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 8, 12 and 13 have been noted in addition to canceled Claims 1-7, 11 (the 2nd instance of Claim 11 that was previously presented) and 15. The amendment has overcome the specification objections, claim objections and 112(b) rejections previously set forth - those specification objections, claim objections and 112(b) rejections have been withdrawn accordingly. Claims 8-14 are currently pending.
Claim Objections
The claims listed below are objected to because of the following informalities:
In Claim 10, given the amendments to Claim 8 on which Claim 10 depends, change “wherein the passageway is for a combined fuel and air input to the combustion chamber” to -- wherein the passageway feeds the combined flow of fuel and air to a combustion chamber -- (or equivalent)
Appropriate correction is required.
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 8-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Widmyer (US 4,452,309) in view of McDonald (US 3,372,754).
Regarding Claim 8, Widmyer teaches of teaches of a tool (Fig. 1) for generating steam and combustion gases (see at least Abstract and Fig. 1), the tool comprising:
a first end (the top end of the tool with respect to Fig. 1) configured to receive inputs (inputs from at least conduits (19), (17) and (21)), the inputs including air (via conduit (19), fuel (via conduit (17)) and water (via conduit (21)) (see at least Col. 4 lines 38-53 and Fig. 1);
an air passage (18b) extending from the first end into the tool (as is shown in Fig. 1) (see at least Col. 4 lines 38-53 and Figs. 1-2);
a fuel passageway (16) extending from the first end into the tool (as is shown in Fig. 1), wherein the air passageway and the fuel passageway merge at a junction within the tool (junction where elements (23) feed into passageway (16) as shown in Fig. 1) (see at least Col. 4 lines 57-65 and Fig. 1);
a tubular wall (tubular wall of element (15) as shown in Fig. 1) extending from a base wall (base wall disposed at the bottom of (18a) as shown in Fig. 1) to an outlet (outlet that feeds element (27) as shown in Fig. 1) opposing the base wall (as is shown in Fig. 1), the tubular wall configured for accommodating a flame (as is shown in Fig. 1) (see at least Col. 4 lines 38-65 and Fig. 1);
an ignitor (24) within the tubular wall configured to ignite fuel and air to generate the flame (see at least Col. 4 lines 57-65 and Fig. 1); and
a passageway (the portion of (16) beneath elements (23) as shown in Fig. 1) extending from the junction to the base wall (as is shown in Fig. 1) and conveying a combined flow of fuel and air within the tool (see at least Col. 4 lines 38-65 and Fig. 1), wherein the passageway has an outlet at the base wall (as is shown in Fig. 1) configured to discharge the combined flow of fuel and air in an annular discharge (annular discharge within element (15) as is shown in Fig. 1) (see at least Col. 4 lines 38-65 and Fig. 1).
Widmyer fails to explicitly teach that the passageway surrounds an outer circumference of the ignitor such that the annular discharge is substantially concentric relative to a long axis of the ignitor.
McDonald discloses a relatable tool for generating downhole combustion gases (Fig. 1) that comprises a passageway with concentric fuel (30) and air (28) conduits (see at least Col. 4 lines 1-2 and Fig. 1). McDonald teaches of disposing an ignitor (ignitor comprising element (68)) concentrically through the existing fuel and air conduits (as is shown in Fig. 1), in addition to through a passageway of mixed air and fuel (passageway that flows through element (74) and through element (67) as shown in Fig. 1), such that a flow of fluid around the ignitor is annular (as is shown in Fig. 1) (see at least Col. 4 lines 59 - Col. 5 line 9 and Fig. 1). Thus, as can be observed in Fig. 1, the passageway of mixed air and fuel surrounds an outer circumference of the ignitor such that annular discharge of the passageway of mixed air and fuel is substantially concentric relative to a long axis of the ignitor (see at least Col. 4 lines 59 - Col. 5 line 9 and Fig. 1). McDonald teaches that disposing the ignitor concentrically through the existing fuel conduit, air conduit and passageway of mixed air and fuel in such a fashion contributes to the tool being “trouble free” and provides means (82) for easily connecting the ignitor to/activating the ignitor from the surface (see at least Col. 2 lines 8-15, Col. 4 lines 59 - Col. 5 line 9 and Fig. 1).
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 tool taught by Widmyer by configuring the existing ignitor to be disposed concentrically through the existing fuel conduit, air conduit and passageway of mixed air and fuel such that a flow of fluid around the ignitor would be annular as is taught by McDonald such that annular discharge of the passageway of mixed air and fuel would be substantially concentric relative to a long axis of the ignitor as is also taught by McDonald. Doing so would have enhanced reliability of the tool while providing means to easily connect the ignitor to/activate the ignitor from the surface. Note that such modification would have necessarily resulted in the invention as claimed.
Regarding Claim 9, McDonald also teaches of a holder (74) in which the ignitor (68) that would be used in the combined apparatus is installed (see at least Col. 4 lines 59 - Col. 5 line 9, Fig. 1 and the rejection for Claim 8 above), the holder coupled at, and defining a portion of, a base wall (as is shown in Fig. 1), wherein the passageway (at least the portion of the passageway that flows through element (67) as shown in Fig. 1) is an annular gap around an outer diameter of the holder (74) (as is shown in Fig. 1) (see at least Col. 4 lines 59 - Col. 5 line 9 and Fig. 1). Thus, the combination of Widmyer and McDonald would have necessarily resulted in the invention as claimed.
Regarding Claim 10, Widmyer also teaches that the passageway (the portion of (16) beneath elements (23) as shown in Fig. 1) feeds a combustion chamber (15) (see at least Col. 4 lines 38-65 and Fig. 1).
Regarding Claim 11, Widmyer also teaches of an annular water passageway (20b) extending substantially concentrically around, but fluidly isolated from, the passageway (as is shown in Fig. 1) (see at least Col. 4 lines 38-53 and Fig. 1).
Regarding Claim 12, Widmyer also teaches that the fuel passageway terminates at a plurality of nozzles (23) leading into the junction (as is shown in Fig. 1) and that the junction has an internal volume greater than an internal volume of the fuel passageway (since the junction includes the volume of elements (23) in addition to the adjacent volume of element (16), it follows that the volume of the junction is greater than an internal volume of the fuel passage (16) alone) to thereby allow fuel from the fuel passageway to expand into the junction (as is evident from fuel entering the junction) (see at least Col. 4 lines 57-65 and Fig. 1).
Regarding Claim 13, Widmyer also teaches that the fuel passageway (16) includes a portion open to a back side of the ignitor (24) (as is shown in Fig. 1) (see at least Col. 4 lines 57-65 and Fig. 1).
Regarding Claim 14, Widmyer also teaches that the ignitor (24) is recessed in a hole in the base wall (the lower opening of element (18a) that forms a hole as shown in Fig. 1) such that the ignitor is open to but spaced back from the base wall (as is shown in Fig. 1) (see at least Col. 4 lines 57-65 and Fig. 1).
Response to Arguments
The arguments filed 12/30/2025 have been fully considered but are moot in light of the new grounds of rejection necessitated by the claim amendments.
It is recommended that Applicant further amend Claim 8 to include additional structural elements and/or features 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:
Prentice, lll (US 2012/0125610 A1)
Howard et al. (US 4,079,784)
Smith (US 3,456,721)
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 5/4/2026
/HELENA KOSANOVIC/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3762
Prosecution Insights