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 .
DETAILED ACTION
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 12/10/2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Interpretation
Claim 20 recites “wherein the apparatus is configured to be attached to a gas combustion chimney.” Claim 1, from which claim 20 depends, recites “a first opening for receiving a fuel source.” The apparent fuel source in the embodiment of claim 20 is gas from a chimney. Thus, the examiner must interpret “a fuel source” to include chimney gases (products of combustion).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 3-8, 10, 19, 21, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jorgensen (US 20100139810 A1), hereinafter Jorgensen, in view of Robin (GB 2213254 A), hereinafter Robin.
Regarding claims 1, 7, 19, and 23, Jorgensen (first embodiment, i.e. the embodiment of figures 1 and 2) discloses an apparatus for increasing the efficiency of burning gaseous fuels, comprising:
a bottom (6, 9) shell including a plate (6) defining a first opening (14) for receiving a fuel source (5) and a side wall extending from the plate in an upward direction (9), the side wall having a first side wall end that is coupled to the plate and a second side wall end spaced from the first side wall end in the upward direction (Figure 2),
a top shell (8, 10, 11) supported by the bottom shell and including an inner wall (8) and an outer wall (10), inner wall and the outer wall defining a cavity for receiving at least the second side wall end of the side wall of the bottom shell, the inner wall having a first inner end and a second inner end and the outer wall having a first outer end and a second outer end, the second inner end spaced from the second outer end to receive at least the second side wall end (Figure 2),
wherein the inner wall includes a plurality of apertures configured for permitting air flow formed adjacent the second inner end (7).
PNG
media_image1.png
716
480
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Jorgensen (first embodiment) does not disclose:
the inner wall and an outer wall formed in one piece from a single material, the first inner end directly contacting the first outer end;
the inner wall has a de Laval nozzle shape having a converging region spaced from the plurality of apertures and a diverging region formed nearer the first inner end than the second inner end;
wherein the side wall of the bottom shell has a concave configuration along the upward direction;
wherein the inner wall of the top shell is configured such that an expelled exhaust gas has a linear velocity according to the formula:
v
e
=
T
R
M
∙
2
γ
γ
-
1
∙
1
-
p
c
p
γ
-
1
γ
where
v
e
is an exhaust velocity at a nozzle exit,
T
is an absolute temperature of an inlet gas,
R
is the universal gas law constant,
M
is a gas molecular mass,
γ
=
C
p
C
v
is an isentropic expansion factor,
C
p
is a specific heat of the gas at a constant pressure,
C
v
is a specific heat of the gas at a constant volume,
p
c
is an absolute pressure of the expelled exhaust gas at the nozzle exit, and
p
is an absolute pressure of the inlet gas;
wherein the outer wall and the side wall have a shape different from the de Laval nozzle shape of the inner wall.
However, Jorgensen (second embodiment, i.e. the embodiment of figure 3) teaches the inner wall and an outer wall formed in one piece from a single material, the first inner end directly contacting the first outer end (“Referring now to FIG. 3, the gas torch device (1A) is very similar to the device (1) described above with reference to FIGS. 1 & 2, except that the bodies (8,9,10) and consequent spaces (21,22) are machined from a single block of material” paragraph [0038]).
PNG
media_image2.png
718
360
media_image2.png
Greyscale
In view of Jorgensen’s teachings, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the inner wall and an outer wall formed in one piece from a single material, the first inner end directly contacting the first outer end as is taught in Jorgensen (embodiment 2), in the apparatus disclosed by Jorgensen (embodiment 1) because the court has held “that the use of a one piece construction instead of the structure disclosed in [the prior art] would be merely a matter of obvious engineering choice” In re Larson, 340 F.2d 965, 968, 144 USPQ 347, 349 (CCPA 1965). In this case, the difference between the prior art of embodiment 1 of Jorgensen and the claim is the one piece construction of the inner and outer walls and would thus be merely a matter of obvious engineering choice. Furthermore, one piece construction would be more robust as there would be no joint at which failure could occur.
Jorgensen does not disclose:
the inner wall has a de Laval nozzle shape having a converging region spaced from the plurality of apertures and a diverging region formed nearer the first inner end than the second inner end;
wherein the side wall of the bottom shell has a concave configuration along the upward direction;
wherein the inner wall of the top shell is configured such that an expelled exhaust gas has a linear velocity according to the formula:
v
e
=
T
R
M
∙
2
γ
γ
-
1
∙
1
-
p
c
p
γ
-
1
γ
where
v
e
is an exhaust velocity at a nozzle exit,
T
is an absolute temperature of an inlet gas,
R
is the universal gas law constant,
M
is a gas molecular mass,
γ
=
C
p
C
v
is an isentropic expansion factor,
C
p
is a specific heat of the gas at a constant pressure,
C
v
is a specific heat of the gas at a constant volume,
p
c
is an absolute pressure of the expelled exhaust gas at the nozzle exit, and
p
is an absolute pressure of the inlet gas;
wherein the outer wall and the side wall have a shape different from the de Laval nozzle shape of the inner wall.
However, Robin teaches:
the inner wall has a de Laval nozzle shape having a converging region spaced from the air inlet and a diverging region formed nearer the first inner end than the second inner end (“a converging-diverging nozzle 9 disposed horizontally, said mixture being provided by an atmospheric induction mixer. The nozzle 9 accelerates the air-gas mixture and improves the quality of mixing” page 4, line 26);
wherein the side wall of the bottom shell has a concave configuration along the flow direction;
wherein the inner wall of the top shell is configured such that an expelled exhaust gas has a linear velocity according to the formula:
v
e
=
T
R
M
∙
2
γ
γ
-
1
∙
1
-
p
c
p
γ
-
1
γ
where
v
e
is an exhaust velocity at a nozzle exit,
T
is an absolute temperature of an inlet gas,
R
is the universal gas law constant,
M
is a gas molecular mass,
γ
=
C
p
C
v
is an isentropic expansion factor,
C
p
is a specific heat of the gas at a constant pressure,
C
v
is a specific heat of the gas at a constant volume,
p
c
is an absolute pressure of the expelled exhaust gas at the nozzle exit, and
p
is an absolute pressure of the inlet gas (The examiner notes that the claimed formula for velocity is the formula for velocity in a converging/diverging nozzle);
wherein the outer wall and the side wall have a shape different from the de Laval nozzle shape of the inner wall (Walls 51 and 61 are straight).
PNG
media_image3.png
438
468
media_image3.png
Greyscale
In view of Robin’s teachings, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include wherein the inner wall has a de Laval nozzle shape as is taught in Robin, in the apparatus disclosed by Jorgensen because Robin states that the shape improves the quality of mixing. Therefore, including the shape of Robin will improve mixing in Jorgensen.
Regarding claim 3, Jorgensen, as modified by Robin, discloses the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the second inner end contacts the plate of the bottom shell (Figure 2).
Regarding claim 4, Jorgensen, as modified by Robin, discloses the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the top shell and the bottom shell form a passageway extending therebetween, the passageway including a first section extending between the outer wall of the top shell and the side wall of the bottom shell and a second section extending between the inner wall of the top shell and the side wall of the bottom shell (Figure 2, see arrows).
Regarding claim 5, Jorgensen, as modified by Robin, discloses the apparatus of claim 4, wherein the passageway is configured such that the first section is in fluid communication with the second section (Figure 2, see arrows).
Regarding claim 6, Jorgensen, as modified by Robin, discloses the apparatus of claim 4, wherein the plurality of apertures is in fluid communication with at least one of the first opening of the bottom shell and the passageway (Figure 2, see arrows).
Regarding claim 8, Jorgensen, as modified by Robin, discloses the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the side wall has a length that is shorter than a length of at least one of the inner wall and the outer wall (9 is shorter than both 8 and 10).
Regarding claim 10, Jorgensen, as modified by Robin, discloses the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the plate and the side wall of the bottom shell are formed of a further material (the plate and the side wall of the bottom shell of Jorgensen are formed of a further material).
Regarding claim 21, Jorgensen discloses the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the apparatus is configured to be attached to a gas burner for at least welding, melting, or a combination thereof (“the present invention finds especial use for hand held cutting and welding torches that are fuelled by a combustible gas(es)” paragraph [0001]).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jorgensen, in view of Robin, and further in view of Feng (CN 108426244 A), hereinafter Feng.
Regarding claim 11, Jorgensen, as modified by Robin, discloses the apparatus of claim 9, wherein the single material comprises a metal (“The components of the gas torch (1-1E) can be made from any suitable material, such as metal, alloy, ceramic, compound or any composite thereof, that can withstand high temperatures without deformation or decomposition” paragraph [0045]).
Jorgensen, as modified by Robin, does not explicitly disclose wherein the metal comprises steel, copper, bronze, brass, titanium, or a combination thereof.
However, Feng teaches wherein the metal comprises steel, copper, bronze, brass, titanium, or a combination thereof (“shell 2, cylinder 14 is a metal sheet body structure, said metal sheet is made of steel or stainless steel” description section. All citations from machine translation appended to foreign reference).
PNG
media_image4.png
520
606
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Jorgensen does not disclose steel. However, the court has held that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945). In this regard, it is noted that Feng teaches steel. It would therefore have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to construct the apparatus of steel. Steel is also resistant to high temperatures which Jorgensen states is a consideration. Stainless steel additionally is resistant to corrosion.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jorgensen, in view of Robin, in view of Ouwerkerk, and further in view of Feng.
Regarding claim 12, Jorgensen, as modified by Robin and Ouwerkerk, discloses the apparatus of claim 10, wherein the further material comprises a metal (“The components of the gas torch (1-1E) can be made from any suitable material, such as metal, alloy, ceramic, compound or any composite thereof, that can withstand high temperatures without deformation or decomposition” paragraph [0045]).
Jorgensen, as modified by Robin and Ouwerkerk, does not explicitly disclose wherein the further material comprises steel, copper, bronze, brass, titanium, or a combination thereof.
However, Feng teaches wherein the further material comprises steel, copper, bronze, brass, titanium, or a combination thereof (“shell 2, cylinder 14 is a metal sheet body structure, said metal sheet is made of steel or stainless steel” description section. All citations from machine translation appended to foreign reference).
Jorgensen does not disclose steel. However, the court has held that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945). In this regard, it is noted that Feng teaches steel. It would therefore have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to construct the apparatus of steel. Steel is also resistant to high temperatures which Jorgensen states is a consideration. Stainless steel additionally is resistant to corrosion.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jorgensen, in view of Robin, and further in view of Ouwerkerk (GB 1258950 A), hereinafter Ouwerkerk.
Regarding claim 22, Jorgensen, as modified by Robin, discloses the apparatus of claim 1.
Jorgensen, as modified by Robin, does not disclose wherein the apparatus is configured to be attached to at least one of an oil burner and kerosene burner.
However, Ouwerkerk teaches wherein the apparatus is configured to be attached to at least one of an oil burner and kerosene burner (“suitable for use with both gaseous and liquid fuels” page 1, line 11).
PNG
media_image5.png
342
484
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Jorgensen does not disclose the claimed fuel type. Ouwerkerk teaches the claimed fuel type. The substitution of one known element (the fuel of Jorgensen) for another (the fuel of Ouwerkerk) would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention, since the substitution of the fuel taught in Ouwerkerk would have yielded predictable results, namely, fuel for combustion Agrizap, Inc. v. Woodstream Corp., 520 F.3d 1337, 86 USPQ2d 1110 (Fed. Cir. 2008).
Claims 13-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jorgensen, in view of Robin, and further in view of Wan (CN 113324247 A), hereinafter Wan.
Regarding claims 13-17, Jorgensen, as modified by Robin, discloses the apparatus of claim 1.
Jorgensen, as modified by Robin, does not disclose:
wherein at least one of the inner wall, the outer wall, and the side wall has a catalyst coating;
wherein the inner wall and the outer wall of the top shell has a catalyst coating;
wherein the side wall of the bottom shell has a catalyst coating;
wherein the inner wall, the outer wall, and the side wall have a catalyst coating;
wherein the catalyst coating is selected from the group consisting of platinum and palladium.
However, Wan teaches:
wherein at least one of the inner wall, the outer wall, and the side wall has a catalyst coating;
wherein the catalyst coating is selected from the group consisting of platinum and palladium (“the surface of the stabilizer 130 can be coated with catalyst, such as platinum, nickel, rhodium and so on, to improve the stable combustion effect” description section. All citations from machine translation appended to foreign reference).
PNG
media_image6.png
250
602
media_image6.png
Greyscale
In view of Wan’s teachings, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include a platinum catalyst as is taught in Wan, in the apparatus disclosed by Jorgensen because Wan states that the catalyst improves a stable combustion effect. Therefore, including the platinum catalyst in the passageway of Jorgensen will improve combustion stability in Jorgensen. The examiner notes that Wan does not necessarily teach catalyst in each of the claimed locations. However, the court held that mere duplication has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960). In this case, the difference between the claims and the prior art is more catalyst or catalyst in more locations. The catalyst in Wan is relied upon to improve combustion stability. More catalyst would ostensibly further improve combustion stability which is not a new or unexpected result.
Claims 1, 3-8, 10, 19, 20, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Corby (US 0199620 A), hereinafter Corby, in view of Jorgensen, and further in view of Robin.
Regarding claim 1, 7, 19, and 23, Corby discloses an apparatus for increasing the efficiency of burning gaseous fuels, comprising:
a bottom shell including a plate (b’ nearest c’) defining a first opening for receiving a fuel source (The interpretation of fuel source includes combustion products from a chimney) and a side wall extending from the plate in an upward direction, the side wall having a first side wall end that is coupled to the plate and a second side wall end spaced from the first side wall end in the upward direction (B),
a top shell supported by the bottom shell and including an inner wall (C) and an outer wall (A) defining a cavity for receiving at least the second side wall end of the side wall of the bottom shell, the inner wall having a first inner end and a second inner end and the outer wall having a first outer end and a second outer end, the first inner end coupled to the first outer end (via uppermost b’) and the second inner end spaced from the second outer end to receive at least the second side wall end (Figure 1),
wherein at least one of the inner wall, the outer wall, and the side wall includes a plurality of apertures configured for permitting air flow (at least elements c’).
PNG
media_image7.png
566
268
media_image7.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image8.png
570
220
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Corby does not disclose:
the inner wall and an outer wall formed in one piece from a single material, the first inner end directly contacting the first outer end;
the inner wall has a de Laval nozzle shape having a converging region spaced from the plurality of apertures and a diverging region formed nearer the first inner end than the second inner end;
wherein the side wall of the bottom shell has a concave configuration along the upward direction;
wherein the inner wall of the top shell is configured such that an expelled exhaust gas has a linear velocity according to the formula:
v
e
=
T
R
M
∙
2
γ
γ
-
1
∙
1
-
p
c
p
γ
-
1
γ
where
v
e
is an exhaust velocity at a nozzle exit,
T
is an absolute temperature of an inlet gas,
R
is the universal gas law constant,
M
is a gas molecular mass,
γ
=
C
p
C
v
is an isentropic expansion factor,
C
p
is a specific heat of the gas at a constant pressure,
C
v
is a specific heat of the gas at a constant volume,
p
c
is an absolute pressure of the expelled exhaust gas at the nozzle exit, and
p
is an absolute pressure of the inlet gas;
wherein the outer wall and the side wall have a shape different from the de Laval nozzle shape of the inner wall.
However, Jorgensen (second embodiment, i.e. the embodiment of figure 3) teaches the inner wall and an outer wall formed in one piece from a single material, the first inner end directly contacting the first outer end (“Referring now to FIG. 3, the gas torch device (1A) is very similar to the device (1) described above with reference to FIGS. 1 & 2, except that the bodies (8,9,10) and consequent spaces (21,22) are machined from a single block of material” paragraph [0038]).
In view of Jorgensen’s teachings, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the inner wall and an outer wall formed in one piece from a single material, the first inner end directly contacting the first outer end as is taught in Jorgensen (embodiment 2), in the apparatus disclosed by Jorgensen (embodiment 1) because the court has held “that the use of a one piece construction instead of the structure disclosed in [the prior art] would be merely a matter of obvious engineering choice” In re Larson, 340 F.2d 965, 968, 144 USPQ 347, 349 (CCPA 1965). In this case, the difference between the prior art of embodiment 1 of Jorgensen and the claim is the one piece construction of the inner and outer walls and would thus be merely a matter of obvious engineering choice. Furthermore, one piece construction would be more robust as there would be no joint at which failure could occur.
Jorgensen does not disclose:
the inner wall has a de Laval nozzle shape having a converging region spaced from the plurality of apertures and a diverging region formed nearer the first inner end than the second inner end;
wherein the side wall of the bottom shell has a concave configuration along the upward direction;
wherein the inner wall of the top shell is configured such that an expelled exhaust gas has a linear velocity according to the formula:
v
e
=
T
R
M
∙
2
γ
γ
-
1
∙
1
-
p
c
p
γ
-
1
γ
where
v
e
is an exhaust velocity at a nozzle exit,
T
is an absolute temperature of an inlet gas,
R
is the universal gas law constant,
M
is a gas molecular mass,
γ
=
C
p
C
v
is an isentropic expansion factor,
C
p
is a specific heat of the gas at a constant pressure,
C
v
is a specific heat of the gas at a constant volume,
p
c
is an absolute pressure of the expelled exhaust gas at the nozzle exit, and
p
is an absolute pressure of the inlet gas;
wherein the outer wall and the side wall have a shape different from the de Laval nozzle shape of the inner wall.
However, Robin teaches:
the inner wall has a de Laval nozzle shape having a converging region spaced from the air inlet and a diverging region formed nearer the first inner end than the second inner end (“a converging-diverging nozzle 9 disposed horizontally, said mixture being provided by an atmospheric induction mixer. The nozzle 9 accelerates the air-gas mixture and improves the quality of mixing” page 4, line 26);
wherein the side wall of the bottom shell has a concave configuration along the flow direction;
wherein the inner wall of the top shell is configured such that an expelled exhaust gas has a linear velocity according to the formula:
v
e
=
T
R
M
∙
2
γ
γ
-
1
∙
1
-
p
c
p
γ
-
1
γ
where
v
e
is an exhaust velocity at a nozzle exit,
T
is an absolute temperature of an inlet gas,
R
is the universal gas law constant,
M
is a gas molecular mass,
γ
=
C
p
C
v
is an isentropic expansion factor,
C
p
is a specific heat of the gas at a constant pressure,
C
v
is a specific heat of the gas at a constant volume,
p
c
is an absolute pressure of the expelled exhaust gas at the nozzle exit, and
p
is an absolute pressure of the inlet gas (The examiner notes that the claimed formula for velocity is the formula for velocity in a converging/diverging nozzle);
wherein the outer wall and the side wall have a shape different from the de Laval nozzle shape of the inner wall (Walls 51 and 61 are straight).
In view of Robin’s teachings, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include wherein the inner wall has a de Laval nozzle shape as is taught in Robin, in the apparatus disclosed by Jorgensen because Robin states that the shape improves the quality of mixing. Therefore, including the shape of Robin will improve mixing in Jorgensen.
Regarding claim 3, Corby, as modified by Jorgensen and Robin, discloses the apparatus of claim 2, wherein the second inner end contacts the plate of the bottom shell and the inner wall defines the plurality of apertures (Figure 1 shows C contacts b’ at the lower end and possesses apertures c’).
Regarding claim 4, Corby, as modified by Jorgensen and Robin, discloses the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the top shell and the bottom shell form a passageway extending therebetween, the passageway including a first section extending between the outer wall of the top shell and the side wall of the bottom shell and a second section extending between the inner wall of the top shell and the side wall of the bottom shell (Figure 1, see arrows).
Regarding claim 5, Corby, as modified by Jorgensen and Robin, discloses the apparatus of claim 4, wherein the passageway is configured such that the first section is in fluid communication with the second section (Figure 1, see arrows).
Regarding claim 6, Corby, as modified by Jorgensen and Robin, discloses the apparatus of claim 4, wherein the plurality of apertures is in fluid communication with at least one of the first opening of the bottom shell and the passageway (Elements c’ are in fluid communication with the first opening and the passageway).
Regarding claim 8, Corby, as modified by Jorgensen and Robin, discloses the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the side wall has a length that is shorter than a length of at least one of the inner wall and the outer wall (B is shorter than A).
Regarding claim 10, Corby, as modified by Jorgensen and Robin, discloses the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the plate and the side wall of the bottom shell are formed of a further material (the plate and the side wall of the bottom shell of Corby are formed of a further material).
Regarding claim 20, Corby, as modified by Jorgensen and Robin, discloses the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the apparatus is configured to be attached to a gas combustion chimney (“attached to and made part of a stove-pipe” column 1).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Jauss (US 0077047 A)
PNG
media_image9.png
598
280
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Johannes (US 20080145297 A1) “In FIG. 11b body 211 incorporates a catalyst layer 212 on the reaction side of the body. This can be an oxidation catalyst layer comprising a platinum group metal or alloy in order to promote combustion and assist in locating and stabilizing the flame within the reaction chamber, reducing the possibility of the flame from propagating back into the mixing tube. The catalyst can be incorporated on any appropriate surface so that it stabilizes the flame without causing flashback in the mixing tube” paragraph [0130]
McKenna (US 0357017 A)
PNG
media_image10.png
632
414
media_image10.png
Greyscale
Noh (KR 20140029658 A)
PNG
media_image11.png
728
380
media_image11.png
Greyscale
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LOGAN P JONES whose telephone number is (303)297-4309. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:30-5:00 EST.
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 (571) 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.
/LOGAN P JONES/Examiner, Art Unit 3762