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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 17-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 04/29/2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-10, 14 & 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 & 102a2 as being clearly anticipated by COOLING (WO 2006111765 A1).
COOLING ‘765 discloses the invention as follows:
1. A flame arrestor 50 (Fig. 5; pg. 18, ln 30-32 and pg. 19, ln 1-2) comprising:
a housing 17 (fig. 5) having a longitudinal axis from a first end (i.e., left side) to a second end (i.e., right side);
a first substrate 12 (fig. 5) within the housing 17 at the first end (left side), the first substrate 12 comprising a plurality of channels from the first end (left side) towards the second end (right side); and
a second substrate 12’ (fig. 5) within the housing 17 at the second end (right side), the second substrate 12’ comprising a plurality of channels from the second end (right side) towards the first end (left side);
wherein the second substrate 12’ is spaced apart from the first substrate 12, along the longitudinal axis, by an air gap (Fig. 5; e.g., this claimed air gap is provided by either the matrix of tortuous connected pathways or non-connected pathways of the second component 23, as shown in fig. 3; See also pg. 11, ln. 24-30 and pg. 16, ln. 4-8) within the housing 17.
2. The flame arrestor of Claim 1, wherein a length (“l”; Note, fig. 1 shows the length of “l”) of the air gap (provided by the second component 23), along the longitudinal axis, is between 3 millimeters and 9 millimeters (again, pg. 11, ln. 24-30; “The length ‘l’ of the second component is typically 6 mm”).
4. The flame arrestor of Claim 1, wherein the plurality of channels in the first substrate 12 (fig. 5) is unaligned with the plurality of channels in the second substrate 12’. (pg. 16, ln. 24-29; “…the detonation arresting element can be formed by two or more parts, each having same or different apertures, and some or all of the channels may be inclined to the central longitudinal axis of the arrester.”).
5. The flame arrestor of Claim 1, wherein one or both of the first substrate 12 and the second substrate 12’ comprises a metallic mesh (pg. 16, ln. 10-19).
6. The flame arrestor of Claim 5, wherein the metallic mesh is made of stainless steel (pg. 16, ln. 17-19; “…the surface may be treated with coatings of various forms to provide resistance to chemical attack and withstand loading due to shock wave and also to provide optimal surface conditions”). Accordingly, COOLING ‘765 implicitly teaches that the metallic mesh of either the first or second substrates 12, 12’ can be comprised of a stainless steel, as conventionally known in the art).
7. The flame arrestor of Claim 5, wherein the metallic mesh comprises fluting sandwiched between liners (e.g., crimped ribbon or sintered gauze laminate, honeycomb; see pg. 15, ln. 31-32 and pg. 16, ln. 1-4) to form the plurality of channels in the respective substrate 12, 12’.
8. The flame arrestor of Claim 5, wherein both the first substrate 12 (fig. 5) and the second substrate 12’ comprises the metallic mesh (pg. 16, ln. 10-19).
9. The flame arrestor of Claim 1, wherein the housing 17 (fig. 5) is cylindrical and each of the first substrate 12 and the second substrate 12’ has a circular profile.
10. The flame arrestor of Claim 1, wherein the first substrate 12 (fig. 5) and the second substrate 12’ are identical.
14. A flame arrestor 50 (fig. 5) comprising:
a cylindrical housing (fig. 5) having a longitudinal axis from a first end (left side) to a second end (right side);
a first substrate 12 (fig. 5) within the cylindrical housing at the first end (left side), the first substrate 12 comprising a plurality of channels from the first end (left side) towards the second end (right side); and
a second substrate 12’ (fig. 5) within the cylindrical housing at the second end (right side), the second substrate 12’ comprising a plurality of channels from the second end (right side) towards the first end (left side);
wherein the second substrate 12’ is spaced apart from the first substrate 12, along the longitudinal axis, by an air gap (Fig. 5; e.g., this claimed air gap is provided by either the matrix of tortuous connected pathways or non-connected pathways of the second component 23, as shown in fig. 3; See also pg. 11, ln. 24-30 and pg. 16, ln. 4-8) within the cylindrical housing,
wherein a length (“l”; Note, fig. 1 shows the length of “l”) of the air gap (provided by the second component 23), along the longitudinal axis, is between 3 millimeters and 9 millimeters (again, pg. 11, ln. 24-30; “The length ‘l’ of the second component is typically 6 mm”), and
wherein the plurality of channels in the first substrate 12 is unaligned with the plurality of channels in the second substrate 12’. (pg. 16, ln. 24-29; “…the detonation arresting element can be formed by two or more parts, each having same or different apertures, and some or all of the channels may be inclined to the central longitudinal axis of the arrester.”).
16. The flame arrestor of Claim 14, wherein each of the first substrate 12 and the second substrate 12’ comprises a metallic mesh (pg. 16, ln. 10-19), and wherein each metallic mesh comprises fluting sandwiched between liners (e.g., crimped ribbon or sintered gauze laminate, honeycomb; see pg. 15, ln. 31-32 and pg. 16, ln. 1-4) to form the plurality of channels in the respective substrate 12, 12’.
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 (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.
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.
Claim(s) 3 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over COOLING ‘765.
Regarding claims 3 & 15, COOLING ‘765 discloses the invention but is silent regarding the length of the air gap to be between 3.5 mm and 4.5 mm, as claimed. However, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to provide the length “l” of the air gap to be between 3.5 mm and 4.5 mm, as claimed because it has been held that a change in shape or configuration, without any criticality, is nothing more than one of numerous shapes that one of ordinary skill in the art will find obvious to provide based on the suitability for the intended final applications.
Claim(s) 11-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over COOLING ‘765 in view of Maxson (US 5375565 A).
Re claims 11-13, COOLING ‘765 discloses the invention as essentially claimed except for wherein the flame arrester being provided in a channel between an inlet and outlet of an intake runner of an intake manifold having a plenum, wherein the inlet of each of plurality of intake runners is in fluid communication with the plenum wherein the outlet of each of the plurality of intake runners is in fluid communication with an engine block of an internal combustion engine.
However, the patent to Maxson ‘565 teaches that it is conventional in the art of flame arrestors for internal combustion engines to provide a flame arrester 36 (fig. 1-2; col. 3, ln. 49 thru col. 4, ln. 5) wherein the flame arrester 36 is provided in a channel between an inlet and outlet of an intake runner 34 of an intake manifold 32 having a plenum (of 32; see fig. 1), wherein the inlet of each of plurality of intake runners 34 is in fluid communication with the plenum (of 32) wherein the outlet of each of the plurality of intake runners 32 is in fluid communication with an engine block 11 of an internal combustion engine 10 (fig. 1). Maxson ‘565 further explicitly discloses that by providing such a flame arrester within the channel of the intake runner of the air intake manifold of the engine, it would prevent flame propagation from the intake passage igniting the pressurized intake fuel/air mixture in the manifold (see col. 2, lines 9-11).
In view of this teaching, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have provided the flame arrester of COOLING ‘765, in a channel between an inlet and outlet of an intake runner of an intake manifold having a plenum, wherein the inlet of each of plurality of intake runners is in fluid communication with the plenum wherein the outlet of each of the plurality of intake runners is in fluid communication with an engine block of an internal combustion engine, as clearly suggested and taught by Maxson ‘565, in order to prevent flame propagation from the intake passage igniting the pressurized intake fuel/air mixture in the manifold (see col. 2, lines 9-11).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
The various cited prior arts all teach very similar flame arresters wherein there is an air gap, at least provided by some kind of components in between at least a first and a second substrate of the arrester.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HUNG Q NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-5424. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri: 7am-pm (CT).
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, Lindsay Low can be reached at 571-272-1196. 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.
HUNG Q. NGUYEN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3747
/HUNG Q NGUYEN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3747
Prosecution Insights