DETAILED ACTION
Application Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . This action is in response to Applicant’s submission dated 02/10/2023. Claim(s) 37–72 are pending.
Election/Restrictions
Claims 46–71 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a non-elected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim at this time. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 11/28/2025.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are
“a heating device configured to heat the cremation chamber” in claim 1, which has been interpreted to mean “a plurality of burner nozzles and corresponding burner sleeves comprised of high temperature resistant steel, a ceramic material, a composite material, or combination thereof”;
“an air supply device configured to feed supply air to the cremation chamber,” which has been interpreted to mean “a supply blower connected to the cremation chamber and/or an exhaust air blower connected to the first exhaust gas manifold”
“an exhaust air processing device” in claim 1, which has been interpreted to mean “a separator connected downstream of the post-combustion chamber; a dust gas filter connected downstream of the separator; an absorption device connected to the separator or the dust gas filter; and a heat exchanger.”
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Objections
Claim 42 is objected to because of the following informalities: the term “the gas-tight radiant tube” lacks proper antecedent basis. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 37, 40, & 72 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 4,202,318 to DePodesta et al. in view of US 6,457,424 to März and US 2012/0070347 to Bacon et al.
With regard to claims 37 & 72, DePodesta discloses a thermal processing apparatus (abstract) comprising: a cremation chamber (74) (Fig. 2; Col. 2, lines 18–25; Col. 4, lines 7–11); a heating device (90) configured to heat the cremation chamber (74) (Fig. 2; Col. 4, lines 12–22); an air supply device (92) configured to feed supply air to the cremation chamber (74) (Fig. 2; Col. 4, lines 12–22); a first exhaust gas manifold (96) configured to discharge an exhaust air from the cremation chamber (74) (Fig. 2; Col. 4, lines 22–34).
DePodesta fails to disclose the first exhaust gas manifold comprising an exhaust air processing device; a post-combustion chamber arranged downstream of the cremation chamber. März teaches the exhaust gas conduit (31) comprising an exhaust air processing device (40, 45) (Fig. 1; Col. 3, lines 48–57); a post-combustion chamber (1C) arranged downstream of the cremation chamber (1) (Fig. 1; Col. 2, lines 42–49). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the thermal processing device of DePodesta with the exhaust gas processing device of because such a combination would have had the added benefit of März because providing cleaner exhaust gas which reduces pollutants/contaminants from being released into the atmosphere.
DePodesta also fails to disclose wherein the heating device is configured to burn hydrogen. Bacon teaches a heating device is configured to burn hydrogen (¶¶ 0444–0448). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the thermal processing device of DePodesta with the hydrogen burner of Bacon because such a combination would have had the added benefit of producing thermal energy with little or no pollutant emissions.
With regard to claim 40, DePodesta further discloses the heating device (90) is arranged outside of the cremation chamber (74) (Fig. 2).
Claim 39 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DePodesta in view of März and Bacon, as applied to claim 37 above, and further in view of US 2019/0072273 to Hirata et al.
DePodesta fails to disclose the heating device is operatively connected to a gas-tight radiant tube, wherein a gas-tight radiant tube is arranged in an interior of the cremation chamber and wherein the heating device heats the gas-tight radiant tube. Hirata teaches a gas-tight radiant tube (1) (Fig. 2; ¶ 0034), wherein the heating device (2) heats the gas-tight radiant tube (1) (Fig. 2; ¶¶ 0033–0034). If the radiant tube of Hirata was added to the burner already in place in DePodesta, the result would be a radiant tube that extended into the interior of the cremation chamber. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the thermal processing device of DePodesta with the radiant tube of Hirata because such a combination would have had the added benefit of providing thermal energy to the cremation chamber without introducing exhaust gases.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 38 & 41–45 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: see attached PTO-892. Applicant is encouraged to review the cited references prior to submitting a response to this office action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID J LAUX whose telephone number is (571)270-7619. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30-5:30 M-F.
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, Edelmira Bosques can be reached at (571) 270-5614. 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.
/DAVID J LAUX/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3762
December 22, 2025