DETAILED ACTION
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 Amendment
1. The amendment filed 11/18/2025 has been entered. Amended Claims 15-17, 19-22 and 24-25 have been noted in addition to canceled Claims 18 (both instances) and new Claims 27-29. The amendment has overcome the drawing objections and 112(b) rejections previously set forth - those drawing objections and 112(b) rejections have been withdrawn accordingly. The amendment has only overcome some of the claim objections previously set forth - only the claim objections that have been overcome have been withdrawn. Claims 15-17 and 19-29 are currently pending.
Claim Objections
The claims listed below are objected to because of the following informalities:
In each of Claims 28-29, line 3, change “A” to -- a --. Note that only the first word of each claim should be capitalized.
In Claim 23, line 2, change “further comprising” to -- wherein --
In Claim 23, line 3, change “a plurality of curved channels each formed by” to -- the plurality of curved channels are each formed by -- (note that the plurality of curved channels are first established in Claim 22)
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 19-24 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim 19 now recites “The twisting flame producing device of claim 29, wherein”. In accordance with the MPEP (608.01(n)), “When examining a dependent claim, the examiner should determine whether the claim complies with 35 U.S.C. 112(d), which requires that dependent claims contain a reference to a previous claim in the same application, specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed, and include all the limitations of the previous claim. If the dependent claim does not comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(d), the examiner should reject the dependent claim under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) as unpatentable rather than objecting to the claim. See Pfizer, Inc. v. Ranbaxy Labs., Ltd., 457 F.3d 1284, 1291-92, 79 USPQ2d 1583, 1589-90 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (holding a dependent claim in a patent invalid for failure to comply with pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph (now 35 U.S.C. 112(d)))” (bolding added for emphasis). Therefore, since Claim 19 depends on a future claim (i.e., claim 29) instead of “a previous claim in the same application”, Claim 19 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d).
Claims 20-24 and 26 are rejected due to their dependency on Claim 19.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 15-17, 25 and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chen (US 2015/0167964 A1).
Regarding Claim 15, Chen teaches of a twisting flame producing device (Fig. 1), comprising:
a casing (81) with a top opening (82) and a bottom opening (the bottom opening of element (81) as shown in Figs. 1-2, 6) (see at least [0032] and Figs. 1-2 and 6);
a based plate (based plate comprising element (12)) (as can be observed in at least Figs. 2-3 and 6 of Chen, the bottom portion of element (12) forms a flat based plate through which the central hole is disposed) with an installation hole (central hole of element (12) as shown in Figs. 1-3 and 6) and a plurality of bottom entry openings (openings (51) disposed at the bottom of and between elements (21) of the based plate as shown in Fig. 6) (see at least [0026], [0030], [0032] and Figs. 1-3 and 6);
a plurality of air flow channels (22) placed on the based plate surrounding the installation hole (see at least [0026], [0030], [0032] and Figs. 1-3 and 6);
each of the plurality of air flow channels (22) is formed by a first channel wall (the wall of a first element (21)) connected to a second channel wall (the wall of a second adjacent element (21) as shown in Figs. 3, 6) via an arc-shaped channel wall (11) (see at least [0026] and Figs. 2-3, 6);
whereby the twisting flame producing device is formed by placing the based plate with the plurality of air flow channels into the casing (81) (as is shown in Fig. 1 vs. Fig. 2) (see at least [0032] and Figs. 1-3, 6).
Regarding Claim 16, Chen also teaches of a plurality of bottom tabs (1223) (see Fig. 3) on a lower end of at least one of the first channel wall connected to the second channel wall via the arc-shaped channel wall (the lower end surface of first channel wall element (21) that engages elements (1223) as shown in Figs. 3, 6) (see at least [0026] and Figs. 2-3, 6); wherein the plurality of bottom tabs are connected with the based plate (as is shown in Fig. 3) (see at least [0026] and Fig. 3).
Regarding Claim 17, Chen also teaches of a plurality of top tabs (top tabs comprising elements (1121) and (1122)) on a top end of at least one of the first channel wall connected to the second channel wall via the arc-shaped channel wall (via at least being on the top surface of elements (21)) (see at least [0025]-[0026] and Figs. 1-3, 6) and; wherein the plurality of top tabs are connected with a surface of the casing (via at least element (11)) (see at least [0025]-[0026] and Figs. 1-3, 6).
Regarding Claim 25, Chen also teaches that the plurality of air flow channels circulates air flow horizontally (as is shown via the horizontal flow arrows in at least Fig. 4) (see at least [0026] and Figs. 1-4, 6).
Regarding Claim 28, Chen also teaches of a heater (60) fitted underneath the based plate with flame coming through the installation hole (see at least [0030] and Figs. 1-3, 6).
Allowable Subject Matter
5. Independent Claim 27 is allowed.
Dependent Claims 19-24 and 26 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 29 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim (i.e., Claim 15), but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding independent Claim 27: New Claim 27 comprises the subject matter of the 2nd of the two presented claim 18’s (now cancelled) which was indicated as allowable in the Non-Final Rejection filed 11/3/2025. Claim 27 is consequently considered to be allowable for at least the same reasons set forth in the Non-Final Rejection filed 11/3/2025.
Regarding dependent Claims 19-24 and 26: Claim 19 depends on new Claim 29 which comprises the subject matter of the 2nd of the two presented claim 18’s (now cancelled) which was indicated as allowable in the Non-Final Rejection filed 11/3/2025. The subject matter of Claim 19 is consequently considered to be allowable for at least the same reasons set forth in the Non-Final Rejection filed 11/3/2025. However, Claim 19, in addition to Claims 20-24 and 26 which depend on Claim 19, stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) (as is presented above in this Office Action) and are consequently not in condition for allowance at this time.
Regarding dependent Claim 29: Claim 29 comprises the subject matter of the 2nd of the two presented claim 18’s (now cancelled) which was indicated as allowable in the Non-Final Rejection filed 11/3/2025. Claim 29 is consequently considered to be allowable for at least the same reasons set forth in the Non-Final Rejection filed 11/3/2025. However, (as is presented above) Claim 29 is dependent upon a rejected base claim (i.e., Claim 15) and is consequently not in condition for allowance at this time but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims
Response to Arguments
6. The arguments filed 11/18/2025 have been fully considered but have not been found persuasive for the following reasons:
Applicant has argued that Claim 15 is not anticipated by the previously relied upon Chen reference and contend that:
“Collins dictionary gives a definition that ‘a plate is a flat piece of metal, especially on machinery or a building.’” and that:
“In the present invention, base plate 1 falls within Collins dictionary definition of a plate.
However, the second base member 12 of Chen does not fit Collins dictionary definition of a plate.
Chen, in Figures 2, 3 and 9, shows a three dimensional view of the second base member 12, clearly not a plate.
Furthermore, Figures 5, 6, 7 of Chen discloses this second base member 12, in cross sectional view, with a height and width substantially the same in size. Hence, it is not a plate.
The second base member 12, whether analyzing from a three dimensional view or a two dimensional view, is not a plate.”
These arguments are not persuasive. Note that “based plate” has no special definition in the specification and is subject to the broadest reasonable interpretation. Moreover, Applicant’s generic definition of “plate” provided from one external source is not indicative of the broadest reasonable interpretation for the “based plate” limitation as claimed. Furthermore, plate (1) of the instant application has various apertures and protruding portions (such as element (11) shown in Fig. 1) and is thus not even a completely “flat piece of metal” itself. Thus, the Examiner does not concede that the “based plate” limitation as claimed must necessarily and exclusively be a “flat piece of metal” as is contended by Applicant. Nonetheless, the based plate taught by Chen (based plate comprising element (12)) does comprise a flat piece of metal (as can be observed in at least Figs. 2-3 and 6 of Chen, the bottom base portion of element (12), which has a cross-section indicative of metal material (see MPEP 608.02), forms a flat base plate through which the central hole is disposed). Therefore, Claim 15 is still too broad to overcome the prior art of record and the arguments concerning the same are not persuasive. It is recommended that Applicant add the subject matter of new Claim 29 into Claim 15 to facilitate allowance of the application.
Conclusion
7. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The following prior art is considered relevant to this application in terms of structure and use:
Chen (US 2013/0252188 A1)
Andors et al. (US 2010/0154779 A1)
Virgil (US 3,586,241)
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 BENJAMIN W JOHNSON whose telephone number is (571)272-8523. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 7:30-5:00 PM.
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, Steve 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.
/BENJAMIN W JOHNSON/Examiner, Art Unit 3762 2/27/2026
/STEVEN B MCALLISTER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3762