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
The amendment filed 12/19/2025 has been entered. Amended Claims 1, 4, 13 and 16 have been noted in addition to new Claims 24-26. The amendment has overcome the claim objections previously set forth - those claim objections have been withdrawn accordingly. Claims 1-26 are currently pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 13 and 25-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 13 now recites the limitation “wherein the jet includes a fuel-combustion outlet, the oxygen hole being between the fuel-combustion outlet and the crest” which is not disclosed by the original disclosure. The specification discloses an opposing configuration wherein the oxygen hole is always disposed below both the fuel-combustion outlet and the crest - “the crest 30 is above at least one opening of at least one of the jets 16, for example, at least one fuel-combustion outlet 18 and/or at least one oxygen hole 20” (see at least [0014] and Fig. 1). Thus, no configuration is disclosed with “the oxygen hole being between the fuel-combustion outlet and the crest” (which would require the oxygen hole to be above the fuel-combustion outlet yet below the crest) as is now claimed. Therefore, this new limitation constitutes new matter and Claim 13 consequently stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a).
Claim 25 recites the limitation “wherein the jet includes a fuel-combustion outlet, the oxygen hole being between the fuel-combustion outlet and the crest” which is not disclosed by the original disclosure. The specification discloses an opposing configuration wherein the oxygen hole is always disposed below both the fuel-combustion outlet and the crest - “the crest 30 is above at least one opening of at least one of the jets 16, for example, at least one fuel-combustion outlet 18 and/or at least one oxygen hole 20” (see at least [0014] and Fig. 1). Thus, no configuration is disclosed with “the oxygen hole being between the fuel-combustion outlet and the crest” (which would require the oxygen hole to be above the fuel-combustion outlet yet below the crest) as is now claimed. Therefore, the subject matter of new Claim 25 constitutes new matter and Claim 25 consequently stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a).
Claim 26 is rejected due to its dependency on Claim 25.
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 25-26 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 25 recites “The burner as set forth in claim 25” which is considered indefinite because a claim cannot depend on itself. It is consequently unclear what claim that Claim 25 is supposed to depend on and in turn what structure the claimed “burner” comprises. The metes and bounds of the claim are consequently unclear. For the purpose of expediting prosecution, Claim 25 will be interpreted as depending on Claim 24.
Claim 26 is rejected due to its dependency on Claim 25. Furthermore, Claim 26 recites the limitation “The burner as set forth in claim 25, an inlet line and an ignition box controlling the supply of fuel from the inlet line to the inlet hole” which is considered indefinite because it is unclear if the “burner as set forth in claim 25” comprises, is configured to operate, is configured to be in an assembly with, or is configured to do something else altogether relative to “an inlet line and an ignition box controlling the supply of fuel from the inlet line to the inlet hole”. The claim appears to be incomplete; the specification fails to clarify this issue and the metes and bounds of the claim are consequently unclear.
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 1-7, 10-12, 16-17 and 20-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stone et al. (US 2020/0149738 A1) (hereinafter “Stone”) in view of Hill et al. (US 2,468,331) (hereinafter “Hill”).
Regarding Claim 1, Stone teaches of a burner (Fig. 2) (see at least [0070] and Fig. 2) comprising:
an inlet coupling (52) (see at least [0067], [0069] and Fig. 2);
a nipple (17) fluidly connected to the inlet coupling (as is shown in Fig. 2) (see at least [0061] and Fig. 2);
a jet (28) supported by and protruding upwardly from the nipple (as is shown in Fig. 2), the jet including an oxygen hole (32) (see at least [0064]-[0065] and Figs. 2, 9-10);
the inlet coupling including an inlet hole (56), an outlet hole (54) fluidly connected to the nipple (as is shown in Fig. 2), and a passageway extending from the inlet hole to the outlet hole (see at least [0069] and Fig. 2).
Stone fails to explicitly teach of an embodiment wherein the passageway of the inlet coupling includes a crest between the inlet hole and the outlet hole, wherein the passageway extends upwardly from the inlet hole to the crest and the passageway extends downwardly from the crest to the outlet hole, and wherein the crest is above the oxygen hole of the jet.
Hill discloses a relatable gas burner (Fig. 1) with a nipple (8) that has a plurality of jets (9) extending therefrom that each have a hole (10) disposed therethrough (see at least Col. 2 line 52 - Col. 3 line 7 and Fig. 1). Hill teaches of an inlet coupling (inlet coupling comprising element (13)) wherein a passageway of the inlet coupling includes a crest (the upper most crest portion of element (13) as shown in Fig. 1) between an inlet hole (14) and an outlet hole (outlet hole adjacent to element (12) as shown in Fig. 1), wherein the passageway extends upwardly from the inlet hole to the crest (as is shown in Fig. 1) and the passageway extends downwardly from the crest to the outlet hole (as is shown in Fig. 1), and wherein the crest is disposed completely above the jets and all holes (10) of the jets (as is shown in Fig. 1) (see at least Col. 3 lines 16-52 and Fig. 1). Hill teaches that configuring the inlet coupling to have a crest arranged in this fashion is advantageous because, inter alia, it prevents “flashback” (see at least Col. 3 line 53 - Col. 4 line 6 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 burner taught by Stone by configuring the passageway of the existing inlet coupling to include a crest between the inlet hole and the outlet hole, wherein the passageway extends upwardly from the inlet hole to the crest and the passageway extends downwardly from the crest to the outlet hole, and wherein the crest is disposed completely above the existing jets and all holes therein (which would necessarily include the existing oxygen hole) based on the teachings Hill. Doing so would have, inter alia, provided means for preventing flashback. Note that such modification would have necessarily resulted in the invention as claimed.
Regarding Claim 2, Stone also teaches that the nipple (17) is supported by the inlet coupling (52) (as is shown in Fig. 2) (see at least [0064] and Fig. 2).
Regarding Claim 3, Stone also teaches that the nipple (17) is directly connected to the outlet hole (54) of the inlet coupling (as is shown in Fig. 2) (see at least [0069] and Fig. 2).
Regarding Claim 4, Stone also teaches that:
the nipple (17) is directly connected to the outlet hole (54) of the inlet coupling (as is shown in Fig. 2) (see at least [0069] and Fig. 2);
the burner further comprises additional nipples (17) supported by the inlet coupling (as is shown in Fig. 2) (see at least [0061] and Fig. 2); and
the burner further comprises jets (28) on the additional nipples (as is shown in Fig. 2) (see at least [0064] and Fig. 2).
Regarding Claim 5, Stone also teaches also teaches of a second nipple (17) fluidly connected to the inlet coupling and an additional jet (28) supported by and protruding upwardly from the second nipple (as is shown in Fig. 2) (see at least [0061], [0064] and Fig. 2).
Regarding Claim 6, Stone also teaches that the inlet coupling (52) includes a second outlet hole (54) fluidly connected to the second nipple (as is shown in Fig. 2) (see at least [0069] and Fig. 2), wherein the passageway in the combined apparatus extends downwardly from the crest to the second outlet hole (as is taught by Hill via element (13) - see at least Fig. 1 of Hill and the rejection for Claim 1 above). Thus, the combination of Stone and Hill would have necessarily resulted in the invention as claimed.
Regarding Claim 7, Stone also teaches that the outlet hole and the second outlet hole (54, 54) are coaxial (as is shown in Fig. 2) (see at least [0069] and Fig. 2).
Regarding Claim 10, Stone also teaches that the nipple (17) is directly connected to the outlet hole of the inlet coupling (54) (as is shown in Fig. 2) and the second nipple (opposite element (17) as shown in Fig. 2) is directly connected to the second outlet hole of the inlet coupling (opposite outlet hole (54) as shown in Fig. 2) (see at least [0069] and Fig. 2).
Regarding Claim 11, Stone also teaches of additional jets (28) supported by and protruding upwardly from the nipple (as is shown in Fig. 2) (see at least [0064] and Fig. 2).
Regarding Claim 12, Stone also teaches that the inlet coupling, the nipple, and the jet are brass (see at least Abstract, [0059], [0068] and Fig. 2).
Regarding Claim 16, Stone teaches of a burner (Fig. 2) (see at least [0070] and Fig. 2) comprising:
an inlet coupling (52) (see at least [0067], [0069] and Fig. 2);
a first branch of nipples fluidly connected to the inlet coupling (the first branch of nipples (17) on the lower half of Fig. 2 that is directly connected to the inlet coupling (52)) (see at least [0061] and Fig. 2);
a second branch of nipples fluidly connected to the inlet coupling (the second branch of nipples (17) on the upper half of Fig. 2 that is directly connected to the inlet coupling (52)) (see at least [0061] and Fig. 2);
jets (28) supported by and protruding upwardly from the nipples of the first branch and the second branch (as shown in Fig. 2), at least one of the jets including an oxygen hole (32) (see at least [0064]-[0065] and Figs. 2, 9-10);
the inlet coupling including an inlet hole (56), a first outlet hole fluidly connected to the first branch of nipples (outlet hole (54) of element (52) that is disposed on the bottom half of Fig. 2), a second outlet hole fluidly connected to the second branch of nipples (outlet hole (54) of element (52) that is disposed on the upper half of Fig. 2), and a passageway extending from the inlet hole to the first outlet hole and the second outlet hole (see at least [0069] and Fig. 2).
Stone fails to explicitly teach of an embodiment wherein the passageway of the inlet coupling includes a crest between the inlet hole and the first and second outlet holes, wherein the passageway extends upwardly from the inlet hole to the crest and the passageway extends downwardly from the crest to the first outlet hole and the second outlet hole, and wherein the crest is above the oxygen hole of at least one of the jets.
Hill discloses a relatable gas burner (Fig. 1) with a nipple (8) that has a plurality of jets (9) extending therefrom that each have a hole (10) disposed therethrough (see at least Col. 2 line 52 - Col. 3 line 7 and Fig. 1). Hill teaches of an inlet coupling (inlet coupling comprising element (13)) wherein a passageway of the inlet coupling includes a crest (the upper most crest portion of element (13) as shown in Fig. 1) between an inlet hole (14) and an outlet hole (outlet hole adjacent to element (12) as shown in Fig. 1), wherein the passageway extends upwardly from the inlet hole to the crest (as is shown in Fig. 1) and the passageway extends downwardly from the crest to the outlet hole (as is shown in Fig. 1), and wherein the crest is disposed completely above the jets and all holes (10) of the jets (as is shown in Fig. 1) (see at least Col. 3 lines 16-52 and Fig. 1). Hill teaches that configuring the inlet coupling to have a crest arranged in this fashion is advantageous because, inter alia, it prevents “flashback” (see at least Col. 3 line 53 - Col. 4 line 6 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 burner taught by Stone by configuring the passageway of the existing inlet coupling to include a crest between the inlet hole and the existing first and second outlet holes, wherein the passageway extends upwardly from the inlet hole to the crest and the passageway extends downwardly from the crest to the existing first and second outlet holes, and wherein the crest is disposed completely above the existing jets and all holes therein (which would necessarily include the existing oxygen hole) based on the teachings Hill. Doing so would have, inter alia, provided means for preventing flashback. Note that such modification would have necessarily resulted in the invention as claimed.
Regarding Claim 17, Stone also teaches that the first branch of nipples and the second branch of nipples (17) are supported by the inlet coupling (52) (as is shown in Fig. 2) (see at least [0064] and Fig. 2).
Regarding Claim 20, Stone also teaches that the outlet hole and the second outlet hole (54, 54) are coaxial (as is shown in Fig. 2) (see at least [0069] and Fig. 2).
Regarding Claim 21, Stone also teaches that the first branch of nipples (17) is directly connected to the first outlet hole of the inlet coupling (outlet hole (54) on the lower half of Fig. 2) and the second branch of nipples (17) is directly connected to the second outlet hole of the inlet coupling (outlet hole (54) on the upper half of Fig. 2) (see at least [0069] and Fig. 2).
Regarding Claim 22, Stone also teaches that the inlet coupling, the nipples of the first and second branches of nipples, and the jets are brass (see at least Abstract, [0059], [0068] and Fig. 2).
Regarding Claim 23, Stone also teaches that the jets each include a fuel-combustion outlet (34) (see at least [0064]-[0065] and Figs. 2, 9-10).
Regarding Claim 24, Stone teaches of a burner (Fig. 2) (see at least [0070] and Fig. 2) comprising:
an inlet coupling (52) (see at least [0067], [0069] and Fig. 2);
a nipple (17) fluidly connected to the inlet coupling (as is shown in Fig. 2) (see at least [0061] and Fig. 2);
a jet (28) supported by and protruding upwardly from the nipple (as is shown in Fig. 2), the jet including an oxygen hole (32) (see at least [0064]-[0065] and Figs. 2, 9-10);
the nipple (17) being between the jet (28) and the inlet coupling (52) (as is shown in Fig. 2);
the inlet coupling including an inlet hole (56) configured to deliver fuel to the nipple upstream of the introduction of air at the oxygen hole (32) of the jet (as is shown in Fig. 2), an outlet hole (54) fluidly connected to the nipple, and a passageway extending from the inlet hole to the outlet hole (see at least [0069] and Fig. 2);
Stone fails to explicitly teach of an embodiment wherein the passageway of the inlet coupling includes a crest between the inlet hole and the outlet hole, wherein the passageway extends upwardly from the inlet hole to the crest and the passageway extends downwardly from the crest to the outlet hole, and wherein the crest is above the oxygen hole of the jet to prevent water in the nipple between the oxygen hole and the inlet coupling from rising above the crest to the inlet hole.
Hill discloses a relatable gas burner (Fig. 1) with a nipple (8) that has a plurality of jets (9) extending therefrom that each have a hole (10) disposed therethrough (see at least Col. 2 line 52 - Col. 3 line 7 and Fig. 1). Hill teaches of an inlet coupling (inlet coupling comprising element (13)) wherein a passageway of the inlet coupling includes a crest (the upper most crest portion of element (13) as shown in Fig. 1) between an inlet hole (14) and an outlet hole (outlet hole adjacent to element (12) as shown in Fig. 1), wherein the passageway extends upwardly from the inlet hole to the crest (as is shown in Fig. 1) and the passageway extends downwardly from the crest to the outlet hole (as is shown in Fig. 1), and wherein the crest is disposed completely above the jets and all holes (10) of the jets (as is shown in Fig. 1) (see at least Col. 3 lines 16-52 and Fig. 1). Hill teaches that configuring the inlet coupling to have a crest arranged in this fashion is advantageous because, inter alia, it prevents “flashback” (see at least Col. 3 line 53 - Col. 4 line 6 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 burner taught by Stone by configuring the passageway of the existing inlet coupling to include a crest between the inlet hole and the outlet hole, wherein the passageway extends upwardly from the inlet hole to the crest and the passageway extends downwardly from the crest to the outlet hole, and wherein the crest is disposed completely above the existing jets and all holes therein (which would necessarily include the existing oxygen hole) based on the teachings Hill. Doing so would have, inter alia, provided means for preventing flashback. Note that in such arrangement, water in the nipple between the oxygen hole and the inlet coupling of the combined apparatus would necessarily be prevented from rising above the crest to the inlet hole since the crest would be disposed completely above the jet and all holes therein as is taught by Hill. Thus, such modification would have necessarily resulted in the invention as claimed.
Claims 8-9, 14-15 and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stone and Hill further in view of Ottonello (EP 2,816,267 A1) (see attached original document for reference).
Regarding Claim 8, Stone and Hill teach the burner as set forth in Claim 6 (see the rejection for Claim 6), but fail to explicitly teach that the inlet coupling is a unitary block, wherein the passageway, the inlet hole, the outlet hole, and the second outlet hole extend through the unitary block.
Ottonello discloses a relatable inlet coupling for supplying gas (Fig. 1) that comprises an inlet hole (inlet hole adjacent to element (4)), two outlet holes (outlet holes adjacent to element (10)) and a passageway extending therebetween (passage way comprising portions 3 and 3’) (see at least [0010] and Fig. 1). Ottonello teaches that the inlet coupling is a unitary block (“single box body” that is “made of brass”) (see at least [0010], [0015] and Fig. 1), wherein the passageway, the inlet hole, the outlet hole, and the second outlet hole extend through the unitary block (as is shown in Fig. 1). Ottonello teaches that forming the inlet coupling out of a unitary brass block provides the advantage of the inlet coupling being more compact and having less “danger of undesirable leakages or seepages” (see at least [0015] 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 further modified the combined apparatus by configuring the existing inlet coupling to be in the form of a unitary brass block, wherein the existing passageway, inlet hole, outlet hole, and second outlet hole extend through the unitary block, based on the teachings of Ottonello. Doing so would have made the inlet coupling more compact and would have reduced the danger of undesirable leakages or seepages. Note that such modification would have necessarily resulted in the invention as claimed.
Regarding Claim 9, Ottonello also teaches that the inlet coupling, which would be made of a unitary brass block in the combined apparatus as is taught by Ottonello, has a cuboid-shaped portion in which the passageway extends (as is shown in Fig 1) (see at least Fig. 1 the rejection for Claim 8 above). Thus, the combination of Stone, Hill and Ottonello would have necessarily resulted in the invention as claimed.
Regarding Claim 14, Stone and Hill teach the burner as set forth in Claim 1 (see the rejection for Claim 1), but fail to explicitly teach that the inlet coupling is a unitary block, wherein the passageway, the inlet hole and the outlet hole extend through the unitary block.
Ottonello discloses a relatable inlet coupling for supplying gas (Fig. 1) that comprises an inlet hole (inlet hole adjacent to element (4)), an outlet hole (outlet hole adjacent to element (10)) and a passageway extending therebetween (passage way comprising portions 3 and 3’) (see at least [0010] and Fig. 1). Ottonello teaches that the inlet coupling is a unitary block (“single box body” that is “made of brass”) (see at least [0010], [0015] and Fig. 1), wherein the passageway, the inlet hole and the outlet hole extend through the unitary block (as is shown in Fig. 1). Ottonello teaches that forming the inlet coupling out of a unitary brass block provides the advantage of the inlet coupling being more compact and having less “danger of undesirable leakages or seepages” (see at least [0015] 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 further modified the combined apparatus by configuring the existing inlet coupling to be in the form of a unitary brass block, wherein the existing passageway, inlet hole and outlet hole extend through the unitary block, based on the teachings of Ottonello. Doing so would have made the inlet coupling more compact and would have reduced the danger of undesirable leakages or seepages. Note that such modification would have necessarily resulted in the invention as claimed.
Regarding Claim 15, Ottonello also teaches that the inlet coupling, which would be made of a unitary brass block in the combined apparatus as is taught by Ottonello, has a cuboid-shaped portion in which the passageway extends (as is shown in Fig 1) (see at least Fig. 1 the rejection for Claim 14 above). Thus, the combination of Stone, Hill and Ottonello would have necessarily resulted in the invention as claimed.
Regarding Claim 18, Stone and Hill teach the burner as set forth in Claim 16 (see the rejection for Claim 16), but fail to explicitly teach that the inlet coupling is a unitary block, wherein the passageway, the inlet hole, the outlet hole, and the second outlet hole extend through the unitary block.
Ottonello discloses a relatable inlet coupling for supplying gas (Fig. 1) that comprises an inlet hole (inlet hole adjacent to element (4)), two outlet holes (outlet holes adjacent to element (10)) and a passageway extending therebetween (passage way comprising portions 3 and 3’) (see at least [0010] and Fig. 1). Ottonello teaches that the inlet coupling is a unitary block (“single box body” that is “made of brass”) (see at least [0010], [0015] and Fig. 1), wherein the passageway, the inlet hole, the outlet hole, and the second outlet hole extend through the unitary block (as is shown in Fig. 1). Ottonello teaches that forming the inlet coupling out of a unitary brass block provides the advantage of the inlet coupling being more compact and having less “danger of undesirable leakages or seepages” (see at least [0015] 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 further modified the combined apparatus by configuring the existing inlet coupling to be in the form of a unitary brass block, wherein the existing passageway, inlet hole, outlet hole, and second outlet hole extend through the unitary block, based on the teachings of Ottonello. Doing so would have made the inlet coupling more compact and would have reduced the danger of undesirable leakages or seepages. Note that such modification would have necessarily resulted in the invention as claimed.
Regarding Claim 19, Ottonello also teaches that the inlet coupling, which would be made of a unitary brass block in the combined apparatus as is taught by Ottonello, has a cuboid-shaped portion in which the passageway extends (as is shown in Fig 1) (see at least Fig. 1 the rejection for Claim 18 above). Thus, the combination of Stone, Hill and Ottonello would have necessarily resulted in the invention as claimed.
Allowable Subject Matter
Dependent Claim 13 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Dependent Claims 25-26 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and 35 U.S.C. 112(b) set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding dependent Claims 13 and 25: Each of dependent Claims 13 and 25 now recite the limitation “wherein the jet includes a fuel-combustion outlet, the oxygen hole being between the fuel-combustion outlet and the crest”. As is presented above in this Office Action, this limitation is not supported by the original disclosure and would require the oxygen hole to be disposed above the fuel-combustion outlet yet below the crest. Therefore, Claim 13 has introduced new matter and consequently stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) (as is presented above in this Office Action). In the prior art combination of Stone and Hill, Stone seeks to keep the oxygen hole below the fuel-combustion outlet while Hill teaches that the crest would be disposed completely above the jets and all holes therein (see at least Fig. 1 of Hill and the rejection for Claim 1 above). Thus, there would have been no motivation to configure the oxygen hole to be “between the fuel-combustion outlet and the crest” as is now claimed since Stone explicitly teaches of positioning the fuel-combustion outlet above the oxygen hole and accordingly teaches away from positioning the oxygen hole above the fuel-combustion outlet such that the oxygen hole would be “between the fuel-combustion outlet and the crest” as is now claimed. Therefore, the combination of limitations claimed in each of Claims 13 and 25 is considered to be allowable over the known prior art. However, the limitations of each of Claims 13 and 25 are not supported by the original disclosure. Claims 13 and 25 consequently stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) (as is presented above in this Office Action) and are not in condition for allowance at this time (Note that Claim 25 also stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as is presented above in this Office Action).
Regarding dependent Claim 26: Note that Claim 26 depends on Claim 25 and is consequently considered to have allowable subject matter for including Claim 25. However, Claim 26 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and 35 U.S.C. 112(b) and is consequently not in condition for allowance at this time.
Response to Arguments
The arguments filed 12/19/2025 have been fully considered but have not been found persuasive for the following reasons:
Applicant has argued that Claim 1 would not have been obvious over the previously relied upon prior art combination of Stone and Hill and contends that:
“There is no teaching in Stone nor Hill that would have led a person having ordinary skill in the art to have made the trap-like portion of the mixing tube 13 of Hill higher than the side opening 32 of the jet 28 of Stone. A prima facie case of obviousness requires more than an incidental consequence of geometry of the prior art, it requires a motivation. As understood from the interview summarized above, the Office's position is that because Hill places a neck-like portion above a port 9, it necessarily follows that the trap-like portion of the modified connector 52 of Stone must be above the side opening 32 of the jet 28. However, "The mere fact that the prior art may be modified in the manner suggested by the Examiner does not make the modification obvious unless the prior art suggested the desirability of the modification." In re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260 (Fed. Cir. 1992), citing In re Gordon, 733 F.2d at 902. Neither Stone nor Hill suggests the desirability of such a modification of the connector 52 of Stone, and the Office Action does not point to such a teaching in Stone or Hill. Further, it is respectfully submitted that such a conclusion to the contrary impermissibly relies on hindsight.
For these reason, it is respectfully submitted that the Office Action fails to establish a prima facie case of obviousness and withdrawal of the present rejection of claim 1 over the proposed combination of Stone and Hill is respectfully requested.”
And that:
“Finally, the Office appears to take the position that the motivation for modifying the
connector 52 of Stone to include a trap-like portion of the mixing tube 13 of Hill is that ‘Doing so would have provided means for preventing flashback.’ See first paragraph of page 4 of the Office Action. However, it is clear to a person having ordinary skill in the art that the flashback concerns associated with the air-fuel mixture in the burner head 8 of Hill is not found in Stone, as outlined above. Thus, the Office's provided reason for combination is insufficient to satisfy the Supreme Court's requirement that ‘there must be some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.’ KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 US at 418. See also MPEP §2141.01. In the interview summarized above, Examiner Johnson raised extinction noise as another motivation, and this rationale fails for the same reason as the flashback rationale. Since the Office Action fails to establish a prima facie case of obviousness, withdrawal of the present rejection of claim 1 over the proposed combination of Stone and Hill is respectfully requested.”
These arguments are not persuasive. Hill explicitly teaches that the crest is disposed completely above the jets and all holes (10) of the jets (as is shown in Fig. 1) (see at least Col. 3 lines 16-52 and Fig. 1) and that configuring the inlet coupling to have a crest arranged in this fashion is advantageous because, inter alia, it prevents “flashback” (see at least Col. 3 line 53 - Col. 4 line 6 and Fig. 1). Thus, in the combined apparatus, the crest would be disposed completely above the existing jets taught by Stone and all holes therein (which would necessarily include the existing oxygen hole) based on the teachings Hill. Thus, the allegation that “There is no teaching in Stone nor Hill that would have led a person having ordinary skill in the art to have made the trap-like portion of the mixing tube 13 of Hill higher than the side opening 32 of the jet 28 of Stone” is completely unfounded given the explicit teachings of Hill. Furthermore, applicant’s assertion that “it is clear to a person having ordinary skill in the art that the flashback concerns associated with the air-fuel mixture in the burner head 8 of Hill is not found in Stone. Thus, the Office's provided reason for combination is insufficient to satisfy the Supreme Court's requirement that ‘there must be some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness’’” is in no way persuasive given the explicit teachings of Hill. Hill alone provides clear motivation for configuring an inlet coupling to extend above burner jets and all holes therein - namely (at least) prevention of “flashback” (see at least Col. 3 line 53 - Col. 4 line 6, Fig. 1 and the rejection for Claim 1 above). Thus, as is presented above in this Office Action, 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 burner taught by Stone by configuring the passageway of the existing inlet coupling to include a crest between the inlet hole and the outlet hole, wherein the passageway extends upwardly from the inlet hole to the crest and the passageway extends downwardly from the crest to the outlet hole, and wherein the crest is disposed completely above the existing jets and all holes therein (which would necessarily include the existing oxygen hole) based on the teachings Hill. Doing so would have, inter alia, provided means for preventing flashback. Therefore, the “articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness” is abundantly clear and Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
It is recommended that Applicant further amend the claims to include additional structural elements and/or features to endeavor to overcome the prior art of record. Such amendments could relate to, for example, the claimed crest being disposed between the oxygen hole and the fuel-combustion outlet (as is disclosed in at least [0014] of the instant application) since Hill teaches of disposing the crest above all burner jet holes.
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:
Mok et al. (US 2020/0370757 A1)
Hill et al. (US 2,510,888)
Griffiths (US 1,869,359)
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 4/25/2026
/HELENA KOSANOVIC/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3762
Prosecution Insights