DETAILED ACTION
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) 1-7, 21, 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Smelcer (US 4856550 A) in view of Boyd (US 1425940 A).
Regarding claim 1, Smelcer discloses a flue gas outlet assembly comprising:
a flue gas inlet (Fig. 2, 30) configured to connect to an exhaust outlet of a fuel burning device (col. 3, lines 10-12);
a flue gas outlet (Fig. 2, 32); and
a flue pipe condensate drain assembly comprising:
a condensate inlet (Fig. 1, 38; col. 3, lines 16-19);
a condensate outlet (Fig. 2, 52); and
a float valve (Fig. 1, 45) disposed between the condensate inlet and the condensate outlet, the float valve comprising a bullet-shaped float (45), wherein the float valve is biased closed (Fig. 2) and is configured to open to permit a flow of condensate from the condensate inlet to the condensate outlet upon a sufficient amount of condensate collecting proximate the float valve (abstract).
Smelcer fails to disclose:
the bullet-shaped float having a generally cylindrical body with a first end and a rounded second end
However, Boyd teaches a bullet-shaped float valve (Fig. 2, 39) for a radiator, the bullet-shaped float having a generally cylindrical body with a first end (either the top or bottom end could be the first end) and a rounded second end (either the bottom or top end could be the second end).
It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art at the time of effective filing of the application to modify Smelcer wherein the bullet-shaped float comprises a generally cylindrical body with a first end and a rounded second end. The modification is a simple substitution of one float shape for another float shape, and the substitution would have produced predictable results since the float would continue its original function in the combination.
Regarding claim 2, Smelcer discloses wherein the float valve is disposed at a location offset from a central axis of the flue gas inlet or a central axis of the flue gas outlet (see Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 3, Smelcer discloses wherein the float valve is disposed at a periphery of an internal volume of the flue gas inlet or an internal volume of the flue gas outlet (the float 45 is disposed outside, at a periphery, of the flue gas inlet defined by the pipe 30).
Regarding claim 4, modified Smelcer discloses wherein the bullet-shaped float is hollow (see Boyd).
Regarding claim 5, modified Smelcer discloses wherein the bullet-shaped float comprises: a first end that is open; and a second end that is closed, the second end having a generally hemispherical shape (Boyd, Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 6, Smelcer discloses the flue gas outlet assembly of Claim 1, wherein the condensate outlet is fluidly coupled to a fuel burning device (see Background of the Invention).
Regarding claim 7, Smelcer suggests wherein the condensate outlet discharges condensate into a condensate drain of the fuel burning device. Fig. 2 shows an outlet 52 with threads, and a conduit (i.e., condensate drain of the fuel burning device) can be fastened to the outlet 52 via the threads.
It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art at the time of effective filing of the application to modify Smelcer to include a conduit (i.e., condensate drain of the fuel burning device) fastened to the outlet via the threads, so that the condensate can be drained away from the furnace.
Regarding claim 21, modified Smelcer discloses wherein the first end of the bullet-shaped float is generally flat (see Boyd).
Regarding claim 22, modified Smelcer discloses wherein the first end is disposed
proximal to the flue gas outlet and the second end is disposed distal the flue gas outlet [in the combination, the rounded first end of the float (Boyd) would be above the flat second end]
Claim(s) 19, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Glover (US 20190257431 A1) in view of Smelcer (US 4856550 A) and Boyd (US 1425940 A)..
Regarding claim 19, Glover discloses a water heater system comprising:
a common vent manifold configured to exhaust flue gas (Fig. 1: horizontal duct); and
a plurality of fuel burning water heaters (Glover; 12a-c), each of the plurality of fuel burning water heaters comprising:
a housing comprising:
a burner disposed within the housing (inherently disclosed since there is combustion inside the heating units 12); and
a flue gas outlet disposed on the housing and in fluid communication with the burner (Fig. 1: the top of each heating unit has a flue gas outlet);
a flue gas outlet assembly (Fig. 1, 18) affixed directly to the housing of at least one of the fuel burning water heaters, the flue gas outlet assembly comprising:
an inlet chamber (134) configured to receive flue gas from the flue gas outlet (para. 25);
an outlet chamber (132) (para. 25); and
a door (Fig. 2, 122) disposed between the inlet chamber and the outlet chamber, the door being configured to selectively permit the flue gas to flow between the inlet chamber and the outlet chamber (paras. 25, 26), and wherein the door is configured to bias closed and to open upon a flow of flue gas from the inlet chamber to the outlet chamber (paras. 26, 27).
Glover fails to disclose:
a flue pipe condensate drain assembly comprising: a condensate inlet; a condensate outlet; and
a float valve disposed between the condensate inlet and the condensate outlet, the float valve comprising a bullet-shaped float having a generally cylindrical body with a first end and a rounded second end,
wherein the float valve is biased closed and is configured to open to permit a flow of condensate from the condensate inlet to the condensate outlet upon a sufficient amount of condensate collecting proximate the float valve.
Smelcer teaches a condensate trap for a gas-fired furnace, comprising:
a flue pipe condensate drain assembly comprising: a condensate inlet (Fig. 2, 30);
a condensate outlet (Fig. 2, 32); and
a float valve (Fig. 2, 45) disposed between the condensate inlet and the condensate
outlet, wherein the float valve is biased closed and is configured to open to permit a flow of
condensate from the condensate inlet to the condensate outlet upon a sufficient amount of
condensate collecting proximate the float valve (abstract).
It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art at the time of effective filing of
the application to modify Glover wherein the flue gas outlet assembly further comprises: a flue
pipe condensate drain assembly comprising: a condensate inlet; a condensate outlet; and a
float valve disposed between the condensate inlet and the condensate outlet, wherein the float
valve is biased closed and is configured to open to permit a flow of condensate from the
condensate inlet to the condensate outlet upon a sufficient amount of condensate collecting
proximate the float valve. The motivation to combine is so that the condensate formed in the flue
gas outlet assembly can be channeled away from the furnace, thereby reducing the risk of mildew and mold buildup, and corrosion.
Boyd teaches a condensate drain comprising:
bullet-shaped float valve (Fig. 2, 39) for a radiator, the bullet-shaped float having a generally cylindrical body with a first end (bottom end) and a rounded second end (top end).
Note: Boyd also teaches
a condensate inlet (Fig. 2, 45);
a condensate outlet (Fig. 2, B); and
the float valve disposed between the condensate inlet and the condensate
outlet
It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art at the time of effective filing of the application to further modify Glover wherein the bullet-shaped float comprises a generally cylindrical body with a first end and a rounded second end. The modification is a simple substitution of one float shape for another float shape, and the substitution would have produced predictable results since the float would continue its original function in the combination.
Regarding claim 20, modified Glover discloses the water heater system of Claim 19, wherein the first end of the bullet-shaped float is generally flat (see Boyd).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8-11, 13, 15-18 are allowed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) have been considered but do not apply to any of the current rejections.
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 JASON LAU whose telephone number is (571)270-7644. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00-5:00.
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.
/JASON LAU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3762
Prosecution Insights