DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed 11/26/25 has been entered. Claims 24 and 28 are pending in the application. Application’s amendments to the Drawings, Specification, and Claims have overcome each and every objection and 112(b) rejection previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed ***.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/26/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant has amended the claim so that the “pilot fan may be selectively deactivated during operation of the boiler and after said burner assembly has ignited” and states this is not taught in the prior art.
Examiner notes that many of the arguments have been addressed in the last Non-Final Rejection dated 9/25/20 and that any pilot fan is capable of being deactivated and that deactivation during shutdown of a boiler would be done during operation of the boiler and would therefor meet the claim language. The claim is being interpreted broadly because a controller is not claimed and this is not a method claim. If a controller is claimed support for this limitation should be identified. It is noted that Examiner did not see the word controller or equivalent in the specification.
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.
Claims 24 and 28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Patent 1835611 to Page et al. (Page) in view of JP2004214083 to Takemoto et al. (Takemoto).
Regarding claims 24 and 28, Page teaches a burner assembly in thermal communication with said boiler chamber (26, Figure 1 chamber shown in Figure 1 is a boiler or is part of a boiler therefore is a boiler chamber); a blower supplying combustion air only to said burner assembly (31, Figure 1); a pilot assembly (27, Figure 1); a fuel supply providing fuel to said pilot assembly in a unidirectional fashion (37, Figure 2); a pilot fan providing air in a unidirectional fashion only to said pilot assembly (35, Figure 1); a fuel valve assembly (40, also can consider 38 part of the fuel valve assembly, Figure 1) and configured to selectively isolate said fuel supply from the fuel and air flows from the boiler, such that increased boiler chamber pressure due to variations in boiler input or downstream conditions cannot create reverse flow (orientation shown in Figure 1) wherein said pilot fan may be selectively deactivated during operation of the boiler and after said burner assembly has ignited (The pilot fan is capable of being deactivated as the claim provides no mechanism or control for shutting off the fan just that it is deactivated. Alternatively shutting down the system would meet this limitation because it is initiated while the boiler is operating).
Page is silent on a single mixing tube; wherein fuel supply and the air from the pilot fan mix in the mixing tube; and, an air valve assembly configured to isolate said pilot fan from the fuel and air flows from the boiler.
Takemoto teaches a single mixing tube; wherein fuel supply and the air from the pilot fan mix in the mixing tube; wherein only said single mixing tube provides the resulting air-fuel mixture directly to the pilot assembly (22, Figure 2 – If Applicant interprets 21 to be a further mixing tube then 21 and 22 form the mixing tube). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the teachings of Page with the teachings of Takemoto to provide a single mixing tube; wherein fuel supply and the air from the pilot fan mix in the mixing tube; wherein only said single mixing tube provides the resulting air-fuel mixture directly to the pilot assembly. Doing so would provide a more consistent mixture of fuel and air which will provide a more efficient and cleaner combustion.
Orr teaches a valve on the pilot air line between the burner and the fan (104, Figure 2) which provides an air valve assembly configured to isolate said pilot fan from the fuel and air flows from the boiler. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the teachings of Page with the teachings of Orr to provide an air valve assembly configured to selectively isolate said pilot fan from the fuel and air flows from the boiler. Doing so would make the device more efficient and provide isolation for each line of the device allowing for maintenance to be performed or flashback to be prevented.
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 STEVEN S ANDERSON II whose telephone number is (571)272-2055. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5.
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, Michael Hoang can be reached at 574-272-6460. 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.
/STEVEN S ANDERSON II/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3762