DETAILED ACTION
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 Amendment
1. The amendment filed 9/17/2025 has been entered. Amended Claims 1-2, 4, 6 and 9 have been noted. The amendment has overcome the claim objections previously set forth - those claim objections have been withdrawn accordingly. Claims 1-2, 4, 6, 8, 9, 11-12, 16, 18-19, 21-22, 24-26, 29-30 and 34-35 are currently pending while Claims 11-12, 16, 18-19, 21-22, 24-26, 29-30 and 34-35 remain withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention and there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
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.
Claims 1, 6 and 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over (JP H0252910 A) (hereinafter “JP910”) (see attached original document and translation for reference) in view of Okamoto et al. (JP 2008215662 A) (hereinafter “Okamoto”) (see attached original document and translation for reference).
Regarding Claim 1, JP910 teaches of a gas device (Fig. 1), comprising:
a frame (21) defining a chamber (18) (see at least pg. 2 and Figs. 1-2);
a burner (burner comprising element (15)) arranged above a bottom side of the chamber (as is shown in Fig. 1) (see at least pg. 2 and Figs. 1-2);
a fan (11) arranged on an outside of the frame (as is shown in Fig. 1), an outlet of the fan facing the burner (as is shown in Fig. 1) (see at least pg. 2 and Figs. 1-2); and
a baffle (baffle comprising element (19)) arranged along an inner side of the frame (as is shown in Fig. 1), and spaced apart from at least a portion of an inner wall of the frame to form an air duct (22) (see at least pg. 2 and Figs. 1-2),
wherein air sent by the fan comprises a portion that flows into the air duct, and another portion that flows into the burner (as is shown in Figs. 1-2), the baffle provided with a plurality of air outlets (23) along a flow direction of the air duct (as is shown in Figs. 1-2) (see at least pg. 2 and Figs. 1-2).
JP910 fails to explicitly teach that an upper part of the baffle is further provided with a hollow convex column extending toward the frame, wherein a cavity of the hollow convex column forms a first air outlet of the plurality of air outlets.
Okamoto discloses a relatable gas combustion device (Fig. 1) that comprises a baffle portion (22) disposed adjacent to produced flames of the device (as is shown in Fig. 1) and a burner (15) disposed within a chamber (as is shown in Fig. 1), wherein an upper part of the baffle portion is provided with a hollow convex column (18-1) that extends outwards (as is shown in Fig. 1) and wherein a cavity of the hollow convex column constitutes an air outlet (see at least the bottom of pg. 5, the top of pg. 8 and Fig. 1). Okamoto teaches that such a hollow convex column enables air to be “promptly” ejected into the chamber (see at least the bottom of pg. 5, the top of pg. 8 and Fig. 1).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the device taught by JP910 by configuring the upper most outlet and upper part of the element that is already disposed adjacent to produced flames of the device, which is the existing baffle, to be further provided with a hollow convex column that extends outwards (which would necessarily be towards the existing frame), wherein a cavity of that hollow convex column would constitute the upper most air outlet, based on the teachings of Okamoto. Doing so would have enabled air at the upper most outlet to be promptly ejected into the chamber. Note that such modification would have necessarily resulted in the gas device comprising a hollow convex column as claimed.
Regarding Claim 6, JP910 and Okamoto teach the gas device according to Claim 1 (see the rejection for Claim 1) and JP910 also teaches that an air inlet area of the air duct (22) (see Fig. 2) is larger than an air outlet area (such as the air outlet area of an element (23)) (see at least pg. 2 and Figs. 1-2).
JP910 (and Okamoto) fails to explicitly teach that “a ratio of the air inlet area to the air outlet area is between 5:2 and 4:3”. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have simply adjusted the existing ratio of air inlet/outlet area to be “between 5:2 and 4:3” as claimed since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.
(“[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (Claimed process which was performed at a temperature between 40°C and 80°C and an acid concentration between 25% and 70% was held to be prima facie obvious over a reference process which differed from the claims only in that the reference process was performed at a temperature of 100°C and an acid concentration of 10%.); See also In re Peterson, 315 F.3d at 1330, 65 USPQ2d at 1382 (“The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages.”).
In the instant case, JP910 teaches that an air inlet area of the air duct (22) (see Fig. 2) is larger than an air outlet area (such as the air outlet area of an element (23)) (see at least pg. 2 and Figs. 1-2) - thus the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art. The ratio of air inlet/outlet area is a result effective variable that would have been readily changeable in the device of JP910. As is evident from the known prior art of (at least) Dibelius et al. (US 3,777,484) (hereinafter “Dibelius”), “If the combustion air holes in the shroud are too much smaller than those in the liner the combustion air jet will entrain air from the space between the shroud and the liner and if they are too much larger air will spill into the space between the shroud and liner” (see at least Col. 3 lines 31-40 and Fig. 1). Thus, a relatively smaller ratio will be susceptible to air entrainment issues while a relatively larger ratio will be susceptible to air spillage issues. Moreover, note that Dibelius even teaches of a range of air inlet/outlet ratios that includes “1.70” which falls within the claimed range (see at least Col. 3 lines 31-40 and Fig. 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have further modified the combined device by simply adjusting the existing ratio of air inlet/outlet area, depending on the balance needed between air entrainment and air spillage, to be “between 5:2 and 4:3” as claimed since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. Note that such modification would have necessarily resulted in the invention as claimed.
Regarding Claim 8, JP910 also teaches that an air inlet surface of the air duct (22) is lower than a burning surface (15) of the burner (as is shown in Fig. 1) (see at least pg. 2 and Figs. 1-2).
Regarding Claim 9, JP910 and Okamoto teach the gas device according to Claim 1 (see the rejection for Claim 1) but are silent regarding the relative dimensions of the air duct and hollow convex column and accordingly fail to explicitly teach that a distance between the hollow convex column and a top surface of the air duct is d, wherein a height of the air duct is h, and wherein d/h is between 1/20 and 1/10. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have simply adjusted the existing distance between the hollow convex column and a top surface (d) relative to a height of the air duct (h) such that d/h is between 1/20 and 1/10 as claimed since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.
(“[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (Claimed process which was performed at a temperature between 40°C and 80°C and an acid concentration between 25% and 70% was held to be prima facie obvious over a reference process which differed from the claims only in that the reference process was performed at a temperature of 100°C and an acid concentration of 10%.); See also In re Peterson, 315 F.3d at 1330, 65 USPQ2d at 1382 (“The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages.”).
In the instant case, JP910 teaches that the upper most outlet (which would be the hollow convex column in the combined apparatus) is separated from a top surface of the air duct (22) by a distance (as is shown in Figs. 1-2) and that the air duct has a height (as is shown in Figs. 1-2) - thus the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art. The ratio between the distance and the height is a result effective variable that would have been readily changeable in the combined apparatus. As is evident from at least pg. 2 and Figs. 1-2 of JP910, the height of the duct is commensurate with the size of the chamber and the burner (burner comprising element (15)) disposed therein (see Figs. 1-2). Thus, a relatively larger duct height will permit the accommodation and use of a relatively larger burner to be disposed therein and vice-versa (see at least pg. 2 and Figs. 1-2 of JP910).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have further modified the combined apparatus by adjusting the existing height of the duct, depending on the size of burner needed, such that d/h is between 1/20 and 1/10 as claimed since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. Note that such modification would have necessarily resulted in the invention as claimed.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP910 and Okamoto further in view of Umakoshi (US 2016/0282011 A1).
Regarding Claim 2, JP910 and Okamoto teach the gas device according to Claim 1 (see the rejection for Claim 1) but fail to explicitly teach of a plurality of steering portions that are formed on the baffle, and protrude from inside to outside of the baffle, wherein air outlet is formed on each steering portion, wherein each steering portion comprises a first section extending outward in a horizontal direction, a second section connected to the first section at one end and extending upward in a vertical direction, and a third section connected to the second section at one end and extending obliquely with respect to an up-down direction, and wherein the respective air outlet is formed on the first section.
Umakoshi discloses a relatable gas combustion apparatus (Fig. 1) that comprises a burner (5) disposed within a combustion chamber (58) (see at least [0035] and Figs. 1, 3, 4 and 5B) in addition to a baffle (9) that forms a side air duct (28) with a plurality of air outlets (94) disposed therein (see at least [0036]-[0038] and Figs. 1, 3, 4 and 5B). Umakoshi teaches of a plurality of steering portions that are formed on the baffle (steering portions comprising elements (91), (90) and (92)), and protrude from inside to outside of the baffle (as is shown in Figs. 3, 4 and 5B), wherein air outlet (94) is formed on each steering portion (as is shown in Figs. 3, 4 and 5B), wherein each steering portion comprises a first section (91) extending outward in a horizontal direction (as is shown in Figs. 3, 4 and 5B), a second section (90) connected to the first section at one end and extending upward in a vertical direction (as is shown in Figs. 3, 4 and 5B), and a third section (92) connected to the second section at one end and extending obliquely with respect to an up-down direction (as is shown in Fig. 5B), and wherein the respective air outlet is formed on the first section (as is shown in Figs. 3, 4 and 5B) (see at least [0036]-[0038] and Figs. 1, 3, 4 and 5B). Umakoshi teaches that steering portions of this type generate “eddying currents” to thereby enhance “cooling” (see at least [0051]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have further modified the combined device by configuring the existing baffle to comprise a plurality of steering portions that are formed on the baffle, and protrude from inside to outside of the baffle, wherein air outlet is formed on each steering portion, wherein each steering portion comprises a first section extending outward in a horizontal direction, a second section connected to the first section at one end and extending upward in a vertical direction, and a third section connected to the second section at one end and extending obliquely with respect to an up-down direction, and wherein the respective air outlet is formed on the first section as is taught by Umakoshi.
Doing so would have enhanced cooling of the baffle. Note that such modification would have necessarily resulted in the invention as claimed.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP910 and Okamoto further in view of Yu et al. (CN 105352187 A) (hereinafter “Yu”) (see attached original document and translation for reference).
Regarding Claim 4, JP910 and Okamoto teach the gas device according to Claim 1 (see the rejection for Claim 1) and JP910 also teaches that each air outlet (23) is a hole extending along a horizontal direction (as is shown in Figs. 1-2), wherein the plurality of air outlets are evenly distributed along a circumferential direction of the baffle (as is evident from Figs. 1-2 and the disclosure of the outlets extending along a “circumference”) (see at least pg. 2 and Figs. 1-2).
JP910 (and Okamoto) fails to explicitly teach of an embodiment wherein each air outlet is a strip-shaped hole.
Yu discloses a relatable gas water heater device (Fig. 2) that comprises a plurality of air inlets (air inlets 2-4 of Fig. 3 which are depicted as 2-2 in Fig. 2 and 1-3 in Fig. 1) that feed a combustion chamber (2-1) via a side duct (as is shown in Figs. 1-2) (see at least pgs. 3-4 and Figs. 1-3). Yu teaches of making the holes “strip-shaped” and that doing so contributes to reducing noise produced by the device (see at least pgs. 3-4 and Figs. 1-3).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have further modified the combined device by configuring the existing holes to be strip-shaped as is taught by Yu. Doing so would have contributed to noise reduction of the device. Note that such modification would have necessarily resulted in the invention as claimed.
Response to Arguments
The arguments filed 9/17/2025 have been fully considered but have not been found persuasive for the following reasons:
Applicant has argued that Claim 1 as amended is now distinguished from the prior art of record and contends that:
“Claims 2, 4, 6 and 9, as presented hereinabove, are not obvious over the cited references for at least the following reason.
Obviousness requires a suggestion of all limitations in a claim. CFMT, Inc., v. Yieldup Int'l Corp., 349 F.3d 1333, 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2003).
The Examiner cited Okamoto as disclosing a hollow convex column in the form of air hole 18-1. See June 13, 2025 Office Action, page 8.
Okamoto describes air hole 18-1 being formed on a side wall portion 16 of the combustion device main body 13 of a combustion device.
Okamoto does not teach or suggest that combustion device main body 13 (and side wall portion 16) is arranged along an inner side of a frame defining a chamber.
Therefore, Okamoto does not teach or suggest that air hole 18-1 is a hollow convex column provided on an upper part of a baffle and extending towards a frame.
Combustion device main body 13 in Okamoto, at best, corresponds to a frame.
Therefore, one of skill in the art would, at best, combine the teachings of Okamoto and JP910 to provide air hole 18-1 to a frame 21 in FIGS. 1 and 2 of JP910, and not on an upper part of a baffle and extending towards the frame 21 in JP910.
Therefore, the combined teachings of JP910 and Okamoto would not suggest: wherein an upper part of the baffle is further provided with a hollow convex column extending toward the frame, a cavity of the hollow convex column forming a first air outlet of the plurality of air outlets.
as recited in claim 1.”
These arguments are not persuasive. Note that it is the combination or JP910 and Okamoto that renders obvious amended Claim 1 and in the instant case, JP910 already teaches of a frame (21) defining a chamber (18) (see at least pg. 2 and Figs. 1-2) and a baffle (baffle comprising element (19)) arranged along an inner side of the frame (as is shown in Fig. 1) that is spaced apart from at least a portion of an inner wall of the frame to form an air duct (22) (see at least pg. 2 and Figs. 1-2). Thus, the argument that “Okamoto does not teach or suggest that combustion device main body 13 (and side wall portion 16) is arranged along an inner side of a frame defining a chamber. Therefore, Okamoto does not teach or suggest that air hole 18-1 is a hollow convex column provided on an upper part of a baffle and extending towards a frame” is not persuasive given that these limitations are already taught by the base reference of JP910.
Okamoto simply provides motivation to configure a baffle element that is disposed adjacent to produced flames of a gas device to have a hollow convex column at an upper most air outlet that extends outwards (see at least Fig. 1 of Okamoto and the rejection for Claim 1 above). Thus, applying these teachings to the base reference of JP910 would have necessarily resulted in the upper most outlet and upper part of element (19) already taught by JP910, that is already disposed adjacent to produced flames of the device (which is the existing baffle), being further provided with a hollow convex column that extends outwards (which would necessarily be towards the existing frame already taught by JP910), wherein a cavity of that hollow convex column would constitute the upper most air outlet (see at least Fig. 1 of JP910 and the rejection for Claim 1 above). Doing so would have enabled air at the upper most outlet to be promptly ejected into the chamber and such modification would have necessarily resulted in the gas device comprising a hollow convex column as claimed (see the rejection for Claim 1 above). Therefore, the combination or JP910 and Okamoto meets each and every limitation of amended Claim 1 and the arguments concerning the same are not persuasive.
It is recommended that Applicant further amend Claim 1 to include additional structural elements and/or features to endeavor to overcome the prior art of record. Applicant could, for example, more specifically claim the combination and location of the different baffle outlets relative to one another as is shown in at least Fig. 2 of the instant application.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The following prior art is considered relevant to this application in terms of structure and use:
Tsumagari et al. (US 2015/0211734 A1)
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 BENJAMIN W JOHNSON whose telephone number is (571)272-8523. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 7:30-5:00 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, Steve McAllister can be reached at 571-272-6785. 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.
/BENJAMIN W JOHNSON/Examiner, Art Unit 3762 12/16/2025
/STEVEN B MCALLISTER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3762
Prosecution Insights