DETAILED ACTION Application Status Claims 1-11 remain pending in the application. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b) or 112 2 nd Paragraph (pre-AIA) 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. Claim s 4 and 10 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. Re cl 4 , it’s unclear how the claimed protrusion or bulge is superimposed in the direction of flow downstream of the combustion air passage openings in light of the specification . As seen in fig. 3c of the instant specification, a bulge is superimposed when it covers 22 and flow occurs from both left and right into 22 past the bulge as shown in the figure. As such, there is no downstream area to opening 22 (other than through 22) because air approaches from both sides (i.e. it can be superimposed but not downstream because of the flow from both sides). Re cl 10 , there’s no antecedent basis for the claimed flow guiding system according to claim 7 and the heating device in the first line . It is unclear what this refers to or if this should more correctly depend from claim 9. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 (a)(1) 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— (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 and 4-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bauer (DE 102011084868). Regarding claim 1 , Bauer discloses a flow-directing insert for a heating device with an evaporator burner, wherein the evaporator burner comprises a fan chamber or combustion air pre- chamber, an evaporator receptacle and a combustion chamber, wherein the evaporator receptacle has a base wall and a circumferential wall having at least two combustion air passage openings for directing combustion air from the fan chamber or combustion air pre-chamber initially along an exterior of the evaporator receptacle through the combustion air passage openings of the circumferential wall into the combustion chamber (under a BRI interpreted as intended use for the flow-directing insert ) , wherein the flow-directing insert comprises at least a first region (see examiner annotated fig. 1 , curved portion 54 prior to 52 as shown) for superimposing at least one of the combustion air passage openings (66 , i.e. covering the air passage in that region ) and a second region (See examiner annotated fig. 1, including support elements as annotated) for fixing in the fan chamber or combustion air pre- chamber (64) of the evaporator burner (see fig. 1; noting this being fixed in the chamber where combustion air flows , i.e. under a BRI claim 1 requires no structural details of where this is fixed in the chamber , the chamber itself being the space where the combustion air flows ) , wherein the first region is tongue-shaped (i.e. under a BRI, resembling a tongue) . Re Cl 2 , wherein the second region is adapted to be fixed to the evaporator receptacle in the region of the base wall of the evaporator receptacle, or wherein the second region comprises supporting elements (see fig. 1 examiner annotated) for supporting against a blower housing (against 58, which is part of housing 44). Re Cl 4 , wherein the first region has a protrusion or a bulge (@54) which is arranged in the region of the combustion air passage openings to be superimposed (see fig. 1; which are radially outward from the air passage openings and thus are superimposed) or in the direction of flow downstream of the combustion air passage openings to be superimposed for support against the circumferential wall. Re Cl 5 , wherein a plurality of first regions (regions separated between air passage openings as viewed circumferentially around 54) are interconnected via a common second region (@26), wherein the first regions protrude from the second region in a tongue-like manner (as seen in fig. 1 via the cross sectional view where each region would have the same tongue-like shape). Re Cl 6 , Bauer discloses a fastening element (see examiner annotated fig. 1 including 26 and support elements) for a flow-directing element configured for insertion into a fan chamber or combustion air pre-chamber of the evaporator burner, wherein the fastening element comprises at least one flow-directing insert according to claim 1 . Re Cl 7 , which is designed as a spring element (necessarily present as the fastening element would include a spring constant and some degree of flexibility that acts as a spring). Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Fletcher (US Pat. No. 3,490,858). Regarding claim 1 , Fletcher discloses a flow-directing insert for a heating device with an evaporator burner, wherein the evaporator burner comprises a fan chamber or combustion air pre- chamber, an evaporator receptacle and a combustion chamber, wherein the evaporator receptacle has a base wall and a circumferential wall having at least two combustion air passage openings for directing combustion air from the fan chamber or combustion air pre-chamber initially along an exterior of the evaporator receptacle through the combustion air passage openings of the circumferential wall into the combustion chamber (under a BRI interpreted as intended use for the claimed flow directing insert ), wherein the flow-directing insert comprises at least a first region (44) for superimposing at least one of the combustion air passage openings (capable of such intended use) and a second region (48) for fixing in the fan chamber or combustion air pre-chamber of the evaporator burner (capable of such intended use), wherein the first region is tongue-shaped (i.e. under a BRI, resembling a tongue). Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103(a) or 103 which form the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action: (a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made. 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 of this title, 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. This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) or 103, the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned at the time any inventions or the effective filing date were made absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and invention dates of each claim that was not commonly owned at the time a later invention was made or as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 103(c) and potential 35 U.S.C. 102(e), (f) or (g) prior art under 35 U.S.C. 103(a), or 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 3 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) or 103 as being unpatentable over Bauer (DE 102011084868). Re cl s 3 and 11 , Bauer fails to explicitly disclose that wherein the flow-directing insert is made of a metal sheet (in one piece), relating to a different method of production of the claimed product under a BRI . I t would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the applied prior art to include said claimed limitations, as it has been held that if the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. See MPEP § 2113. Allowable Subject Matter Claim s 8-9 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. Claim 10 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PATRICK D. MAINES whose telephone number is 571-270-1911. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Thursday, 7:00 AM till 7:30 PM EST. If attempts to reach examiner are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, David Eastwood can be reached at 571-270-7135. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications maybe be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public Pair. Status Information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000. /PATRICK D MAINES/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 6218