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 05/29/2026, with respect to Gerwin have been fully considered and persuasive. Upon further consideration, new grounds of rejection are raised in view of Aquado Vela et al. US20200378597.
Applicant argues that Gerwin teaches a constant thickness. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Gerwin Fig. 3-10 expressly teach a change in thickness.
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.
Claim(s) 1-14 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gerwin US4115050 in view of Aquado Vela et al. US20200378597.
Regarding claim 1, Gerwin US4115050 teaches a burner, comprising
- an evaporator receiving body for receiving an evaporator assembly for distributing and evaporating liquid fuel (Fig. 1 and Fig. 2, housing 1), and
- at least one fuel supply line for supplying liquid fuel to the evaporator assembly (Fig. 1, fuel nozzle 8),
wherein the burner has a circumferential wall with a plurality of air supply openings (Fig. 2, jacket 2, air openings 5), and wherein the circumferential wall has an increased thickness at least in a first region surrounding one of the air supply openings compared to a second region located between two air supply openings (seen in Fig. 1 and 2, the air nozzles 5 are represented by an increased thickness in the walls),
wherein the increased thickness of the circumferential wall is formed by at least one projection arranged on the inner and/or outer side of the circumferential wall, (Fig. 1, Fig. 4-9) ,
wherein the air supply openings surrounded by the circumferential wall with an increased thickness have respective air supply opening channels within the circumferential wall that provide an increased guide length (seen in Fig. 1, inter alia), and
wherein at least one of the air supply openings surrounded by the circumferential wall with an increased thickness has a respective air supply opening channel that is inclined or sloping with respect to the wall normal of the circumferential wall (Seen in Fig. 4, Fig. 5, Fig. 7 alternate embodiments of Gerwin teaches air openings 5 with inclined or sloping thicknesses)
Gerwin teaches that the inclination of the air openings is a matter of design choice (Col. 6 Ln. 19-37) which allows for the adjustment and control of secondary air and the burner (Col. 6 Ln. 19-37).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to modify Gerwin with angled air openings, as taught by Gerwin, in such a way as to meet the claimed subject matter since doing so would control and improve combustion.
Gerwin does not expressly disclose wherein the at least one projection is chamfered in its outer region.
Aquado Vela et al. US20200378597 teaches in the field of gas burners (abstract) a nozzle 16 having a chamfer 20 (Fig. 4) and that providing a nozzle with a chamfer makes it easier for gaseous fluid to flow past the nozzle (¶42). Aquado Fig. 2 teaches the nozzle 16 in the flow path of a gas. Gerwin Fig. 1 teaches openings 5 in the flow path of a gas or gaseous effluent. Gerwing teaches various shapes and configurations of the ports 5 (Fig. 4-Fig. 9) and that such a feature is a matter of design choice (Col. 6 Ln. 19-24).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to modify the openings 5 of Gerwin to be chamfered, as taught by Aquado Vela, since doing so amounts a known technique for improving burner nozzles and ports with the known predictable result of easing flow past the port.
Regarding claim 2, Gerwin teaches an alternate embodiment, wherein the air supply openings are arranged along at least two rows in the circumferential direction of the circumferential wall (Fig. 6). Gerwin teaches that such a configuration provides effective control of the amount of secondary air along the length of the combustion chamber (Col. 6 Ln. 38-47).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to modify Gerwin, with an additional row(s) of air openings, as taught by Gerwin, since doing so would provide control of secondary air along the length of the combustion chamber.
Regarding claim 3, the modified Gerwin teaches the burner according to claim 1, wherein the circumferential wall has at least one projection which comprises an opening surface of the air supply opening, wherein the projection is arranged on an inner side of the circumferential wall and/or on an outer side of the circumferential wall (Gerwin, Fig. 1, air openings 5 are projections on the inner side of the circumferential wall).
Regarding claim 4, Gerwin teaches an alternate embodiment, wherein the projection is at least partially beveled in an outer region (Fig. 4). Gerwin teaches that the inclination of the air openings is a matter of design choice (Col. 6 Ln. 19-37) which allows for the adjustment and control of secondary air and the burner (Col. 6 Ln. 19-37).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to modify Gerwin with angled air openings, as taught by Gerwin, in such a way as to meet the claimed subject matter since doing so would control and improve combustion.
Regarding claim 5, Gerwin does not expressly disclose the burner according to claim 1, wherein the air supply openings comprise
first air supply openings having a first opening longitudinal axis, a first inlet surface and a first outlet surface, and
second air supply openings each having a second opening longitudinal axis, a second inlet surface and a second outlet surface,
wherein the first opening longitudinal axis forms a first angle alpha1 to a circumferential wall normal to the first air supply opening,
wherein the second opening longitudinal axis forms a second angle alpha2, different from the first angle, to a circumferential wall normal to the second air supply opening, and wherein the first angle alpha1 and the second angle alpha2 are selected such that the first inlet surface and the first outlet surface as well as the second inlet surface and the second outlet surface at least partially overlap in the projection direction of the circumferential wall normal.
Gerwin teaches that varying the angle of air openings 5 is matter of engineering design choice (Col. 6 Ln. 18-59) which improves combustion (Col. 2 ln. 36-44) and accommodates operational conditions for a given installation (Col. 3, Ln. 7-30)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to modify the prior art device such that the air openings were angled to meet the claimed subject matter, since doing so amounts to a routine optimization of art recognized parameters with the routine expected results of improving combustion and accommodating operational conditions, as taught by Gerwin.
Regarding claim 6, Gerwin does not expressly disclose the burner according to claim 1, wherein the first angle al and the second angle a2 are at most 400, and/or wherein exclusively the first angle al is 0*.
Gerwin teaches that varying the angle of air openings 5 is matter of engineering design choice (Col. 6 Ln. 18-59) which improves combustion (Col. 2 ln. 36-44) and accommodates operational conditions for a given installation (Col. 3, Ln. 7-30)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to modify the prior art device such that the air openings were angled to meet the claimed subject matter, since doing so amounts to a routine optimization of art recognized parameters with the routine expected results of improving combustion and accommodating operational conditions, as taught by Gerwin.
Regarding claim 7, Gerwin does not expressly disclose the burner according to The burner according to
- wherein the first angle alpha1 and/or the second angle alpha2 lies/lie in a plane spanned by the circumferential wall normal and a circumferential direction at the location of the respective air supply opening, and/or
- wherein the first angle alpha1 and/or the second angle alpha2 lies/lie in a plane spanned by the respective row, or
- wherein the first angle alpha1 and/or the second angle alpha2 lies/lie in a plane spanned by the circumferential wall normal at the location of the respective air supply opening and a central axis of the circumferential wall, or
- wherein the first angle alpha1 and/or the second angle alpha2 is/are oblique to a plane spanned by the circumferential wall normal and a circumferential direction at the location of the respective air supply opening, and/or
- wherein the first angle alpha1 and/or the second angle alpha2 is/are oblique to a plane spanned by the respective row.
Gerwin teaches that varying the angle of air openings 5 is matter of engineering design choice (Col. 6 Ln. 18-59) which improves combustion (Col. 2 ln. 36-44) and accommodates operational conditions for a given installation (Col. 3, Ln. 7-30)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to modify the prior art device such that the air openings were angled to meet the claimed subject matter, since doing so amounts to a routine optimization of art recognized parameters with the routine expected results of improving combustion and accommodating operational conditions, as taught by Gerwin.
Regarding claim 8, Gerwin does not expressly disclose the burner according to claim 1, wherein the air supply openings further comprise third air supply openings or third and fourth air supply openings having a third angle alpha3 and optionally fourth different angle alpha4 different from the first angle and the second angle, or wherein the air supply openings comprise a plurality of air supply openings each having different angles.
Gerwin teaches that varying the angle of air openings 5 is matter of engineering design choice (Col. 6 Ln. 18-59) which improves combustion (Col. 2 ln. 36-44) and accommodates operational conditions for a given installation (Col. 3, Ln. 7-30)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to modify the prior art device such that the air openings were angled to meet the claimed subject matter, since doing so amounts to a routine optimization of art recognized parameters with the routine expected results of improving combustion and accommodating operational conditions, as taught by Gerwin.
Regarding claim 9, the modified Gerwin teaches the burner according to claim 1, wherein the circumferential wall has an increased thickness exclusively in the region of first air supply openings or exclusively in the region of second air supply openings (Gerwin, Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 10, the modified Gerwin teaches the burner according to claim 1, wherein the air supply openings are equally spaced along the circumferential direction (Gerwin, Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 11, Gerwin does not expressly disclose the burner according to claim 1, wherein the thickness of the circumferential wall in at least a second region is 0.5 to 3.0 mm, and the thickness of the circumferential wall in at least a first region is increased by 0.2 to 3.0 mm.
The difference between the prior art and the claimed subject matter amounts to a change in relative dimensions of the prior art device.
Gerwin teaches that the length of the sir sockets (which corresponds to the thickness of the wall around the air socket) may be varied in order to ensure guidance and penetration of the air into the root of the flame (Col. 2 Ln. 55-63).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to modify the prior art device such that the dimensions meet the claimed subject matter since doing so amounts to a mere change in shape of the prior art device and Gerwin teaches that such a variation is shape is a results effective variable which varies penetration and guidance of the air.
Regarding claim 12, the modified Gerwin teaches the burner according to claim 1, wherein the circumferential wall periodically has first regions with an increased thickness in the circumferential direction (Gerwin, Fig. 1, Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 13, the modified Gerwin teaches the burner according to claim 1, wherein the circumferential wall is arranged on an evaporator receiving body having a bottom region (Fig. 1, Fig. 2, Flange 10 and housing 1 are a receiving body having a bottom region).
Regarding claim 14, the modified Gerwin teaches a mobile vehicle heating device, comprising a burner according to claim 1 (Col. 3 ln. 52-55, Gerwin teaches the device in conjunction with a motor vehicle heating device).
Regarding claim 16, Gerwin teaches an alternate embodiment, wherein the air supply openings are arranged along two to four rows in the circumferential direction of the circumferential wall (Fig. 6). Gerwin teaches that such a configuration provides effective control of the amount of secondary air along the length of the combustion chamber (Col. 6 Ln. 38-47).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to modify Gerwin, with an additional row(s) of air openings, as taught by Gerwin, since doing so would provide control of secondary air along the length of the combustion chamber.
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gerwin US4115050.
Regarding claim 17, Gerwin US4115050 teaches a burner, comprising
- an evaporator receiving body for receiving an evaporator assembly for distributing and evaporating liquid fuel (Fig. 1 and Fig. 2, housing 1), and
- at least one fuel supply line for supplying liquid fuel to the evaporator assembly (Fig. 1, fuel nozzle 8),
wherein the burner has a circumferential wall with a plurality of air supply openings (Fig. 2, jacket 2, air openings 5), and
wherein the circumferential wall has an increased thickness at least in a first region surrounding one of the air supply openings compared to a second region located between two air supply openings (seen in Fig. 1 and 2, the air nozzles 5 are represented by an increased thickness in the walls),
wherein the air supply openings surrounded by the circumferential wall with an increased thickness have respective air supply opening channels within the circumferential wall that provide an increased guide length (seen in Fig. 1, inter alia), and
wherein at least one of the air supply openings surrounded by the circumferential wall with an increased thickness has a respective air supply opening channel that is inclined or sloping with respect to the wall normal of the circumferential wall (Seen in Fig. 4, Fig. 5, Fig. 7 alternate embodiments of Gerwin teaches air openings 5 with inclined or sloping thicknesses)
Gerwin teaches that the inclination of the air openings is a matter of design choice (Col. 6 Ln. 19-37) which allows for the adjustment and control of secondary air and the burner (Col. 6 Ln. 19-37).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to modify Gerwin with angled air openings, as taught by Gerwin, in such a way as to meet the claimed subject matter since doing so would control and improve combustion.
Gerwin does not expressly disclose
wherein the air supply openings comprise first air supply openings having a first opening longitudinal axis, a first inlet surface and a first outlet surface, and
second air supply openings each having a second opening longitudinal axis, a second inlet surface and a second outlet surface,
wherein the first opening longitudinal axis forms a first angle alpha1 to a circumferential wall normal to the first air supply opening,
wherein the second opening longitudinal axis forms a second angle alpha2, different from the first angle, to a circumferential wall normal to the second air supply opening, and wherein the first angle alpha1 and the second angle alpha2 are selected such that the first inlet surface and the first outlet surface as well as the second inlet surface and the second outlet surface at least partially overlap in the projection direction of the circumferential wall normal.
Gerwin teaches that varying the angle of air openings 5 is matter of engineering design choice (Col. 6 Ln. 18-59) which improves combustion (Col. 2 ln. 36-44) and accommodates operational conditions for a given installation (Col. 3, Ln. 7-30)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to modify the prior art device such that the air openings were angled to meet the claimed subject matter, since doing so amounts to a routine optimization of art recognized parameters with the routine expected results of improving combustion and accommodating operational conditions, as taught by Gerwin.
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 Deepak Deean whose telephone number is (571)270-3347. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 10-4.
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 517-272-6460. 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.
/DEEPAK A DEEAN/ Examiner, Art Unit 3762 /MICHAEL G HOANG/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3762
Prosecution Insights