Like Liu, the cross-sectional area of flow is reduced at least by the cross-sectional area of the shaft and blades which would work to increase the flow velocity.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of Ran et al. wherein a guide wheel is installed in the quench gas ports (Liu et al., axial swirlers 20, Fig. 6); the guide wheel is used for guiding quench gas (Ran et al., via nozzles 7); wherein at least one rotary hedging group is provided with the guide wheel (Ran et al., all the nozzles and nozzle pairs/rotary hedging groups, Fig. 2, are provided with a guide wheel as shown in Liu, Fig. 6); the guide wheel comprises a guide blade sleeve, guide blades and a blade shaft (Liu, Fig. 3, shown above, Kim, Fig. 4, shown above); wherein the blade shaft is a stationary shaft and the guide wheel is configured to enable quench gas in the quench gas port to rotate with the blade shaft as a rotating shaft (in view of Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks page 5, “a rotating shaft”, as best understood, is a stationary shaft having gas in rotational motion around it) under the action of the guide blades and enable a flow rate of the quench gas to increase; the guide blade sleeve is installed in the quench gas ports and connected with the quench gas ports (Kim, Fig. 6); the guide blades and the blade shaft are arranged in the guide blade sleeve, and the guide blades are fixedly connected with the blade shaft and the guide blade sleeve (Kim, Fig. 4, col. 5, lines 5-8).
The person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to utilize a guide wheel within gas ports in order to generate a swirling flow in a mixing chamber which provides for a more homogenous mixture of gases (Liu, para. [0050]) and/or generates a turbulent swirling pattern (Kim, abstract) from each port for uniform mixing (Kim, col. 1, line 17).
Ran et al. does not expressly disclose an extension line facing each of the quench gas ports is tangent to a second imaginary circle, the second imaginary circle is a concentric circle of the first imaginary circle, and a diameter of the second imaginary circle is smaller than a diameter of the first imaginary circle.
However, Liu further teaches an arrangement wherein an extension line of an orientation of each of the quench gas ports is tangent to a second imaginary circle, the second imaginary circle is a concentric circle of the first imaginary circle, and a diameter of the second imaginary circle is smaller than a diameter of the first imaginary circle (Fig. 6) as shown annotated below (traced with dotted lines):
PNG
media_image5.png
644
785
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Likewise, Tetsuto teaches a gas quenching and mixing device (para. [0006]) using swirling flow (para. [0008]) and further teaches quench gas ports (such as cooling gas injection nozzles 7, para. [0018]) wherein an extension line of an orientation of each of the quench gas ports is tangent to a second imaginary circle, the second imaginary circle is a concentric circle of the first imaginary circle, and a diameter of the second imaginary circle is smaller than a diameter of the first imaginary circle as shown below:
PNG
media_image6.png
514
827
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Further, Tang et al. teaches a gas mixing device (nozzle arrangement for dry coal gasifier, Abstract) having various ports (nozzles 6, Fig. 4, nozzles 7, Fig. 3, nozzles 8, Fig. 2, para. [0014]) and using swirling flow (para. [0008]) where the ports are arranged such that an extension line of an orientation of each of the ports is tangent to a second imaginary circle, the second imaginary circle is a concentric circle of the first imaginary circle, and a diameter of the second imaginary circle is smaller than a diameter of the first imaginary circle (as indicated in each of Figs. 2-4) shown below:
PNG
media_image7.png
324
1123
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of Ran et al. wherein an extension line of an orientation of each of the quench gas ports is tangent to a second imaginary circle, the second imaginary circle is a concentric circle of the first imaginary circle, and a diameter of the second imaginary circle is smaller than a diameter of the first imaginary circle.
The person of ordinary skill would have found it obvious to arrange the gas ports using a well-known configuration for inducing swirling flow (Liu, Abstract, Testuto, para. [0008], Tang et al., para. [0008]).
Regarding claim 2, the combined teachings of the above cited references for claim 1 disclose wherein a first end of each of the guide blades is connected with the blade shaft (Liu, Fig. 3, Kim, Fig. 4), and a second end of each of the guide blades is connected with an inner wall of the guide blade sleeve (Kim, Fig. 4, Liu, Fig. 3) as shown below:
PNG
media_image8.png
704
942
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 6, the combined teachings of the above cited references for claim 1 disclose wherein at least two rotary hedging groups (Ran et al., Fig. 2, two pairs/hedging groups of ports/nozzles as shown annotated above for claim 1, Liu, Fig. 6, Tetsuto, Fig. 5, and Tang et al., Figs. 2-4, each show similar arrangements having two or more rotary hedging groups) are arranged on the circumference of the first imaginary circle (Ran et al., Fig. 2, Liu, Fig. 6, Tetsuto, Fig. 5, and Tang et al., Figs. 2-4), the quench gas ports are uniformly arranged along the circumference of the first imaginary circle (shown above for claim 1, Ran et al., uniform in that a longitudinal axis of each port/nozzle is offset from the center of the imaginary circle in the same way, Fig. 2, as is the case for Liu, Fig. 6, Tetsuto, Fig. 5, and Tang et al., Figs. 2-4).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ran et al. (previously attached translation of CN 207330863U) in view of Liu (US 20120017595), Kim (US 6158412), Tetsuto (previously attached translation of JP 2000234724A) and Tang et al. (previously attached translation of CN 101392191A) as applied to claim 1 above and in further view of Barlow et al. (previously attached WO 2005081709).
Regarding claim 3, the above cited references for claim 1 do not disclose a guide cone on an air inlet side.
However, Barlow et al. also teaches a mixing device for gases which is analogous art at least because is it reasonably pertinent to the problem of mixing gases (Abstract) using swirling (page 16, line 1) and which also comprises a guide wheel (spinner 331) with blades (blades 331A) and Barlow et al. also teaches a mixing cone on the inlet side (mixing cone 327 A, Fig. 4B).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of Ran et al. wherein the device further comprises an inlet guide cone which is arranged at one end, located on an air inlet side of the guide wheel, of the blade shaft.
The person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use an inlet guide cone in order to improve mixing by splitting the stream to improve mixing (Barlow et al., page 15, lines 20-21).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ran et al. (previously attached translation of CN 207330863U) in view of Liu (US 20120017595), Kim (US 6158412), Tetsuto (previously attached translation of JP 2000234724A) and Tang et al. (previously attached translation of CN 101392191A) as applied to claim 1 above and in further view of Sevastyanov (US 20130167441).
Regarding claim 5, Ran et al. does not disclose wherein the dry pulverized coal gasifier body is sequentially provided with at least two cross sections from top to bottom.
However, Sevastyanov teaches a coal gasification device (Fig. 5) having a coal gasifier body (shown below) sequentially provided with at least two cross sections (Fig. 5, shown below) from top to bottom; at least one rotary hedging group (“cooling gas” or “chilled carbon dioxide”, para. [0270], reads on the limitation “quench gas” and Sevastyanov teaches multiple cooling gas inlet pairs which form “hedging groups” (fed via line 169) are arranged on a circumference of a first imaginary circle corresponding to each of the cross sections (Fig. 5) as shown below:
PNG
media_image9.png
607
762
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of Ran et al. by using the quench device in a known gasifier body such as the configuration taught by Sevastyanov wherein the dry pulverized coal gasifier body is sequentially provided with at least two cross sections from top to bottom; at least one rotary hedging group is arranged on a circumference of a first imaginary circle corresponding to each of the cross sections.
The person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use the quenching device in known gasifier configurations to thereby improve mixing by generating swirling flow and turbulence (Kim, col. 1, lines 36-42) in gasifiers having different configurations.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ran et al. (previously attached translation of CN 207330863U) in view of Liu (US 20120017595), Kim (US 6158412), Tetsuto (previously attached translation of JP 2000234724A) and Tang et al. (previously attached translation of CN 101392191A) as applied to claim 1 above and in further view of Groen (US 20050132647) and as evidenced by Otsuka et al. (US 5378427).
Regarding claim 7, Ran et al. does not disclose the guide blades and blade shaft are made of 8825 alloy.
However, as evidenced by Otsuka et al., 8825 alloy is Incoloy 825 (col. 2, lines 20-21) and Groen discloses a coal gasifier with a quench ring (para. [0038]) and further teaches the use of Incoloy 825 for the quench ring material (para. [0053]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of Ran et al. by constructing the blades and shaft out of Incoloy 825.
The person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use known materials for service in and around a quench zone of a gasification device such as Incoloy 825 or another suitable high temperature, corrosion resistant alloy (Groen, para. [0053]). It is noted that it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. See In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960); Sinclair & Carroll Co., Inc. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ran et al. (previously attached translation of CN 207330863U) in view of Liu (US 20120017595), Kim (US 6158412), Tetsuto (previously attached translation of JP 2000234724A) and Tang et al. (previously attached translation of CN 101392191A) as applied to claim 1 above and in further view of Chen et al. (previously attached translation of CN 112940789A).
Regarding claim 8, assuming, arguendo, that “the rotating shaft” as recited in the claim is a stationary shaft (as Applicant appears to be arguing, see Remarks, page 5); the combined teachings of the above cited references for claim 1 disclose a mixing method for synthesis gas and quench gas (Ran et al., pars. [0005] and [0010]) using the quench device for improving mixing effect of quench gas and synthesis gas according to claim 1 (see comments for claim 1 above), the method comprising: enabling the quench gas in the quench gas port to rotate with the blade shaft as the rotating shaft under the action of the guide blades (in view of Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks page 5, “a rotating shaft”, as best understood, is a stationary shaft having gas in rotational motion around it, Lui, para. [0013]), and enabling a flow rate of the quench gas to increase (the blades must necessarily increase the flow rate at least at their location because they decrease the cross-sectional area of the flow path thereby increasing velocity, as indicated by the following continuity equation using area and velocity: A1V1 = A2V2), after the quench gas is ejected from the quench gas ports, performing collision and mixing (Ran et al., para. [0013]) with a second-stage synthesis gas in the dry pulverized coal gasifier body (Ran et al., “second-stage” being the quench zone 6).
Assuming, arguendo, that a second stage is not disclosed by Ran et al., Chen et al. teaches a two-stage coal gasifier with a quenching device (“two-stage gasifier are sequentially arranged with chilled gas nozzles”, page 2, second paragraph, configured to contain a synthesis gas, Abstract) where quench gas ports (chilled gas nozzles 4) are located in the second stage (above second stage coal burner 5, Fig. 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the combined teachings of the above-cited references by using the device in a two-stage gasifier such that collision and mixing is performed with a second-stage synthesis gas.
The person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use the quenching device in known gasifier configurations to thereby improve mixing by generating swirling flow and turbulence (Kim, col. 1, lines 36-42) in gasifiers having different configurations.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PATRICK M MCCARTY whose telephone number is (571)272-4398. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 9:00 AM - 5:00 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, Claire Wang can be reached at 571-270-1051. 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.
/P.M.M./Examiner, Art Unit 1774
/CLAIRE X WANG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1774
Prosecution Insights