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 12/30/2025 has been entered. Amended Claims 1, 3-4, 7-11 and 15 have been noted in addition to canceled Claim 2. The amendment has overcome the claim objections previously set forth - those claim objections have been withdrawn accordingly. Claims 1 and 3-20 are currently pending.
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.
Claims 1, 3 and 8-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ono (JP 2016125681 A) (see attached original document and translation for reference) in view of Huang et al. (US 2018/0087772 A1) (hereinafter “Huang”).
Regarding Claim 1, Ono teaches of a fire grate (5) (see Figs. 4-5) comprising:
a fire grate body (51), which is formed with a ventilation channel (55), wherein a top portion of the fire grate body is provided with a dividing hole (51b) in communication with the ventilation channel (see at least [0014]-[0015] and Figs. 3-5); and
a flame stabilizer (flame stabilizer comprising elements (52a)), sleeved on an upper portion of the fire grate body (as is shown in Figs. 3-5), wherein a cavity (56) with a top surface as an opening is formed within the flame stabilizer (as is shown in Figs. 3-5), a gap (53b) being formed between a side wall of the cavity (inner wall of element (52a)) and a surface of the fire grate body (surface that hole (56a) extends through as shown in Fig. 5) (see at least [0014]-[0017] and Figs. 3-5), and in communication with the ventilation channel (via hole (56a)) (see at least [0014]-[0017] and Figs. 3-5).
Ono fails to explicitly teach of a metal mesh comprising a plurality of mesh layers, which is attached onto the fire grate body at a position corresponding to the dividing hole.
Huang discloses a relatable fire grate (fire grate shown in Figs. 3, 14) that comprises a fire grate body (10), which is formed with a ventilation channel (ventilation channel beneath element (32) as shown in Fig. 14 that is depicted as (202) in Fig. 10), wherein a top portion of the fire grate body is provided with a dividing hole (element (28)) in communication with the ventilation channel (see at least [0024], [0033], [0040] and Figs. 3, 10, 12 and 14). Huang teaches of a metal mesh (32) comprising a plurality of mesh layers (“plurality of meshes”) (See at least [0040] and Fig. 14 - the disclosure of “metal net 32 having a plurality of meshes” indicates that element (32) comprises a plurality of mesh layers. Note that “mesh” comprises a layer of crisscrossing strands that form openings therebetween. Thus, “a plurality of meshes” (as taught by Huang) necessarily comprises a plurality of layers of crisscrossing strands that form openings therebetween (see at least [0040] and Fig. 14). Therefore, Huang teaches of a metal mesh (32) comprising a plurality of mesh layers (“plurality of meshes”) as claimed.), which is attached onto the fire grate body at a position corresponding to the dividing hole (the metal mesh (32) is attached onto the fire grate via direct attachment to dividing hole surface (34a) as shown in Fig. 14) (see at least [0040] and Fig. 14). Huang teaches that utilizing a metal mesh of this type “achieves the effect of rectifying the flames emitted from the flame holes 342, which makes the flame more even, and avoids the formation of forked flame” (see at least [0040] and Fig. 14).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the fire grate taught by Ono by configuring the fire grate to include metal mesh comprising a plurality of mesh layers that is attached onto the fire grate body at a position corresponding to the existing dividing hole as is taught by Huang. Doing so would have rectified emitted flames thereby making the flames more even. Note that such modification would have necessarily resulted in the invention as claimed.
Regarding Claim 3, Huang also teaches that the metal mesh (32) that would be used in the combined apparatus is located below the dividing hole (as is shown in Fig. 14, the metal mesh (32) is located below the dividing hole comprising surface (34a)) (see at least [0040] and Fig. 14).
Regarding Claim 8, Ono also teaches that the flame stabilizer (flame stabilizer comprising elements (52a)) is provided with a reinforcement rib (52b) at the opening (as is shown in Fig. 4) (see at least [0017] and Fig. 4); and
the reinforcement rib (52b) is fixedly connected to the top portion of the fire grate body (as is shown in Fig. 4) (see at least [0017] and Fig. 4).
Regarding Claim 9, Huang also teaches that an edge of at least one layer of the metal meshes of the combined apparatus may be bent to form a bent part (as is shown via the bent metal mesh (38) in Fig. 15) (see at least [0041] and Fig. 15).
Regarding Claim 10, Ono also teaches that:
the top portion of the fire grate body is plate-shaped (as is shown in Fig. 4), and the fire grate body has two side plates (side plates that holes (56a) are disposed in as shown in Fig. 5) extending from the top portion to a same side of the top portion (the underside of the top portion as shown in Fig. 5) (see at least [0016]-[0017] and Fig. 5); and
the ventilation channel (55) is formed between the two side plates (as is shown in Fig. 5), and the side plates have at least one gas outlet thereon (56a) to communicate the ventilation channel to the gap (see at least [0016]-[0017] and Fig. 5).
Regarding Claim 11, Ono also teaches that the at least one gas outlet comprises a plurality of gas outlets (plurality of gas outlets (56a)), the plurality of the gas outlets being arranged at intervals on the side plate along the length direction of the top portion of the fire grate body (see at least [0016]-[0017] and Fig. 5 - “a plurality of vent holes 56a spaced apart in the front-to-rear direction”).
Regarding Claim 12, Ono also teaches that a flow passing area at the at least one gas outlet gradually increases from the ventilation channel to the gap (as is shown in Fig. 5, the flow passing area gradually increases from element (57) at the at least one gas outlet to the gap (53b) via the upper contour of element (57) as shown in Fig. 5) (see at least [0017], [0021] and Fig. 5).
Regarding Claim 13, Ono also teaches that the flame stabilizer comprises two flame stabilizing sheets (52a) snapped with each other (as is shown in Fig. 4); and that the two flame stabilizing sheets (52a) are respectively disposed with lateral convex hulls (element (57) and the lateral convex hulls arranged adjacent to element (57) as shown in Figs. 3-5) arranged at intervals along the length direction of the flame stabilizer (as is shown in Fig. 4) (see at least [0017], [0021] and Figs. 3-5).
Regarding Claim 14, Ono also teaches that the lateral convex hull comprises an inner convex hull (57) and at least two external convex hulls (the lateral convex hulls arranged adjacent to element (57) as shown in Figs. 3-5), the inner convex hull protruding toward the cavity (as is shown in Figs. 3, 5), the at least two external convex hulls protruding toward an outside of the fire grate (as is shown in Figs. 3, 5), the inner convex hull being arranged between the at least two external convex hulls (as is shown in Figs. 3, 5) (see at least [0017], [0021] and Figs. 3-5).
Regarding Claim 15, Ono teaches of a manufacturing method of a fire grate (5), comprising:
preparing a metal plate (metal plate comprising elements (51a)) and a flame stabilizing sheet (flame stabilizing sheet comprising elements (52a)) (see at least [0014]-[0017] and Figs. 3-5);
shaping the metal plate to form a fire grate body (51) with a ventilation channel (55) and a dividing hole (51b), the dividing hole being located at a top portion of the fire grate body and in communication with the ventilation channel (as is shown in Figs. 3-5) (see at least [0014]-[0017] and Figs. 3-5);
shaping the flame stabilizing sheet to form a flame stabilizer (flame stabilizer comprising elements (52a)) which has a cavity (56) with a top surface as an opening (as is shown in Figs. 3-5) (see at least [0014]-[0017] and Figs. 3-5); and
sleeving the flame stabilizer on an upper portion of the fire grate body (as is shown in Figs. 3-5) (see at least [0014]-[0017] and Figs. 3-5).
Ono fails to explicitly teach of additionally preparing a metal mesh comprising a plurality of mesh layers and of fixing the metal mesh onto the fire grate body at a position corresponding to the dividing hole, or fixing the metal mesh onto the flame stabilizer at a position corresponding to the dividing hole.
Huang discloses a relatable fire grate (fire grate shown in Figs. 3, 14) and method of manufacturing the same, wherein the fire grate comprises a fire grate body (10) which is formed with a ventilation channel (ventilation channel beneath element (32) as shown in Fig. 14 that is depicted as (202) in Fig. 10), wherein a top portion of the fire grate body is provided with a dividing hole (element (28)) in communication with the ventilation channel (see at least [0024], [0033], [0040] and Figs. 3, 10, 12 and 14). Huang teaches of preparing a metal mesh (32) comprising a plurality of mesh layers (“plurality of meshes”) (See at least [0040] and Fig. 14 - the disclosure of “metal net 32 having a plurality of meshes” indicates that element (32) comprises a plurality of mesh layers. Note that “mesh” comprises a layer of crisscrossing strands that form openings therebetween. Thus, “a plurality of meshes” (as taught by Huang) necessarily comprises a plurality of layers of crisscrossing strands that form openings therebetween (see at least [0040] and Fig. 14). Therefore, Huang teaches of a metal mesh (32) comprising a plurality of mesh layers (“plurality of meshes”) as claimed.) and of fixing the metal mesh onto the fire grate body at a position corresponding to the dividing hole (the metal mesh (32) is fixed onto the fire grate body via direct attachment to dividing hole surface (34a) as shown in Fig. 14) (see at least [0040] and Fig. 14). Huang teaches that utilizing a metal mesh of this type “achieves the effect of rectifying the flames emitted from the flame holes 342, which makes the flame more even, and avoids the formation of forked flame” (see at least [0040] and Fig. 14).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the method taught by Ono by configuring the fire grate to include a metal mesh comprising a plurality of mesh layers and of fixing the same onto the fire grate body at a position corresponding to the existing dividing hole as is taught by Huang. Doing so would have rectified emitted flames thereby making the flames more even. Note that such modification would have necessarily resulted in the invention as claimed.
Regarding Claim 16, Ono also teaches that shaping the metal plate to form the fire grate body with the ventilation channel and the dividing hole comprises:
bending two ends of the metal plate to a same side of the metal plate to form the top portion of the fire grate body and the two side plates which extend from the top portion to the same side of the top portion (as is shown in Figs. 4-5), wherein before the plate is bent, the dividing hole is punched out at a position corresponding to the top portion, or after the metal plate is bent, the dividing hole is punched out at the top portion (as is evident from the presence of the dividing hole which is necessarily punched out before or after bending) (see at least [0012], [0014]-[0017] and Figs. 3-5); and
stamping the two side plates to form the ventilation channel between the two side plates (as is shown in Figs. 4-5) (see at least [0012], [0014]-[0017] and Figs. 3-5).
Regarding Claim 17, Ono also teaches that stamping the two side plates to form the ventilation channel between the two side plates comprises:
stamping corresponding positions of the two side plates according to a preset shape of the ventilation channel (as is shown in Figs. 4-5) (see at least [0012], [0014]-[0017] and Figs. 3-5); and
snapping the two side plates after edges of other three sides of the two side plates are cut, and causing an edge of one side plate of the two side plates snapped to be wrapped with an edge of the other side plate (as is shown via the bent over edges in Figs. 4-5) (see at least [0012], [0014]-[0017] and Figs. 3-5).
Regarding Claim 18: Ono and Huang teach the fire grate according to Claim 1 (see the rejection for Claim 1) and Ono also teaches that the fire grate (5) is used in a burner (Fig. 3) that comprises multiple fire grates (see at least [0009] and Figs. 1-3). Thus, the combination of Ono and Huang necessarily teaches of a burner comprising at least one of the fire grate according to Claim 1 (see at least [0009] and Figs. 1-3 of Ono and the rejection for Claim 1 above).
Regarding Claim 19, Ono also teaches that the at least one of the fire grate (5) comprises a plurality of the fire grates and the plurality of the fire grates are arranged side by side (as is shown in at least Fig. 1) (see at least [0009] and Figs. 1-3).
Regarding Claim 20, Ono also teaches that the burner is a part of a water heater (Fig. 2) (see at least [0010] and Fig. 2). Thus, the combination of Ono and Huang necessarily teaches of a water heater comprising the burner according to Claim 18 (see at least [0010] and Fig. 2 of Ono and the rejection for Claim 18 above).
Claims 4-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ono and Huang further in view of Chen et al. (US 2020/0166243 A1) (hereinafter “Chen”).
Regarding Claim 4, Ono and Huang teach the fire grate according to Claim 2 (see the rejection for Claim 2), but fail to explicitly teach that the dividing hole comprises a plurality of first dividing holes and a plurality of second dividing holes, wherein an open area of the first dividing holes is larger than an open area of the second dividing holes.
Chen discloses a relatable fire grate (10), used in burner apparatus (100), that has a dividing hole element (133) (see at least Abstract, [0046] and Figs. 3-4). Chen teaches that the dividing hole comprises a plurality of first dividing holes (1351) and a plurality of second dividing holes (1352), wherein an open area of the first dividing holes is larger than an open area of the second dividing holes (as is shown in Fig. 5) (see at least [0050]-[0052] and Fig. 5). Chen teaches that “By designing the main outlet to have the first main outlets 1351 and the second main outlets 1352 which are different in length, and optimizing arrangement of the main outlet of the burner 100, the flame of the burner 100 can be stable, and the whole performance of the burner 100 can be improved” (see at least [0052) and Fig. 5).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have further modified the combined apparatus by configuring the existing dividing hole to comprise a plurality of first dividing holes and a plurality of second dividing holes, wherein an open area of the first dividing holes is larger than an open area of the second dividing holes, as is taught by Chen. Doing so would have improved flame stability and in turn burner performance. Note that such modification would have necessarily resulted in the invention as claimed.
Regarding Claim 5, Chen also teaches that the plurality of first dividing holes (1351) and the plurality of second dividing holes (1352) that would be used in the combined apparatus are arranged at intervals along a length direction of the top portion of the fire grate body (as is shown in Figs. 4-5) (see at least [0050]-[0052] and Figs. 4-5).
Regarding Claim 6, Chen also teaches that the plurality of first dividing holes (1351) and the plurality of second dividing holes (1352) that would be used in the combined apparatus are alternately arranged at intervals along the length direction of the top portion of the fire grate body (as is shown in Figs. 4-5) (see at least [0050]-[0052] and Figs. 4-5).
Regarding Claim 7, Chen also teaches that the second dividing holes (1352) that would be used in the combined apparatus comprise a plurality of sub-dividing holes (as is shown in Fig. 5) which are arranged along a width direction of the top portion of the fire grate body (as is shown in Figs. 4-5) (see at least [0050]-[0052] and Figs. 4-5).
Response to Arguments
The arguments filed 12/30/2025 have been fully considered but have not been found persuasive for the following reasons:
Applicant has argued that Claim 1 as amended is now distinguished from the previously relied upon prior art combination of Ono and Huang and contends that:
“The metal net 32 of Huang is described as having a "plurality of meshes" that are "located in a projection range of each of the flame holes 342." The "meshes" are further described as having a "maximum diameter" that is "less than the minimum width of each of the flame holes."
There is no description in the cited portions of Huang that the metal net 32 of Huang or the described "plurality of meshes" comprise "a plurality of mesh layers" as recited by claim 1. Instead, the metal net 32 of Huang, which is shown as a single layer, is described as including meshes positioned at various locations on the metal net 32 that correspond to the flame holes 342. Huang does not describe or suggest that these meshes are layered. Instead, it appears that the multiple meshes are positioned as part of the metal net 32 under each flame hole 342, e.g., adjacent to each other on the metal net 32, since each mesh has a "maximum diameter" that is "less than the minimum width of each of the flame holes 342." Accordingly, the metal net 32 of Huang is not "a metal mesh comprising a plurality of mesh layers" as recited by claim 1.
Based on the foregoing discussion, it must be concluded that the teachings of the cited references, taken individually or in combination/even if modified in the manner proposed by the Examiner, fail to suggest all the elements of claim 1. Therefore, claim 1 is not obvious over the cited references.”
These arguments are not persuasive. Huang explicitly teaches that metal mesh (32) comprises a plurality of mesh layers (“plurality of meshes”). See at least [0040] and Fig. 14 - the disclosure of “metal net 32 having a plurality of meshes” indicates that element (32) comprises a plurality of mesh layers. Note that “mesh” comprises a layer of crisscrossing strands that form openings therebetween. Thus, “a plurality of meshes” (as taught by Huang) necessarily comprises a plurality of layers of crisscrossing strands that form openings therebetween (see at least [0040] and Fig. 14). Therefore, Huang teaches of a metal mesh (32) comprising a plurality of mesh layers (“plurality of meshes”) as claimed. Applicant’s contention that “a single layer” of metal mesh is shown is incorrect - the plurality of mesh layers formed by the “plurality of meshes” as disclosed by Huang are stacked on top of one another and that stack of layers is shown as element (32) in Fig. 14 (see at least [0040] and Fig. 14). Furthermore, Applicant’s contention that “it appears that the multiple meshes are positioned as part of the metal net 32 under each flame hole 342, e.g., adjacent to each other on the metal net 32, since each mesh has a "maximum diameter" that is "less than the minimum width of each of the flame holes 342."” is also incorrect - the “plurality of meshes” as disclosed by Huang overlap one another such that “more than one meshes are located in a projection range of each of the flame holes”. Note that a mesh “diameter” refers to the diameter of the openings within that mesh. Thus, the disclosure of “The maximum diameter of each of the meshes of the metal net 32 is less than the minimum width of each of the flame holes 342” indicates that the diameter of the holes of each overlapping mesh layer is less than the minimum width of each of the flame holes 342 as opposed to some other undisclosed “adjacent to each other” arrangement as “it appears” to Applicant (see at least [0040] and Fig. 14). Therefore, Huang does teach of a “metal mesh comprising a plurality of mesh layers” as claimed and the arguments concerning the same are not persuasive.
Note that arrangements with “a plurality of mesh layers” are extremely common in the art (as is demonstrated by, at least, Huang). Thus, it is recommended that Applicant further amend the claims to include other, additional structural elements and/or features to endeavor to overcome the prior art of record. Applicant could, for example, better define (at least) the structure/shape/location shown at the top of Fig. 3 (of the instant application) relating to at least elements (200) and (210) to endeavor to overcome the prior art of record.
Conclusion
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:
Horikawa et al. (US 2020/0011525 A1)
Nutcher et al. (US 5,667,374)
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, Helena Kosanovic can be reached at 571-272-9059. 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 5/8/2026
/HELENA KOSANOVIC/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3762
Prosecution Insights