DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
1. The amendment filed 10/10/2025 has been entered. Amended Claims 1-2 have been noted in addition to canceled Claims 3-4 and new Claim 5. The amendment has overcome the claim objections and 112(b) rejections previously set forth - those claim objections and 112(b) rejections have been withdrawn accordingly. Claims 1-2 and 5 are currently pending.
Claim Objections
2. The claims listed below are objected to because of the following informalities:
In Claim 5, change “another” to -- an additional --
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ono et al. (US 2018/0372311 A1) (hereinafter “Ono”).
Regarding Claim 1, Ono teaches of a combustion apparatus (Fig. 1) comprising:
a burner (1) constituted by a burner body (11) an inside of which an air-fuel mixture is supplied to (see at least [0016] and Fig. 1) and a combustion plate (12) covering an open surface (111) of the burner body (see at least [0018], [0020] and Figs. 4-5); and
a combustion box (2) having, at an end, a box flange part (22) that is fastened to a body flange part (112) enclosing the open surface of the burner body (see at least [0018] and Fig. 4),
wherein the combustion plate (12) has a burner frame (121) of a rectangular shape (as is shown in Fig. 6) and an air-fuel mixture permeable body (121a) covering an opening enclosed by the burner frame from a burner-body side (as is shown in Figs. 4-6), through which the air-fuel mixture permeates (see at least [0020] and Figs. 4-6), and
wherein the burner frame has an opening peripheral edge part around the opening (as is shown in Figs. 5-6), a side plate part (side plate part comprising the vertical surface of element (12) that is in contact with element (93) as is shown in Fig. 5b) bending from the opening peripheral edge part to the burner-body side (as is shown in Figs. 5-6), and a frame flange part (122) outwardly extending from an end of the burner-body side of the side plate part and being sandwiched between the body flange part and the box flange part (as is shown in Fig. 5) (see at least [0024] and Figs. 5-6),
wherein:
a projecting part(s) (Note that “a projecting part(s)” in this context is being interpreted as one or more projecting parts. In the instant case, elements (96) constitute projecting parts as claimed - see at least [0032] and Figs. 5-6) positioning the burner frame with respect to the combustion box (see at least [0032] and Figs. 5-6), which comes into contact with, or is disposed opposite to without contact with an inner surface of the combustion box (see at least [0032] and Figs. 4-6 - “projected parts 96, for positioning, which come into contact with, or lie close to face, the inner wall surface of the combustion box 2”), is provided on the side plate part of the burner frame (as is shown in Figs. 5-6) (see at least [0032] and Figs. 4-6) at positions located around corner region(s) of the burner frame (As can be observed in Figs. 6(a)-6(b), each pointed corner region of the burner frame is surrounded by a plurality of projecting parts (96) from a beginning portion to an end portion of each corner region (as is shown in at least Fig. 6(a)). The projecting parts (96) are accordingly provided “at positions located around corner regions of the burner frame” as claimed.) (see at least [0032] and Figs. 6(a)-6(b)).
Regarding Claim 2, Ono also teaches that the projecting part(s) (96) is provided at a portion of the side plate part that is spaced away from an end of a side of the opening peripheral edge part toward the frame flange part (122) (as is shown in Figs. 5-6) (see at least [0032] and Figs. 4-6).
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.
4. Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ono.
Regarding Claim 5, Ono teaches the combustion apparatus according to Claim 1 (see the rejection for Claim 1) but fails to explicitly teach of another projecting part(s) provided at a central part of a shorter side of the side plate part of the burner frame. However, it has been held that a mere duplication of parts that does not produce a new and unexpected result has “no patentable significance” (see below). Therefore, merely duplicating parts in the prior art in a way that that would not have produced a new and unexpected would have constituted an obvious modification.
In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) (Claims at issue were directed to a water-tight masonry structure wherein a water seal of flexible material fills the joints which form between adjacent pours of concrete. The claimed water seal has a "web" which lies in the joint, and a plurality of "ribs" projecting outwardly from each side of the web into one of the adjacent concrete slabs. The prior art disclosed a flexible water stop for preventing passage of water between masses of concrete in the shape of a plus sign (+). Although the reference did not disclose a plurality of ribs, the court held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced.).
In the instant case, Ono teaches that the projecting parts (96) are “for positioning, which come into contact with, or lie close to face, the inner wall surface of the combustion box 2” such that “Positioning deviation of the combustion box 2 relative to the combustion plate 12 is thus prevented” (see at least [0032] and Fig. 6(a)). Thus, adding additional projecting parts along the perimeter of the burner frame, including at a central part of a shorter side of the side plate part of the burner frame (as is shown in Fig. 6(a)), would not have produced a new and unexpected result since doing so would have produced the predictable result of enhancing the prevention of “Positioning deviation of the combustion box 2 relative to the combustion plate 12” as is taught by Ono. Therefore, duplicating the existing projecting parts (96) to thereby dispose more projecting parts (96) around the existing frame perimeter such that an additional projecting part would also be disposed on the existing central part of the shorter side of the side plate part of the burner frame would not have produced a new and unexpected result and would have accordingly constituted an obvious modification.
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to modify apparatus taught by Ono by duplicating the existing projecting parts to thereby dispose more projecting parts around the existing frame perimeter such that an additional projecting part would also be disposed on the existing central part of the shorter side of the side plate part of the burner frame as claimed since such modification would have constituted an obvious duplication of parts which fails to patentably distinguish over the prior art. Note that such modification would have necessarily resulted in the invention as claimed.
Response to Arguments
The arguments filed 10/10/2025 have been fully considered but have not been found persuasive for the following reasons:
Applicant has argued that Claim 1 as amended is now distinguished from the prior art of record and contends that:
“Ono discloses projecting parts (96) that are formed on bent edge portions (911, 912) of a fixing frame (9) attached to the frame flange part (122) of the burner frame (12) (see Ono, paragraphs. [0032]-[0033] and Figs. 5-6). As clearly shown in Fig. 6 of Ono, these projecting parts (96) are located only at a point(s) near corner(s) of the fixing frame (9). Ono provides no disclosure or suggestion of projecting elements distributed along the side plate portions or positioned within any region beyond such corner points.
In contrast, the present invention, as recited in amended Claim 1 and supported by paragraphs [0020]-[0021] of the specification, defines that the projecting part(s) (1214) are provided on the side plate part (1212) of the burner frame (121) at positions located around corner region(s) of the burner frame (121). Thus, the projecting parts (1214) of the present invention are not limited to discrete corner points but are instead arranged within regions extending around the corners of the burner frame. This configuration provides a more stable and reliable positioning structure between the burner frame (121) and the combustion box (2), while also contributing to improved mechanical integrity without requiring a separate fixing frame.
Accordingly, Ono fails to disclose or suggest a configuration in which the projecting
part(s) are provided on the side plate part of the burner frame at positions located around corner region(s) rather than precisely at a point(s) near corner(s). The claimed structure therefore defines a distinct spatial arrangement of the projecting parts relative to the corners of the burner frame.”
These arguments are not persuasive and Claim 1, as amended, is still too broad to overcome the prior art of record. In the instant case, the new limitation of the projecting parts(s) being “located around corner region(s) of the burner frame” is too broad to overcome the previously relied upon Ono reference because, as can be observed in Fig. 6(a) of Ono, each corner region of the burner frame (each pointed corner region as shown in Fig. 6(a)) is surrounded by a plurality of projecting parts (96) (as is shown in Fig. 6(a), each corner region has multiple elements (96) extending from a beginning to an end of, and thus around, each corner region). The projecting parts are accordingly provided “at positions located around corner regions of the burner frame” as claimed (see at least [0032] and Figs. 6(a)-6(b)). Thus, the wording of “located around corner region(s) of the burner frame” is too broad to overcome the prior art of Ono and the arguments concerning the same are not persuasive. It is recommended that Applicant (at least) further amend Claim 1 to change the recitation of “located around” to -- that curve around -- (or equivalent) to endeavor to overcome the prior art of record.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The following prior art is considered relevant to this application in terms of structure and use:
Akagi (US 2021/0356123 A1)
Ono (US 2019/0024941 A1)
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BENJAMIN W JOHNSON whose telephone number is (571)272-8523. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 7:30-5:00 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, Steve 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.
/BENJAMIN W JOHNSON/Examiner, Art Unit 3762 1/30/2026
/STEVEN B MCALLISTER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3762