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
The amendment filed on 1/20/2026 has been entered. Amended Claim 1 has been noted. Claims 1, 7-9 and 11-14 are currently pending.
Claim Objections
2. The claims listed below are objected to because of the following informalities:
In Claim 1, lines 21-22, change “wherein the reservoir has an interior shaped as a funnel directing the pyrotechnical additive” to -- wherein the reservoir has an interior shaped as a funnel for directing the pyrotechnical additive -- (or equivalent)
In Claim 1, line 25, change “outlet to be” to -- outlet, to be --
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
3. Claims 1, 7-9 and 11-14 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1 now recites the limitation “wherein the screw conveyor is located near and in the reservoir outlet” which is considered indefinite because it is unclear how the screw conveyor can be simultaneously “located near and in the reservoir outlet”. The recitation of “near” would indicate that the screw conveyor is located close to but not within or in contact with the reservoir outlet while the recitation of “in” would indicate that the screw conveyor is located within the reservoir outlet. Thus, it is unclear how the screw conveyor can be both “near” the reservoir outlet and “in” the reservoir outlet at the same time. Note that the specification fails to clarify this issue. The metes and bounds of Claim 1 are consequently unclear.
Claims 7-9 and 11-14 are rejected due to their dependency on Claim 1.
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, 7-9 and 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van Melick (US 2018/0017262 A1) (hereinafter “Melick”) in view of Deng (CN 201621736 U) (see attached original document and translation for reference) and Atemboski et al. (US 2013/0160757 A1) (hereinafter “Atemboski”).
Regarding Claim 1, to the extent that Claim 1 is understood in light of the 112(b) rejection set forth in this Office Action, Melick teaches of a gas hearth (1) (see at least [0033] and Fig. 1), comprising:
a combustion chamber (10) having a firebed-simulator (12a-12d) positioned therein (as is shown in Fig. 1) (see at least [0033] and Fig. 1);
a gas supply (“gas supply line” - (13)) that is configured to supply combustible gas into said combustion chamber to said firebed-simulator positioned therein, when in operation (see at least [0033] and Fig. 1);
an ignitor (“gas ignition means (not shown)”) that ignites the combustible gas in said combustion chamber when in operation (see at least [0034]);
a flue-gas discharge duct (11) connected to said combustion chamber such that combustion flue gases are discharged from said combustion chamber, through said flue-gas discharge duct when in operation (see at least [0035] and Fig. 1); and
a meter (“metering means” - (20)) arranged in said combustion chamber such that a pyrotechnical additive (“pyrotechnical additive”) is metered into the flames of the burning combustible gas during operation (see at least [0038] and Fig. 1), wherein
said meter comprises a reservoir (22) for the pyrotechnical additive, which reservoir is provided with at least one metering opening (22b) and a displacer (“reciprocating plunger” - (24a)) that allows passage of material from said reservoir (see at least [0051]-[0052] and Fig. 4), wherein the reservoir has an interior shaped as a funnel (as is shown in Figs. 2, 4, 5) for directing the pyrotechnical additive towards a reservoir outlet (reservoir outlet comprising (22b) as shown in Fig. 4) (see at least [0038] and Figs. 2, 4, 5),
wherein said meter comprises at least one supply line (25) which is connected to said at least one metering opening (22b) and ends near said firebed-simulator (via outlet 25a) (see at least [0041] and Figs. 2-3),
wherein said meter comprises at least one pump (26) which is placed near said at least one metering opening such that a certain amount of displaced pyrotechnical additive is passed through said supply line towards said firebed-simulator by means of a pressurized medium (“air”), when in operation (see at least [0043] and Figs. 2-3), and
wherein said pump is a compressed air pump (see at least [0043] and Figs. 2-3).
Melick fails to explicitly teach that the displacer that allows passage of material from said reservoir is in the form of a rotatable driven screw conveyor that is positioned in said reservoir at the bottom of the reservoir and submerged in the pyrotechnical additive, and of a motor for rotating the screw conveyor inside the reservoir, wherein the screw conveyor is located near and in the reservoir outlet, so that rotation of the screw conveyor by the motor causes the pyrotechnical additive, which has been collected in the funnel and the outlet to be proactively displaced from the reservoir outlet towards and through said at least one metering opening during operation.
Deng discloses a relatable furnace apparatus (Fig. 40) that comprises a reservoir (3) for receiving and displacing solid material that is to be burned (see at least Abstract, [0072] and Fig. 40). The apparatus comprises a displacer (displacer comprising element (5)) that allows passage of material from said reservoir (see at least Abstract, [0058] and Fig. 40) that is in the form of a rotatable driven screw conveyor (“auger” - (5)) and positioned in said reservoir at the bottom of the reservoir (as is shown in Fig. 40) and submerged in the solid material (see at least [0059] and Fig. 40), and of a motor (16) for rotating the screw conveyor inside the reservoir (see at least [0058]-[0059] and Figs. 40-41), wherein the screw conveyor (“auger” - (5)) is located near and in the reservoir outlet (as is shown in Fig. 40), so that rotation of the screw conveyor by the motor causes the solid material, which has been collected in the funnel and the outlet to be proactively displaced from the reservoir outlet towards and through at least one metering opening (metering opening that feeds element (9) as shown in Fig. 40) during operation (see at least [0058]-[0059] and Figs. 40-41). Deng teaches that configuring the reservoir to comprise a rotatable driven screw conveyor of this type and of arranging the same in this fashion provides the advantage of, inter alia, making the “performance” of the solid material fed through the reservoir “greatly improved” while reducing “cost” (see at least [0005], [0015] and Fig. 40).
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 apparatus taught by Melick by configuring the existing displacer of the meter to be in the form of a rotatable driven screw conveyor that is positioned in the existing reservoir at the bottom of the reservoir and submerged in the existing solid pyrotechnical additive as is taught by Deng, and of a motor for rotating the screw conveyor inside the reservoir, wherein the screw conveyor is located near and in the reservoir outlet, so that rotation of the screw conveyor by the motor causes the pyrotechnical additive, which has been collected in the funnel and the outlet, to be proactively displaced from the reservoir outlet towards and through said at least one existing metering opening during operation as is also taught by Deng. Doing so would have, inter alia, made the performance of the existing solid material fed through the reservoir greatly improved while reducing cost.
Furthermore, Melick fails to explicitly teach that the meter comprises a controller that actuates the screw conveyor in terms of rotational speed and rotation time for controlling the amount of the pyrotechnical additive exiting the reservoir and entering the supply line.
Atemboski discloses a relatable fireplace system (10) with a combustion chamber (70) and a meter (meter comprising reservoir (14) and displacement component (50)) comprising a reservoir (14) that is configured to hold and deliver a variety of different additives (“wood pellets, wood chips, fruit pits, corn, other burnable biomass fuels, and combinations thereof”) into the combustion chamber (see at least [0025]-[0029] and Figs. 1-4 and 10). Atemboski teaches that the meter also comprises a displacer (50), in the form of a rotatable driven screw conveyor (“auger”), that is connected to a controller (48) of the system (see at least [0033] and Figs. 1-4, 6, 10), such that additive contained in said reservoir can be displaced towards and through at least one metering opening (60) during operation (see at least [0031]-[0034], [0042]-[0043] and Figs. 1-4, 10 and 12). Atemboski also teaches that the controller (48) actuates the screw conveyor in terms of rotational speed (“feed rate of the fuel from the hopper 14 into the burner area”) and rotation time (“time durations”) for controlling the amount of the pyrotechnical additive exiting the reservoir and entering the supply line (see at least [0042]-[0043] and Figs. 3, 4, 6, 9-10). Atemboski teaches that configuring the controller to actuate the screw conveyor in terms of rotational speed and rotation time, enables, inter alia, fine control and optimization of “feed rate” and “burn rate” (see at least [0043] and Figs. 1, 10).
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 apparatus of Melick and Deng by connecting the existing rotatable driven screw conveyor to a controller, such that the existing pyrotechnical additive contained in the existing reservoir could be displaced towards and through said at least one metering opening during operation, via rotational speed and rotation time of the rotatable driven screw conveyor controlled by the controller, as is taught by Atemboski. Doing so would have enabled fine control and optimization over the feed rate and burn rate of the additive. Note that such modification would have necessarily resulted in the invention as claimed.
Regarding Claim 7, Melick also teaches that said meter is arranged under said firebed-simulator (“under the firebed-simulating means 12a-12d”) (see at least [0039]).
Regarding Claim 8, Melick also teaches that said reservoir (22) is provided with a filling opening which can be closed with a closure (23) (see at least [0041] and Figs. 2-3).
Regarding Claim 9, Melick also teaches that said closure forms part of the firebed-simulator (via element (230) - see at least [0057] and Fig. 5).
Regarding Claim 11, Melick, Deng and Atemboski teach the gas hearth in accordance with claim 1 (see the rejection for Claim 1) and Melick (at least) also teaches of a method of operating the same comprising:
supplying a combustible gas (“gas”) through said gas supply to said firebed-simulator (12a-12d) in said combustion chamber (via element (14) - see at least [0033] and Fig. 1);
igniting the combustible gas in said combustion chamber (see at least [0034] and Fig. 1);
discharging combustion flue gases from said combustion chamber through said flue-gas discharge duct (11) (see at least [0035] and Fig. 1); and
metering a pyrotechnical additive (“pyrotechnical additive”) into the flames of the burning combustible gas through said meter (see at least [0038], Fig. 1 and the rejection for Claim 1 above). The combination of Melick, Deng and Atemboski accordingly teaches the method of Claim 11 as claimed.
Regarding Claim 12, Melick also teaches that the pyrotechnical additive may be in the form of granules (see at least [0018]).
Regarding Claim 13, Melick also teaches that the pyrotechnical additive may be a pulverulent or granular material (see at least [0018]).
Regarding Claim 14, Melick also teaches that the pyrotechnical additive comprises a carbon-containing additive (see at least [0018]).
Response to Arguments
The arguments filed 1/20/2026 have been fully considered but are moot in light of the new grounds of rejection necessitated by the claim amendments.
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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Crossman, Jr. et al. (US 5,137,012) is considered relevant to this application in terms of structure and use.
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 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, Helena Kosanovic can be reached at 571-272-9059. 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 5/20/2026
/HELENA KOSANOVIC/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3762
Prosecution Insights