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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claim Objections
The claims are objected to because they include reference characters which are not enclosed within parentheses.
Reference characters corresponding to elements recited in the detailed description of the drawings and used in conjunction with the recitation of the same element or group of elements in the claims should be enclosed within parentheses so as to avoid confusion with other numbers or characters which may appear in the claims. See MPEP § 608.01(m). The reference characters may alternatively be omitted entirely.
Claim 7 recites “wherein a space corresponding to the predetermined distance constitutes a swirl retention section D where the swirl flow of the mixture gas retains” which should presumably be - wherein a space corresponding to the predetermined distance constitutes a swirl retention section D where the swirl flow of the mixture gas is retained-.
Claim 10 recites “wherein the controller performs, for a startup of the carbon dioxide supplier,:” which should be - wherein the controller performs, for a startup of the carbon dioxide supplier:-
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“a mixture gas supply unit” in claim 1;
“a combustion unit” in claim 1; and
“a swirl forming unit” in claim 1.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Factors that will support a conclusion that the prior art element is an equivalent are:
(A) The prior art element performs the identical function specified in the claim in substantially the same way, and produces substantially the same results as the corresponding element disclosed in the specification. Kemco Sales, Inc. v. Control Papers Co., 208 F.3d 1352, 1364, 54 USPQ2d 1308, 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (An internal adhesive sealing the inner surfaces of an envelope pocket was not held to be equivalent to an adhesive on a flap which attached to the outside of the pocket. Both the claimed invention and the accused device performed the same function of closing the envelope, but the accused device performed the function in a substantially different way (by an internal adhesive on the inside of the pocket) with a substantially different result (the adhesive attached the inner surfaces of both sides of the pocket)); Odetics Inc. v. Storage Tech. Corp., 185 F.3d 1259, 1267, 51 USPQ2d 1225, 1229-30 (Fed. Cir. 1999); Lockheed Aircraft Corp. v. United States, 193 USPQ 449, 461 (Ct. Cl. 1977). The concepts of equivalents as set forth in Graver Tank & Mfg. Co. v. Linde Air Products, 339 U.S. 605, 85 USPQ 328 (1950) are relevant to any "equivalents" determination. Polumbo v. Don-Joy Co., 762 F.2d 969, 975 n.4, 226 USPQ 5, 8-9 n.4 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
(B) A person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the interchangeability of the element shown in the prior art for the corresponding element disclosed in the specification. Caterpillar Inc. v. Deere & Co., 224 F.3d 1374, 56 USPQ2d 1305 (Fed. Cir. 2000); Al-Site Corp. v. VSI Int’ l, Inc., 174 F.3d 1308, 1316, 50 USPQ2d 1161, 1165 (Fed. Cir. 1999); Chiuminatta Concrete Concepts, Inc. v. Cardinal Indus. Inc., 145 F.3d 1303, 1309, 46 USPQ2d 1752, 1757 (Fed. Cir. 1998); Lockheed Aircraft Corp. v. United States, 193 USPQ 449, 461 (Ct. Cl. 1977); Data Line Corp. v. Micro Technologies, Inc., 813 F.2d 1196, 1 USPQ2d 2052 (Fed. Cir. 1987).
(C) There are insubstantial differences between the prior art element and the corresponding element disclosed in the specification. IMS Technology, Inc. v. Haas Automation, Inc., 206 F.3d 1422, 1436, 54 USPQ2d 1129, 1138 (Fed. Cir. 2000); Warner-Jenkinson Co. v. Hilton Davis Chemical Co., 520 U.S. 17, 41 USPQ2d 1865, 1875 (1997); Valmont Industries, Inc. v. Reinke Mfg. Co., 983 F.2d 1039, 25 USPQ2d 1451 (Fed. Cir. 1993). See also Caterpillar Inc. v. Deere & Co., 224 F.3d 1374, 56 USPQ2d 1305 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (A structure lacking several components of the overall structure corresponding to the claimed function and also differing in the number and size of the parts may be insubstantially different from the disclosed structure. The limitation in a means- (or step-) plus-function claim is the overall structure corresponding to the claimed function. The individual components of an overall structure that corresponds to the claimed function are not claim limitations. Also, potential advantages of a structure that do not relate to the claimed function should not be considered in an equivalents determination under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph).
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.
Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Galey (FR 1437577 A), hereinafter Galey, in view of Kitabayashi (US 20190107287 A1), hereinafter Kitabayashi.
Regarding claims 1-3, Galey discloses a carbon dioxide supplier generating carbon dioxide gas by combusting fuel (“Such a device is specifically designed to burn propane and, therefore, to produce heat and carbon dioxide for the enrichment of horticultural and market garden greenhouses” all citations from the machine translation appended to the foreign reference), the carbon dioxide supplier comprising:
a mixture gas supply unit supplying a mixture gas of air and fuel (“the mixing tube 20 where the air-gas mixture takes place” the examiner notes that the mixing tube is elsewhere labeled as element 21);
a combustion unit combusting the mixture gas supplied from the mixture gas supply unit (“the grid 10 which has a number of radial slots 14” and “gas through the slots of the grid which is ignited by the pilot light”); and
a unit extending between the mixture gas supply unit and the combustion unit in anteroposterior direction, the unit flowing the mixture gas introduced into a rear portion thereof from the mixture gas supply unit to the combustion unit provided at a front portion thereof (9),
wherein the unit provides a circular flow cross-section along a direction from the mixture gas supply unit toward the combustion unit (Figure 2), and
wherein the mixture gas supply unit introduces the mixture gas into the unit through a mixture gas inlet pipe connected to the rear portion thereof (Figure 2);
wherein the mixture gas inlet pipe comprises a straight pipe introducing the mixture gas of straight flow into the swirl unit (Figure 2).
PNG
media_image1.png
592
296
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Galey does not disclose:
wherein the unit is a swirl forming unit, the swirl forming unit swirl-flowing the mixture gas, wherein the mixture gas supply unit introduces the mixture gas in a direction inscribed to the circular flow cross-section to form a swirl flow of the mixture gas;
laminar flow;
wherein the mixture gas inlet pipe connected to the swirl forming unit is inclined forward by a predetermined angle of inflow k with respect to a plane perpendicular to the anteroposterior direction such that the mixture gas supplied from the mixture gas inlet pipe is introduced into the swirl forming unit at a predetermined velocity v having a lateral velocity component of v×cos k and a forward velocity component of v×sin k.
However, Kitabayashi teaches:
wherein the unit is a swirl forming unit, the swirl forming unit swirl-flowing the mixture gas, wherein the mixture gas supply unit introduces the mixture gas in a direction inscribed to the circular flow cross-section to form a swirl flow of the mixture gas (“the ramp 176 imparts a substantially counterclockwise rotation of gas into the burner base 104” paragraph [0083]);
laminar flow (“The ramp 176 may also be provided with a semi-helical or arcuate shape with a smooth bottom that produces a laminar flow of fuel and oxygen into the outer chamber 118 of the burner base 104” paragraph [0083]);
wherein the mixture gas inlet pipe connected to the swirl forming unit is inclined forward by a predetermined angle of inflow k with respect to a plane perpendicular to the anteroposterior direction such that the mixture gas supplied from the mixture gas inlet pipe is introduced into the swirl forming unit at a predetermined velocity v having a lateral velocity component of v×cos k and a forward velocity component of v×sin k (“The ramp 176 may also provide a smoothly curving pathway for gas to be elevated up into the burner base 104, where it can then be distributed evenly about the burner ports 162 present above the outer chamber 118” paragraph [0083]).
PNG
media_image2.png
446
586
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
428
734
media_image3.png
Greyscale
In view of Kitabayashi’s teachings, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the features as is taught in Kitabayashi, in the carbon dioxide supplier disclosed by Galey because Kitabayashi states that the configuration evenly distributes the gas to the burner ports. Therefore, including the features of Kitabayashi will improve distribution to the burner ports of Galey.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-10 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:
None of the prior art of record teaches or suggests a carbon dioxide supplier with all of the limitations of claims 4, 6, 7, or 10.
Claim 4 recites the limitation “wherein a tapered pipe having an inner diameter increasing toward a forward direction is provided at a portion of the swirl forming unit further forward than where the mixture gas inlet pipe is connected such that a width of the swirl flow of the mixture gas introduced from the mixture gas inlet pipe is increased.” The closest prior art of record to claim 4 is Galey as modified by Katabayashi. Art was not found such that further modification of Galey and Katabayashi to arrive at the claims would have been obvious. Therefore, these limitations, when combined with every other limitation of the claim, distinguish the claim from the prior art.
Claim 6 recites the limitation “wherein a dome cap having an inner surface concaved toward backward direction is provided at a portion of the swirl forming unit further backward than where the mixture gas inlet pipe is connected.” The closest prior art of record to claim 6 is Galey as modified by Katabayashi. Art was not found such that further modification of Galey and Katabayashi to arrive at the claims would have been obvious. Therefore, these limitations, when combined with every other limitation of the claim, distinguish the claim from the prior art.
Claim 7 recites the limitations “wherein the combustion unit comprises:
a catalyst member installed at a front end of the swirl forming unit and having a plurality of lattice holes extending and penetrating through in the anteroposterior direction; and
an ignition heater unit spaced apart from a rear end of the catalyst member in a backward direction by a predetermined distance, wherein a space corresponding to the predetermined distance constitutes a swirl retention section D where the swirl flow of the mixture gas retains.” The closest prior art of record to claim 7 is Galey as modified by Katabayashi. Art was not found such that further modification of Galey and Katabayashi to arrive at the claims would have been obvious. Therefore, these limitations, when combined with every other limitation of the claim, distinguish the claim from the prior art.
Claim 10 recites the limitations “wherein the combustion unit comprises:
a catalyst member installed at a front end of the swirl forming unit and promoting combustion of the mixture gas at a temperature higher than an activation temperature; and
an ignition heater unit disposed further backward than the catalyst member, the carbon dioxide supplier further comprising:
a temperature sensor detecting a temperature of the catalyst member; and
a controller controlling the mixture gas supply unit and the ignition heater unit, wherein the controller performs, for a startup of the carbon dioxide supplier:
a preheating step of supplying power to the ignition heater unit to generate heat and of controlling the mixture gas supply unit to supply air until the temperature of the catalyst member reaches a first set temperature lower than the activation temperature;
an overlapping step of maintaining power supply to the ignition heater unit and controlling the mixture gas supply unit to supply the mixture gas when the temperature of the catalyst member is equal to or higher than the first set temperature and equal to or lower than a second set temperature higher than the activation temperature; and
an operating step of cutting off the power supplied to the ignition heater unit 51 to stop generating heat and controlling the mixture gas supply unit to supply the mixture gas when the temperature of the catalyst member is equal to or higher than the second set temperature.” The closest prior art of record to claim 10 is Galey as modified by Katabayashi. Art was not found such that further modification of Galey and Katabayashi to arrive at the claims would have been obvious. Therefore, these limitations, when combined with every other limitation of the claim, distinguish the claim from the prior art.
Claims 5, 8, and 9 are objected to at least because they depend from claims 4 and 7.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Chandler (GB 191201559 A) “The result is as above pointed out that lighting back is prevented and a thorough mixing of the gas and air is effected”
PNG
media_image4.png
370
482
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
206
494
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Reid (US 3606612 A) “The delivery of the gas-air mixture tangentially to the plenum chamber of each burner section produces somewhat of a contracting spiral flow and provides an even distribution of the gas-air mixture and a substantially uniform pressure along the top of the plenum chamber”
PNG
media_image6.png
548
436
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Asgeirsson (DE 19820445 A1)
PNG
media_image7.png
228
424
media_image7.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image8.png
272
294
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Krauklis (US 20060292510 A1)
PNG
media_image9.png
244
470
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LOGAN P JONES whose telephone number is (303)297-4309. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:30-5:00 EST.
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 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.
/LOGAN P JONES/Examiner, Art Unit 3762