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 Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 requires “outer wall of the firebox” should be “an outer wall of the firebox”.
Claim 1 requires “bottom air intake holes and a top air intake holes” (emphasis added) [claim 1 line 5] and should require either “a top air intake hole” or “top air intake holes”. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-20 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the bottom" and “the top” in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the inner wall" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the rotating shaft" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the rotating shaft" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Furthermore, there is no context relating claim 5 to claim 1, such that claim 5 can directly depend from claim 1, for the purposes of examination claim 5 is interpreted as depending on from claim 4.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the fixed part" and “the movable part” in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Furthermore, there is no context relating claim 6 to claim 2, such that claim 5 can directly depend from claim 2, for the purposes of examination claim 6 is interpreted as depending on from claim 4.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the auger tube feeder" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the auger feed tube" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the feeding motor" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 20 is identical to claim 4 and depends from claim 4. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1, 11, 13 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wang (CN 103900112 A).
With respect to claim 1 Wang discloses a novel wood pellet furnace firebox, comprising a firebox wall [reference characters 31, 32, and 315] and a firebox bottom plate [reference character 62], wherein the firebox wall is provided with a hollow interlayer air duct [reference character 33]; outer wall of the firebox is provided with an air outlet1 [reference character 321] communicated with the interlayer air duct; and, the bottom and the top of the inner wall [reference character 31] of the firebox are respectively provided with bottom air intake holes [reference character 319] and a top air intake holes [reference character 318] communicated with the interlayer air duct.
With respect to claim 11 Wang discloses that the firebox wall is connected (indirectly) with an auger tube feeder [see Fig. 8]; the auger tube feeder has a feed port [reference character 512], and the feeding motor can transport charcoal or wood to the firebox bottom plate through the feed port.
With respect to claim 13 Wang discloses a detachable ash box [reference character 64] placed under the firebox bottom plate.
With respect to claim 15 Wang discloses that the ash box is in a shape of square drawer [see Figs. 9-10].
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) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang (CN 103900112 A) in view of Beasley (US 2,996,143).
With respect to claim 2 Wang does not disclose that the inner walls of the top air intake holes are processed into an upwardly guided semi-circular shape, for facilitating the preheated air to be blown upward.
Beasley disclose a burner having an inner wall [reference character 100] with air intake holes [reference characters 84 and 110] that are processed into an upwardly guided semi-circular shape, for facilitating the preheated air to be blown upward [see Fig. 2].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing date of the invention to modify the burner taught by Wang by processing the air intake holes into an upwardly guided semi-circular shape, for facilitating the preheated air to be blown upward, as taught by Beasley, in order to direct airflow toward the exhaust and prevent turbulence close to the inner wall of the burner.
With respect to claim 12 Wang discloses that the firebox wall is connected (indirectly) with an auger tube feeder [see Fig. 8]; the auger tube feeder has a feed port [reference character 512], and the feeding motor can transport charcoal or wood to the firebox bottom plate through the feed port.
With respect to claim 14 Wang discloses a detachable ash box [reference character 64] placed under the firebox bottom plate.
With respect to claim 16 Wang discloses that the ash box is in a shape of square drawer [see Figs. 9-10].
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang (CN 103900112 A) in view of MacArthur (US 4,836,115).
With respect to claim 3 Wang discloses that the interlayer air duct is spirally provided with an air guide vane, and both sides of the air guide vane are sealed to the wall surfaces of the interlayer air duct, thereby dividing the interlayer air duct into a spiral ventilation duct.
MacArthur discloses a solid fuel furnace that includes an interlayer duct [reference character 37] disposed between an inner wall and an outer wall [see Fig. 2]. The interlayer air duct is spirally provided with an air guide vane [reference character 44], and both sides of the air guide vane are sealed to the wall surfaces of the interlayer air duct [via welding, column 3 lines 43-56], thereby dividing the interlayer air duct into a spiral ventilation duct.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing date of the invention to modify the system taught by Wang by including a spiral baffle in the interlayer air duct, as taught by MacArthur, in order to increase the rate of heat transfer between the combustion gasses and the interlayer air by increasing both the surface area and the residence time of the air in the duct.
Claim(s) 4-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang (CN 103900112 A) in view of Beasley (US 2,996,143) in view of May (US 575,487).
With respect to claim 4 Wang does not disclose that the firebox bottom plate includes a fixed part and a movable part, in which the fixed part and the movable part are rotatably mounted, and the fixed part is fixedly mounted on the inner wall of the firebox; the rotating shaft outside the firebox passes through the firebox wall and is connected to the movable part, and the movable part is turned between 0-90° by rotating the rotating shaft.
May discloses a burner grate having a fixed part [reference character 34] and a movable part [reference characters 3-5], in which the fixed part and the movable part are rotatably mounted, and the fixed part is fixedly mounted on an inner wall [reference character 1] of the firebox; a rotating shaft [reference character 18] outside the firebox passes through the firebox wall and is connected to the movable part, and the movable part is turned between 0-90° by rotating the rotating shaft.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing date of the invention to modify the burner taught by Wang and Beasley by replacing the bottom plate with the grate system taught by May because the system taught by May allows for easy manual dumping of ash into the ash pan.
With respect to claim 5 the combination of Wang, Beasley, and May discloses that the rotating shaft is connected with a handle [see Fig. 2 or May].
With respect to claim 6 the combination of Wang, Beasley, and May disclose that the fixed part is a circular ring structure [see Fig. 10], and the movable part is fitted in the fixed part and is rotatably connected to the fixed part.
With respect to claim 7 Wang discloses that the firebox wall is connected (indirectly) with an auger tube feeder [see Fig. 8]; the auger tube feeder has a feed port [reference character 512], and the feeding motor can transport charcoal or wood to the firebox bottom plate through the feed port.
With respect to claim 8 Wang discloses a detachable ash box [reference character 64] placed under the firebox bottom plate.
With respect to claim 9 Wang discloses that the ash box is in a shape of square drawer [see Figs. 9-10].
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang (CN 103900112 A) in view of MacArthur (US 4,836,115) and further in view of May (US 575,487).
With respect to claim 19 Wang and MacArthur do not disclose that the firebox bottom plate includes a fixed part and a movable part, in which the fixed part and the movable part are rotatably mounted, and the fixed part is fixedly mounted on the inner wall of the firebox; the rotating shaft outside the firebox passes through the firebox wall and is connected to the movable part, and the movable part is turned between 0-90° by rotating the rotating shaft.
May discloses a burner grate having a fixed part [reference character 34] and a movable part [reference characters 3-5], in which the fixed part and the movable part are rotatably mounted, and the fixed part is fixedly mounted on an inner wall [reference character 1] of the firebox; a rotating shaft [reference character 18] outside the firebox passes through the firebox wall and is connected to the movable part, and the movable part is turned between 0-90° by rotating the rotating shaft.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing date of the invention to modify the burner taught by Wang and McArthur by replacing the bottom plate with the grate system taught by May because the system taught by May allows for easy manual dumping of ash into the ash pan.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VIVEK K SHIRSAT whose telephone number is (571)272-3722. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00AM-5:20AM.
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, Steven B McAllister can be reached at 571-272-6785. 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.
/VIVEK K SHIRSAT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3762
1 Paragraph 0030 of the applicant’s PgPub states that the “[a]ir outlet 23 is connected to the air supply fan 20, and the air supply fan 20 delivers air to the interlayer air duct 11 through the air outlet”, therefore, the claimed “air outlet” is idendical to the air inlet to the interlayer air duct.