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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
It appears the “Supplementary European Search Report” NPL filed on 01/27/2025 was inadvertently left off of the IDS filed on the same date. Clarification is kindly requested.
Claim Interpretation
Regarding claim 7, the claimed “diameter of a virtual circle connecting a center of the air jet port” is very broad, any virtual circle concentric to the air jet port reads on this limitation, and therefore any diameter could be chosen relative to the diameter of the internal space of the can body to arrive at the claimed range. It appears the claim may intend to substantially recite the diameter of the air jet port, per se, is greater than 0.15 times and less than 0.7 times as great as the diameter of the internal space of the can body, i.e. the diameter of the air jet port is 15-70% the diameter of the internal space of the can body. This is generally how the claim will be interpreted for the purpose of substantive examination. Clarification is kindly requested.
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) 1-2, 4-5, and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by KR 200448947 Y1 to Lee.
Note: Reference is made to the attached translation of Lee.
Regarding claim 1. Lee teaches a gas burner comprising:
a fuel supply pipe (fig. 10, fuel supply pipe 20) extending in a predetermined combustion air jet direction (fig. 10, left right direction) and supplied with fuel gas (fig. 10, translation provided below, the fuel supply pipe 20 is provided with fuel as shown by the solid arrows);
an air jet port arranged around the fuel supply pipe (fig. 10, air supply passage 34, including the portion housing diffuser 30) and jetting combustion air in the combustion air jet direction (as shown in fig. 10 below, the air supply passage 34 jets air in the left right direction, shown by the dotted arrows. Further described on p. 5 paras. 1 and 4); and
multiple outflow nozzles (fig. 10, fuel injection pipe 70) extending so as not to protrude outward from the fuel supply pipe beyond the air jet port (fig. 10, the fuel injection pipes 70 do not protrude outward beyond the air supply passage 34) and so as to form an acute inclination angle with respect to the combustion air jet direction (as shown in fig. 10, the pipes 70 form an acute inclination angle with respect to the left right direction) and having tip ends forming fuel outlet ports through which the fuel gas flows out (fig. 10, fuel injection port 72).
PNG
media_image1.png
619
654
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2. Lee teaches the gas burner according to claim 1, wherein the air jet port and the fuel outlet port overlap with each other as viewed in the combustion air jet direction (fig. 10, the fuel injection port 72 overlaps the air supply passage 34, especially when including the portion housing diffuser 30).
Regarding claim 4. Lee teaches the gas burner according to claim 2, further comprising:
an inner wall pipe arranged inside the fuel supply pipe and limiting a section of a fuel gas flow path to an annular shape (fig. 10, air blowing pipe 80); and
an annular sealing plate sealing a clearance between the fuel supply pipe and the inner wall pipe in a middle of the fuel supply pipe (as shown in the figure below, there is a portion of the fuel supply pipe 20 in between the part labeled “connecting portion” and the air blowing pipe 80 that could be considered as an annular sealing plate, per se),
wherein the outflow nozzles extend from the sealing plate so as to penetrate the fuel supply pipe, and are not directly fixed to the fuel supply pipe (as seen in the figure, the fuel injection pipes 70 extend from this portion).
PNG
media_image2.png
808
704
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 9. Lee teaches the gas burner according to claim 4, wherein a diameter of a virtual circumscribed circle of the air jet port is less than twice as great as an outer diameter of the fuel supply pipe (Lee fig. 10, taking the outer diameter of the fuel supply pipe, there exists a virtual circumscribed circle of the air jet port that has a diameter less than twice of the fuel supply pipe, e.g. a virtual circumscribed circle along the diffuser 30 and spaced away from the outer diameter of the air jet port. See the claim interpretation section to claim 7 above, a “virtual circumscribed circle” is generally being interpreted as a very broad limitation).
Regarding claim 5. Lee teaches the gas burner according to claim 2, wherein a diameter of a virtual circumscribed circle of the air jet port is less than twice as great as an outer diameter of the fuel supply pipe (Lee fig. 10, taking the outer diameter of the fuel supply pipe, there exists a virtual circumscribed circle of the air jet port that has a diameter less than twice of the fuel supply pipe, e.g. a virtual circumscribed circle along the diffuser 30 and spaced away from the outer diameter of the air jet port. See the claim interpretation section to claim 7 above, a “virtual circumscribed circle” is generally being interpreted as a very broad limitation).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 6-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of JP 2002364812 A to Ichiki, cited in Applicant’s 08/01/2023 IDS.
Note: Reference is made to the attached translation of Ichiki.
Regarding claim 6. Lee teaches a boiler comprising:
the gas burner according to claim 2 (see rejection to claim 2, above);
But fails to teach a can body having multiple water pipes arranged so as to surround the gas burner and extending in the combustion air jet direction and defining a flow path in which combustion exhaust gas from the gas burner flows in an axial direction of the multiple water pipes.
Ichiki teaches a can body having multiple water pipes arranged so as to surround the gas burner (fig. 1, cylindrical can body 31 having water pipes 33 surrounding burner, described on p. 6 paras. 4-5) and extending in the combustion air jet direction (axial to the burner) and defining a flow path in which combustion exhaust gas from the gas burner flows in an axial direction of the multiple water pipes (see the flames F in the figure below).
PNG
media_image3.png
690
420
media_image3.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the device of Lee to implement a suitable boiler structure, as taught by Ichiki. This would provide the predictable result and benefit of suitably heating water to produce steam for a steam demand destination, as suggested by p. 6 paras. 6-7
Regarding claim 7. The device of modified Lee teaches the boiler according to claim 6, wherein a diameter of a virtual circle connecting a center of the air jet port (substantially an outer diameter of the burner, see claim interpretation section) is greater than 0.15 times and less than 0.7 times as great as a diameter of an internal space of the can body (from Ichiki fig. 1, one of ordinary skill in the art would have arranged the modified device such that the burner of Lee has a diameter within roughly 15% to 70% of the total suitable can body diameter, based on what one of ordinary skill in the art would infer from the figures).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3 and 8 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 3. Lee represents the closest prior art of record to the claimed invention. The prior art fails to teach, “wherein the inner wall pipe has an expanded diameter portion at which the inner wall pipe is diameter-expanded such that a sectional area of the fuel gas flow path is decreased on an upstream side of the outflow nozzles.”, in addition to the rest of the claim.
Instead, Lee teaches a substantially straight air blowing pipe 80. Furthermore, it would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to increase the size of the air blowing pipe 80, thereby reducing the cross sectional area of the fuel supply pipe 20, as claimed, since this would negatively affect the velocity of the air flow through 80.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
KR 20040056882 A to Hwang. Teaches a burner configuration generally similar to that of Lee, with slight variation.
PNG
media_image4.png
531
331
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Kurt J Wolford whose telephone number is (571)272-9945. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30 AM - 4:00 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, Michael G Hoang can be reached at (571)272-6460. 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.
/KURT J WOLFORD/Examiner, Art Unit 3762 /MICHAEL G HOANG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3762