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 Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 9 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. The limitations of Claim 9 are already present in Claim 1 upon which it directly or indirectly depends. 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.
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, 4, 8 and 9 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.
Claims 1, 4, 8 and 9 recite two different chambers, i.e., a fuel combustion chamber and an additional chamber (surrounding at least in part said fuel combustion chamber). However, throughout the claims Applicant refers to “said chamber” which causes confusion because it is not completely clear which chamber the Applicant is referring to thereby causing the claims to be indefinite. In the interest of advancing prosecution, Applicant’s recitation of “said chamber” is interpreted as if amended to recite “said fuel combustion chamber”.
Claim 1 further recites “the part/material below” at the very end of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 4 depends from cancelled Claim 3 causing the claim to be indefinite. Claim 4 is interpreted as if amended to depend from Claim 1.
Claim 8 depends from cancelled Claim 7 causing the claim to be indefinite. Claim 8 is interpreted as if amended to depend from Claim 1.
Claim 9 depends from Claim 4 which depends from cancelled Claim 3 causing the claim to be indefinite.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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, 4, 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over GB 2528854 A (hereinafter “GOZNEY”) in view of WO 2017/202853 A1 (hereinafter “MURA”).
PNG
media_image1.png
1108
2990
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claims 1, 4, 8 and 9, GOZNEY discloses a food oven comprising: a cooking compartment (102) configured to house at least one food being cooked and defining a plane (see 106) for holding the at least one cooking food item; a mouth (see opening/mouth covered by door 116) for inserting said food into said compartment and a pyrolytic burner (10) heating said compartment allowing the cooking of said food and defining a longitudinal axis suitably normal to said plane; wherein said pyrolytic burner comprises a fuel combustion chamber (defined by inner shell/skin 16); an additional chamber (defined by middle shell/skin 18) surrounding at least in part said combustion chamber; at least one connector (28/30) configured to place said chamber in fluid passage connection with said additional chamber; a base structure (100) comprising said compartment, said mouth and a support plane of said food being cooked; and in which said plane an opening (120) placed said compartment in fluid passage connection with said pyrolytic burner; wherein said combustion chamber has a substantially tumbler shape (see the figures) and thus it comprises a side wall suitably parallel to said longitudinal axis and a bottom suitably normal to said longitudinal axis (see Figs. 1, 2A-2E and 6); wherein said additional chamber has a substantially tumbler shape and comprises an additional side wall suitably parallel to said longitudinal axis and an additional bottom suitably normal to said longitudinal axis (see again Figs. 1, 2A-2E and 6); wherein said connector is configured to place said chamber in fluid passage connection with said additional chamber allowing the gases produced by pyrolysis in said combustion chamber of the fuel, enter said additional chamber and then enter said combustion chamber where the combustion of said gases takes place (“The secondary combustion zone is a ring of flame (blue flame) that is created by air being drawn in through the perforations at the bottom if the middle or inner skin and coming back in through the perforations at the top and upper portion and through the middle of the inner skin. As the fuel burns, hot air will rush around inside the burner 10 and travel downstream away from the base plate 36 towards the top portion of the burner 10 attached to the cooking chamber 102 of the oven assembly 100 where it will first hit the baffle plate 40. The baffle plate 40 acts as an obstacle and will force the air to move faster inside the burner and thus helps to reignite the hot oxygen from the secondary combustion zone Y just above the baffle plate 40.”); wherein said connector comprises first holes (28) placed at a distance H1 from said opening and second holes (30) placed at a distance from said opening greater than H1 and distance H2 from the bottom; in which said chamber is cylindrical (see again Figs. 1, 2A-2E and 6; see also the Abstract “The burner comprises a cylindrical hollow body”); and in which said additional chamber is cylindrical (see again Figs. 1, 2A-2E and 6; see also the Abstract “The burner comprises a cylindrical hollow body”); wherein said opening (120) places said compartment (102) in fluid passage connection with said chamber (i.e., the fuel combustion chamber defined by shell/skin 16); wherein said chamber comprises at least one connector (28/30) configured to place said chamber in fluid passage connection with said additional chamber (i.e., the additional chamber defined by shell/skin 18).
GOZNEY does not explicitly disclose in which said chamber has a diameter D and a height H comprised between D and 7xD; and in which said additional chamber has a diameter B comprised between 1.5 and 2 times D.
PNG
media_image2.png
761
984
media_image2.png
Greyscale
MURA teaches a similar pyrolytic burner in which said chamber has a diameter D and a height H comprised between D and 7xD (“In a preferred embodiment of the burner, the height H of the combustion chamber follows the relation D<H<7xD. In a more preferred embodiment of the burner, the height H of the combustion chamber follows the relation 2xD<H<3xD, even more preferably the height H is 2.5 times the diameter D of the combustion chamber.”); and in which said additional chamber has a diameter B comprised between 1.5 and 2 times D (“The diameter B of the outer jacket 20 is between 1.5xD and 2xD so as to obtain a volume of the toroidal interspace 60 adequate for the flow of air and of gases generated by the solid fuel and that allows correct operation of the burner. In a preferred embodiment, the diameter B of the outer jacket is between 1.5xD and 1.7xD, even more preferably is equal to 1.5xD.”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify GOZNEY wherein said chamber has a diameter D and a height H comprised between D and 7xD; and wherein said additional chamber has a diameter B comprised between 1.5 and 2 times D as taught and/or suggested by MURA, since as stated by MURA such a modification would provide “a volume of the toroidal interspace 60 adequate for the flow of air and of gases generated by the solid fuel and that allows correct operation of the burner.”
Furthermore, GOZNEY does not disclose wherein said pyrolytic burner comprises an air supply circulator injecting air into the additional chamber suitably at the additional bottom and then generating a flow of air which is pushed into the additional chamber defining a Venturi effect that supports the passage of said gases; through said second holes from said combustion chamber to said additional chamber and then; through said first holes from said additional chamber to said chamber where said gases are combusted by the combustion of the fuel, creating a toroidal flame which performs the function of a plug to the entry of air into said chamber and of heating from the part/material below.
MURA teaches a similar pyrolytic burner wherein said pyrolytic burner comprises an air supply circulator (50) injecting air into the additional chamber suitably at the additional bottom (200) and then generating a flow of air which is pushed into the additional chamber (60) defining a Venturi effect that supports the passage of said gases (see Fig. 2); through said second holes (140) from said combustion chamber (10) to said additional chamber (60) and then; through said first holes (130) from said additional chamber (60) to said chamber (10) where said gases are combusted by the combustion of the fuel, creating a toroidal flame (see again Fig. 2) which performs the function of a plug to the entry of air into said chamber and of heating from the part/material below (inherently functions in this manner).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify GOZNEY wherein said pyrolytic burner comprises an air supply circulator injecting air into the additional chamber suitably at the additional bottom and then generating a flow of air which is pushed into the additional chamber defining a Venturi effect that supports the passage of said gases; through said second holes from said combustion chamber to said additional chamber and then; through said first holes from said additional chamber to said chamber where said gases are combusted by the combustion of the fuel, creating a toroidal flame which performs the function of a plug to the entry of air into said chamber and of heating from the part/material below as taught and/or suggested by MURA, since such a modification would provide a means to generate a forced flow of combustion air and a means of regulating the amount of combustion air provided, in contrast to passive combustion air supply via convection currents, in order to ensure complete combustion. In the alternative, since both references teach a pyrolytic burner, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to substitute one pyrolytic burner for the other to achieve the predictable result of supplying heat to said food oven.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JORGE A PEREIRO whose telephone number is (571)270-3932 and whose fax number is (571) 270-4932. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9:00 - 5:00 EST.
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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may 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.
/JORGE A PEREIRO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3799