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 .
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
Status of Claims
The following action is in response to the applicant’s Amendment dated 1/5/2026, that was in response to the Office action dated 9/4/2025. Claims 32-54 and 56-62 are pending, claim(s) 48 and 58 has/have been amended, while claim(s) 55 has been cancelled.
Applicant's arguments filed 1/5/2026 regarding claim 32 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The reasons for the applicant’s remarks not being persuasive are given below.
Applicant respectfully submits Becker does not show a suction element that draws gases from the external kiln environment into the burner, or gases from the general atmosphere. In suggesting this, applicant points to Becker’s flow 54. It is agreed that this is not from the atmosphere, however that specific feature not claimed. The limitation only requires “at least part of the gases present outside the burner”, which is shown by Becker in that the gases are at least from outside the combustion chamber. For these reasons, the applicant’s remarks are not persuasive, and the previous ground of rejection will be maintained.
In light of the applicant’s amendment to claim 48, claim 48 is allowed as is claim 61 and other dependents of claim 48.
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.
Claim(s) 32-33, 38 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Becker et al [6089855], further in view of Hisaoka et al [4457691].
With respect to claims 32, Becker discloses: A burner for the firing of ceramic articles (T), which can be installed in an industrial kiln comprising a firing chamber, the burner comprising: a mixing body (27); at least one duct to supply a fuel (FL) (at 27) [see reproduced FIG 1 below]; at least one duct to supply an oxidizer (OX) (at 27) [see reproduced FIG 1 below]; a trigger device (24) to start a combustion; a first tubular discharge element (12), which is configured to be passed through by a fluid (F) (25) flowing out of the mixing body and is provided with a first end, inside which at least part of the mixing body is inserted [see FIG 1], and a second end opposite the first end; wherein the burner also comprises: at least one second tubular discharge element (30), which extends from the second end on the opposite side with respect to the first end, and a suction element (represented by arrows 54), which is configured to bring at least part of the gases (G,G') present outside the burner into the second tubular discharge element and is provided with one or more openings arranged between the first and the second tubular discharge elements [col 9, line 34-46]; the mixing body comprising a multistage combustion head arranged at least partially inside the first tubular discharge element [col 5, line 57-col 6, line 3].
Becker further shows:
{cl. 33} The burner according to claim 32, wherein: the multistage combustion head comprises at least one first combustion chamber (12), configured to generate a first combustion phase of a flame (52), and at least one second combustion chamber (at 30), communicating with the first combustion chamber and configured to generate a second combustion phase of the flame (56) coming out of the first combustion chamber; the first and second combustion chambers are configured to convey the flame at high speed inside the first tubular discharge element and, passing through the suction element, towards the second tubular discharge element [col 9, line 34-46].
{cl. 38} The burner according to claim 32, wherein the suction element (represented by arrows 54) is configured to be arranged, at least partially, inside the firing chamber [see FIG 1].
Becker however does not show the flame detection device as claimed.
Hisoka makes up for these deficiencies by teaching:
A burner capable of burning an air-fuel mixture [see abstract] and
{cl. 32, cont’d} a flame detection device (6) [see FIG, col 3, line 3-35].
It would have been obvious at the time of filing the invention to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Becker with the teachings of Hisoka because Hisoka provides a known detector that is capable of controlling the ignition and air supply in order to provide a safe, desirable combustion process.
PNG
media_image1.png
660
780
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 57 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Becker et al [6089855], in view of Hisaoka et al [4457691], further in view Osman et al [3887437].
With respect to claims 57, Becker in view of Hisaoka teaches: wherein the apparatus comprises at least one burner according to claim 48; the industrial apparatus comprises at least one hydrogen supply system (at 27) [col 15, line 23-28], which is configured to inject hydrogen or a mixture comprising hydrogen into the fuel supply duct [col 9, line 34-46], however does not show the industrial apparatus.
An industrial apparatus for the firing of ceramic articles (T) comprising: a tunnel kiln provided with at least one lateral wall [col 1, line 1-12], which at least partially delimits a firing chamber and has an inner surface on the inside of the firing chamber and an outer surface on the outside of the firing chamber [col 1, line 58-col 2, line 4]; a transport system, which is configured to move a plurality of ceramic articles (T) along a conveying path (P) inside the firing chamber [col 3, line 1-15].
It would have been obvious at the time of filing the invention to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine the burner of Becker with the kiln of Osman because Osman provides a tunnel kiln with a burner capable of providing sufficient heat while reducing emissions.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 34-37, 39-47 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. Prior art is silent to the claimed features, and does not appear to be an obvious modification if incorporated into the existing applied art.
Claims 48-54, 56 and 58-62 allowed.
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 AVINASH A SAVANI whose telephone number is (571)270-3762. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday 8am-4pm.
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.
/AVINASH A SAVANI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3762
3/18/2026