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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on October 27th, 2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
The previous rejection of claims 1-3 and 5-8 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) is withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed October 27th, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant argues that Kralicek et al. cannot remedy Ran et al.’s deficiencies as it lacks the geometric orientation and technical relevance to dry pulverized coal gasification (Remarks, page 7). The Examiner respectfully disagrees. While Kralicek et al. is no longer relied upon in the new grounds of rejection which follow below, aspects of the Applicant’s argument may be applicable to the new rejections and it is noted that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
In this case, Kralicek et al. teaches a gas mixing device (device 20’, Fig. 10) with a configuration which would induce swirling flow in that Kralicek et al. teaches offset gas ports (nozzles 10) arranged around a circumference (Fig. 10) and the person of ordinary skill would have found it obvious to utilize such a configuration to achieve the predictable result of creating swirling flow in other types of gas mixing devices, such as the device of Ran et al. (Ran et al., para. [0013]). Furthermore, Kralicek et al. teaches multiple configurations including the claimed tangential orientation (Fig. 10) as shown below annotated with the imaginary circles and gas port extension lines:
PNG
media_image1.png
527
912
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Thus, the argument is not persuasive.
The Applicant argues that Kim and Liu do not disclose a guide wheel which could be reasonably combined with Ran et al. to arrive at amended claim 1 (Remarks, page 7) and Kim is designed for low-temperature and low-pressure environments for mixing air/fuel or exhaust and would be incompatible with Ran et al.’s high-temperature and high-pressure quench zone and there is no suggestion that Kim’s device could withstand the extreme conditions of Ran et al.’s gasifier (Remarks, pages 7-8) while Liu describes axial swirlers in gas turbine combustor mixing channels to blend fuel and air and Liu provides no motivation to combine its swirlers with Ran et al.’s device (Remarks, page 8). The Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
In this case, the axial swirlers (swirlers 20) of Liu, which are positioned in ports (Fig. 3 and Fig. 6), have a shape which would be fully capable of inducing swirling flow in other gas mixing devices. Likewise, the device of Kim (Fig. 4) has a shape which would be fully capable of inducing swirling flow in other gas mixing devices as Kim teaches the device is “utilized to create swirling, turbulent flow” (Abstract) and further teaches that generating more turbulence improves mixing (col. 1, lines 36-42). The person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the teachings of Liu and Kim would be applicable to other devices where swirling flow is utilized including the device of Ran et al. (Ran et al., para. [0013]). Furthermore, Kim teaches the use of material for extreme heat and lists steel (col. 6, lines 4-7) which would survive temperatures in excess of 1000⁰ C. Thus, the argument is not persuasive.
Applicant’s other arguments with respect to claims 1-3 and 5-7 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 CN207330863U) in view of Liu (US 20120017595), Kim (US 6158412), Tetsuto (attached translation of JP 2000234724A) and Tang et al. (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 (shown above).
Otherwise, 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
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); 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 (attached translation of JP 2000234724A) and Tang et al. (attached translation of CN 101392191A) as applied to claim 1 above and in further view of Barlow et al. (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 (attached translation of JP 2000234724A) and Tang et al. (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 (attached translation of JP 2000234724A) and Tang et al. (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).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 8 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
It is noted that claim 1 would be allowable by adding the following at line 12 “…….and a blade shaft; wherein the blade shaft is a rotating shaft;” or similar to clarify that the blade shaft rotates.
If Applicant amends as above, claim 8 should be amended to either remove or reword “as a rotating shaft” from line 4 to avoid any objections or 35 U.S.C. 112 issues.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The prior art of record discloses quench gas mixing devices having gas ports arranged such that a line of orientation is tangent to an imaginary circle within a gas mixing area. The prior art of record discloses using swirling devices having blades, shafts and a sleeve in order to induce swirling flow to include devices located within inlet ports of a gas mixing zone.
However, the prior art of record did not reasonably disclose, teach or otherwise suggest a quench device for improving mixing of gases comprising a plurality of quench gas ports wherein the number of the quench gas ports is a positive even number and where the quench gas ports are symmetrically arranged around a circumference and where an extension line of an orientation of each of the quench gas ports is tangent to an imaginary circle concentric with the circumference and having a smaller diameter than the circumference and where a guide wheel comprising a guide blade sleeve, guide blades and a blade shaft is installed in the quench gas ports and connected with the quench gas ports where 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 and wherein the blade shaft is a rotating shaft.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
De Jong (US 20090061374A1) discloses a swirling device (imparting means 6) fixed in a passage (para. [0021]) for coal gasification (para. [0003]).
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