Office Action Predictor
Application No. 17/925,465

METHOD AND BURNER OF HYDROGEN COMBUSTION IN INDUSTRIAL FURNACE, ESPECIALLY IN A GLASS FURNACE OR A FURNACE FOR METAL MELTING, BY MEANS OF A MULTI NOZZLE BURNER

Final Rejection §112
Filed
Nov 15, 2022
Examiner
SHIRSAT, VIVEK K
Art Unit
3762
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
Flammatec, Spol. S R.O.
OA Round
2 (Final)
74%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
3y 0m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

74%
Career Allow Rate
775 granted / 1055 resolved
Without
With
+29.9%
Interview Lift
avg trend
3y 0m
Avg Prosecution
65 pending
1120
Total Applications
career history

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.4%
-39.6% vs TC avg
§103
45.6%
+5.6% vs TC avg
§102
25.3%
-14.7% vs TC avg
§112
23.3%
-16.7% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data

Office Action

§112
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 The applicant’s substantive amendments to claims 1 and 22 overcome the rejections raised in the Non-Final rejection dated 11/03/2025. The applicant’s amendments overcome the claim objections raised in the Non-Final rejection dated 11/03/2025. Therefore, the objections are withdrawn. With respect to the 35 U.S.C 112(b) rejections of claim 1 raised in the Non-Final rejection dated 11/03/2025 the applicant states, on pp. 14-15 of the remarks, that the “additional gas composition” and the “primary additional gas composition” are the same gas composition, and that the claimed momentums are that of the compositions and not individual gasses1. However, the applicant has not clarified the claims to reflect the interpretations, in effect arguing that because the examiner’s interpretation was correct the claims do not lack clarity. The examiner respectfully disagrees. If the additional gas composition and the primary additional gas composition are intended to be the same gas composition then the claims should be amended so that they use the same terminology throughout to refer to the claimed gas composition. With regards to the momentums the indefiniteness arises because, for example, claim 1 requires that “the hydrogen fuel gas composition exiting the tip of the at least one central gas nozzle is in the range of 0.001-1.2 [KgH2 m/s2]”, the applicant acknowledges that the claimed momentums refer to those of the gas compositions, however the units “KgH2 m/s2” and “KgO2 m/s2” clearly refer to the momentum contributions that hydrogen and oxygen make toward the momentums of their respective compositions. The momentum statements could be clarified, for example, by amending the units so that they are [Kgm/s2]. 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. Claims 1-24 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claim 1 requires “an additional gas composition” in line 3 and “a primary additional gas composition” in line 12. It is unclear if these are the same gas compositions and gas flows. The applicant’s specification suggests that the additional gas composition and the primary additional gas composition are the same2 [see paragraph 0154 of the applicant’s PgPub], therefore, for the purposes of examination the two gas compositions are interpreted as being the same gas composition. Claim 1 part a1) requires 0.001-1.2[kgH2m/s2], it is unclear if the recited momentum is that of the hydrogen alone or the “hydrogen fuel gas composition” which requires at least 80% hydrogen gas; part b1) requires 0.01-10,4[kgO2m/s2], it is unclear if the recited momentum is that of the oxygen alone or the “primary additional gas composition” which requires at least 80% oxygen gas. For the purposes of examination, the momentums are interpreted as being that of the compositions. Conclusion 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 VIVEK K SHIRSAT whose telephone number is (571)272-3722. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00AM-5:20AM. 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, Steven B 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. /VIVEK K SHIRSAT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3762 1 The interpretations were taken by the examiner on the basis of the applicant’s specification for the purposes of addressing indefinite claim language. 2 “…specifically stating “the additional gas composition OC; namely a primary additional gas composition OC…” [paragraph 0154].
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Nov 15, 2022
Application Filed
Oct 30, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §112
Feb 03, 2026
Response Filed
Mar 13, 2026
Final Rejection — §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology. Study what changed to get past this examiner.

Patent 12595935
SOLAR RECEIVER
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12590707
SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR IMPROVED CONVECTION AIRFLOW IN A COOKING APPLIANCE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12590723
HVAC SYSTEM WITH WIRELESS DAMPER AND ZONING CONTROL
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12590703
ELECTRONIC CLOSED-LOOP CONTROL DEVICE FOR FIREPLACES COMPRISING A LOWER COMBUSTION SYSTEM
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12590698
MULTI-TUBE BURNER SYSTEM FOR EFFICIENT MIXING OF FUEL AND AIR FOR COMBUSTION
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026

AI Strategy Recommendation

Click below to generate an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
74%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+29.9%)
3y 0m
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 1055 resolved cases by this examiner