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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/23/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The applicant argues on pp. 8-9 of the response that the combination of Gross (US 2020/0240629 A1) and Voges et. al (US 3,760,790) is inappropriate because a) the purpose of the flashback preventer in Voges is different from the purpose of the dispersion wires in both Gross and the claimed invention, b) the placement of the flashback preventer in Voges is different from the placement of the dispersion wires in Gross, and c) Voges does not disclose small holes for inserting and fixing the flashback prohibitor. The examiner respectfully disagrees. Voges is only used to disclose a shoulder against which a wire mesh is seated in the fuel outlet line of a burner. Fig. 1D of Gross shows smooth fuel outlet openings [reference character 25] into which dispersion wires are placed [“metal wool”, see paragraph 0061], where there is no structure to prevent retrograde motion of the steel wool into the outlet opening. The combination with Voges provides a simple improvement by providing a shoulder to retain the dispersion wire within the outlet opening. With regards to Voges not disclosing small holes for inserting and fixing the flashback prohibitor at best the applicant’s specification and drawings disclose a shoulder [see Figs. 5-6] against which the dispersion wires are seated. Although the applicant has provided corrected drawing sheets which aim to show the claimed structure the drawings introduce new matter (see drawings objections below).
Drawings
The drawings were received on 10/23/2025. These drawings are unacceptable because they contain new matter. In the Non-Final rejection dated 08/20/2025 the drawings were objected to for failing to show “small holes for inserting and fixing the dispersion wires are provided on two sides of a bottom of the each gas groove”. The corrected drawing is reproduced below where the “small holes” are referred to by reference character 8. The claims require the small holes to be provided in the gas groove, which the specification refers to as reference character 6.
PNG
media_image1.png
383
646
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The applicant specification dated 07/10/2023 states that “[a] plurality of gas holes 4 are formed on the flexible pipe 3 along a length direction of the flexible pipe 3, each gas hole 4 is in communicate with a corresponding gas groove 6 formed on an outer wall of the burner main body 1 through a corresponding gas path 5 formed in the burner main body 1, and dispersion wires 7 are arranged in each gas groove 6” [paragraph 0024, also see 0006 and 0028 of the Applicant’s specification] and the original claims require that “each gas hole is in communicat[ion] with a corresponding gas groove…” [claim 1 of the original claims dated 07/10/2023]. The corrected drawing sheet shows a single groove associated with the plurality of gas holes, and the claim dated 10/23/2025 has been amended to match the corrected drawing sheet; however, the specification only provides support for “each gas hole is in commuicat[ion] with a corresponding gas groove” requiring a one-to-one correspondence between gas holes and gas grooves.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the small holes for fixing the dispersion wires must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The amendment filed 10/23/2025 is objected to under 35 U.S.C. 132(a) because it introduces new matter into the disclosure. 35 U.S.C. 132(a) states that no amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention. The added material which is not supported by the original disclosure is as follows: The applicant’s specification dated 07/10/2023 states that “[a] plurality of gas holes 4 are formed on the flexible pipe 3 along a length direction of the flexible pipe 3, each gas hole 4 is in communicate with a corresponding gas groove 6 formed on an outer wall of the burner main body 1 through a corresponding gas path 5 formed in the burner main body 1, and dispersion wires 7 are arranged in each gas groove 6” [paragraph 0024], the amended specification requires “[a] plurality of gas holes are formed on the flexible pipe along a length direction of the flexible pipe, each gas hole is in communicate with a gas groove formed on an outer wall of the burner main body through a corresponding gas path formed in the burner main body, and dispersion wires are arranged in the gas groove”. The original specification does not provide support for the amendment, also see drawing objection above.
Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office Action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-6 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The amendments require that “each gas hole is in communicate with a gas groove” where both the original claims and the specification only provide support for “each gas hole is in communicate with a corresponding gas groove”.
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.
Claim(s) 1-6 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gross (US 2020/0240629 A1) in view of Voges et. al (US 3,760,790).
With respect to claim 1 Gross discloses a fire-resistant burner, comprising a burner main body [reference character 20], a hard pipe [reference character 17 and paragraph 0045 see “rigid pipe proximal part 17”] and a flexible pipe [reference character 10, see paragraph 0045 “the pipe 10 can be made of a flexible material”], wherein the flexible pipe is embedded in the burner main body [see Fig. 1C], one end of the flexible pipe is connected with the hard pipe, another end of the flexible pipe is positioned in the burner main body and is sealed [see Fig. 1C], one end of the hard pipe is connected with the one end of the flexible pipe inside the burner main body [see Fig. 1C], and another end of the hard pipe extends outside of the burner main body to connect to a gas pipeline [see Fig. 1C], a plurality of gas holes [reference character 24] are formed on the flexible pipe along a length direction of the flexible pipe, each gas hole is in communicate with a corresponding gas groove [reference character 25] formed on an outer wall of the burner main body through a corresponding gas path formed in the burner main body. Finally, Gross discloses that dispersion wires [“metal wool”, see paragraph 0061] are arranged in each gas groove.
Gross does not disclose that small holes for inserting and fixing the dispersion wires are provided on two sides of a bottom of the each gas groove.
Voges discloses a gas fireplace unit having a flashback prohibitor [reference character 96] formed as a wire screen [see Fig. 12 and column 4 lines 13-21] in each outlet gas channel. The flashback prohibitor is placed against a shoulder1 [see Fig. 12] in order to retain the mesh within the groove.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing date of the invention to modify the fire-resistant burner taught by Gross by including a shoulder against which to mount the wire screens as taught by Voges in order to retain the wire within the groove.
With respect to claim 2 Gross discloses the burner main body is made of fire-resistant material, wherein the burner main body is a cement-based fire-resistant material body or a non-metallic fire-resistant material body [see paragraph 0054].
With respect to claim 3 Gross discloses that the hard pipe is made from heat resistant materials [paragraph 0045], but does not explicitly disclose that the pipe is made from metal; nor does Gross disclose that the hard pipe has an outer diameter of 5mm-30mm.
However, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time or the filing date of the invention to modify the hard pipe taught y Gross by forming it from metal, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known component or material on the basis of suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious mechanical design expediency. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. Also see MPEP 2144.07. Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp. states "Reading a list and selecting a known compound to meet known requirements is no more ingenious than selecting the last piece to put in the last opening in a jig-saw puzzle." 325 U.S. at 335, 65 USPQ at 301.). Since Gross discloses that the pipe can be formed from any heat-resistant material [see paragraph 0045], the designation of a specific material does nothing to enhance the patentability of a design.
With regards to the outer diameter of the hard pipe being between 5mm-30mm the outer diameter is interpreted to be a result effective variable that would be optimized in order to provide a desired result, in this case the outer diameter of the pipe would be optimized in order to provide for the required flow rate for a specified inlet pressure and wall thickness. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing date of the invention to provide an outer diameter of 5mm-30mm since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
With respect to claim 4 Gross does not disclose that the flexible pipe has an outer diameter of 5mm-30mm. However, with regards to the outer diameter of the flexible pipe being between 5mm-30mm the outer diameter is interpreted to be a result effective variable that would be optimized in order to provide a desired result, in this case the outer diameter of the pipe would be optimized in order to provide for the required flow rate for a specified inlet pressure and wall thickness. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing date of the invention to provide an outer diameter of 5mm-30mm since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
With respect to claims 5-6 Gross does not disclose that each gas hole has a diameter of lmm-4mm, and a distance between two adjacent gas holes is 5mm-50mm. or that each gas groove has a width of 4mm-10mm, and a depth of each gas groove is 2mm-10mm. However, the side of the gas holes and grooves are interpreted to be result effective variables that would be optimized in order to provide a desired result, in this case the sizes of the holes and grooves would be optimized in order to provide the desired flame length in order to provide the desired aesthetic effect. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing date of the invention to provide each gas hole has a diameter of lmm-4mm, and a distance between two adjacent gas holes is Snm-50mm. or that each gas groove has a width of 4mm-10mm, and a depth of each gas groove is 2mm-10mm since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
With respect to claim 8 Gross discloses that the dispersion wires are metal wires [see paragraph 0061 where Gross discloses “metal wool”], and each dispersion wire has a diameter of 0.03mm-0.6mm. Although Gross does not explicitly disclose a diameter a person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that metal/steel wool is manufactured in ranges of between grades 0000-4, which range between 0.03mm-0.1mm2, which falls entirely within the range required by the claim.
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 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 VIVEK K SHIRSAT whose telephone number is (571)272-3722. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00AM-5:20AM.
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, 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 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.
/VIVEK K SHIRSAT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3762
1 At best the applicant’s specification and drawings disclose a shoulder [see Figs. 5-6] against which the dispersion wires are seated.
2 https://steelwooldirect.com/grades-uses/