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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 3, 10 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claims 3, 10 and 13, the phrase "in particular" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). For purposes of this Office Action the limitations following the phrase are deemed to not carry patentable weight.
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.
Claims 1-4, 6-8 and 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by GB 2,280,742 A (hereinafter “PATEL”).
PNG
media_image1.png
1262
2360
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claims 1-4 and 6-8, PATEL discloses a grilling device comprising a grill housing (1), a gas-operated heating element (7), and a connecting element which can be connected to a fuel container (2), wherein the gas-operated heating element (7) is connected to the connecting element by means of a connecting conduit (see 9, 13, 6), characterized in that the connecting conduit (see 9, 13, 6) has a fuel withdrawal portion (9) adapted to carry fuel in a liquid form and an expansion portion (13, 6) adapted to carry the fuel in a gaseous state, wherein the fuel withdrawal portion (9) is connected to the connecting element upstream in the flow direction of the fuel and opens into the expansion portion (13, 6) downstream in the flow direction; characterized in that a fuel container (2) having a fuel- filled interior space and a fuel container connection (where fuel withdrawal portion 9 connects to fuel container 2; best seen in DRAWING SHEET #2/9) is provided, the fuel container connection (where fuel withdrawal portion 9 connects to fuel container 2; best seen in DRAWING SHEET #2/9) interacting with the connecting element and being positioned below the interior space (best seen in DRAWING SHEET #2/9); characterized in that a control valve (see 5, 12), in particular a pressure control valve, is provided; characterized in that a first nozzle (see the conical constriction within the Valve Body 28) is provided at the end of the fuel withdrawal portion (9) pointing downstream in the flow direction of the fuel and/or a second nozzle (a minute orifice in the Nipple 17) is provided downstream of the expansion portion (13) in the flow direction of the fuel; characterized in that a heating device is provided which heats the expansion portion (13) at least in portions from the outside; characterized in that the heating device is the gas-operated heating element (7); characterized in that the expansion portion (13) opens downstream, in the flow direction of the fuel, into a pipe portion (6) for treating an air/gas mixture (see air inlet 14).
Regarding Claims 11-13, PATEL discloses a method for operating a grilling device comprising a grill housing, a gas-operated heating element (7), and a connecting element connected to a fuel container (2), wherein the gas-operated heating element (7) is connected to the connecting element by means of a connecting conduit (9, 13, 6), characterized in that ● the fuel is withdrawn from the fuel container (2) in a liquid state, ● the fuel withdrawn from the fuel container (2) is passed in a liquid state through a fuel withdrawal portion (9) of the connecting conduit (9, 13, 6) to an expansion portion (13) of the connecting conduit (9, 13, 6), the liquid fuel in the expansion portion (13) becoming gaseous, and ● the gaseous fuel is supplied to the heating element (7); characterized in that the fuel in the expansion portion (13) is heated from the outside; characterized in that air, in particular oxygen, is supplied to the fuel downstream of the expansion portion (13; see air inlet 14) but upstream of the gas-operated heating element (7) in the flow direction of the fuel.
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.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over PATEL.
Regarding Claim 5, PATEL discloses characterized in that a first nozzle (see the conical constriction within the Valve Body 28) is provided at the end of the fuel withdrawal portion (9) pointing downstream in the flow direction of the fuel, and a second nozzle (a minute orifice in the Nipple 17) is provided downstream of the expansion portion (13) in the flow direction of the fuel.
PATEL does not disclose the diameter of the first nozzle being smaller than the diameter of the second nozzle.
Nonetheless, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify PATEL wherein the diameter of the first nozzle being smaller than the diameter of the second nozzle, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable (i.e., the diameters of the first and second nozzles affect the fuel flow dynamics through said connecting conduit, such as pressure drop, flow rate and/or flow volume which furthermore will affect combustion characteristics) involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05(II). Furthermore, providing a liquid fuel nozzle (i.e., the claimed first nozzle) having a smaller diameter would assist in breaking the liquid fuel into fine droplets for more efficient vaporization within said expansion portion, whereas the gaseous fuel nozzle (i.e., the claims second nozzle) can have a larger diameter because the fuel is already in a gaseous state and a larger gaseous fuel nozzle can maintain a sufficient pressure drop even at lower fuel injection amounts, thus helping to suppress combustion fluctuations.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over PATEL in view of US 2013/0312728 A1 (hereinafter “REI”).
Regarding Claim 9, PATEL does not disclose characterized in that the pipe portion for treating an air/gas mixture is a manifold.
REI teaches a grilling device characterized in that a pipe portion for treating an air/gas mixture is a manifold (see para. [0044]: “According to the present invention, the number of the burner assembly can be chosen depending on users' needs. In the case where a plurality of burner assemblies is disposed, each burner assembly comprises a burning head, a burning tube and a first jet opening. For example, FIG. 6 shows an embodiment of a combustion stove having three burner assemblies, wherein the first pipeline has three second opening ends 1421, 1422 and 1423 individually open to one of the first jet openings 1331, 1332 and 1333 and a multi-direction manifold comprising three separate tubes 1431, 1432 and 1433.”).
PNG
media_image2.png
856
2036
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify PATEL wherein the pipe portion for treating an air/gas mixture is a manifold as taught and/or suggested by REI, since the number of the burners/heating elements employed are a matter of a users' needs, such a modification would provide a means of feeding a plurality of burners/heating elements simultaneously.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over PATEL in view of US 5,803,727 (hereinafter “LONG”).
Regarding Claim 10, PATEL does not disclose characterized in that a fuel container is provided on the connecting element, which fuel container contains liquefied gas, in particular propane, butane, and isobutane or a mixture of at least two of the fuels propane, butane, and isobutane.
LONG teaches a grilling device characterized in that a fuel container (11) is provided on the connecting element (19), which fuel container contains liquefied gas, in particular propane, butane, and isobutane or a mixture of at least two of the fuels propane, butane, and isobutane (see Col. 2, Lns. 18-19: “The stove 10 is fueled by an LPG fuel tank 11 which contains butane or a mixture of butane and propane.”).
PNG
media_image3.png
631
938
media_image3.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify PATEL characterized in that a fuel container is provided on the connecting element, which fuel container contains liquefied gas, in particular propane, butane, and isobutane or a mixture of at least two of the fuels propane, butane, and isobutane as taught and/or suggested by LONG, since LONG states that “Burning appliances may be fueled by liquid fuel or by liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) such as butane, propane, and mixtures of butane and propane.” See LONG, Col. 1, Lns. 7-9.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure because the references are either in the same field of endeavor or are reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the applicant was concerned. Please see form PTO-892 (Notice of References Cited) attached to, or included with, this Office Action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JORGE A PEREIRO whose telephone number is (571)270-3932 and whose fax number is (571) 270-4932. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9:00 - 5:00 EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Thomas Barrett can be reached on (571) 272-4746. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JORGE A PEREIRO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3799