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 .
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.
Status of Claims
The following action is in response to the applicant’s Amendment dated 12/19/2025, that was in response to the Office action dated 11/17/2025. Claims 1-4 and 27-50 are pending, claim(s) 1-3 and 31 has/have been amended, while claim(s) 47-50 are presented as new.
Response to Arguments
The claim 1 objection is withdrawn based on Applicant’s amendment.
Applicant's arguments filed 12/19/2025 regarding claims 1, 30, 31, 34, 35 and 46 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The reasons for Applicant’s remarks not being persuasive are given below.
Applicant’s arguments, see 9-14, filed 12/19/2025, with respect to claims 2-4, 27-29, 32-33, 36-45 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The previous 103(a) rejections of the claims have been withdrawn.
Applicant respectfully submits, that Neumeier does not teach or suggest the fluid directing structure recited in amended claim 1, 30-31, 34-35 and 46. The fluid directing structures direct the premixed mixture radially inward from the interior space to the central passage such that mixture converges towards the centerline in a direction extending towards the second end of the inner tube. The inner tube is identified as element 130, and slot 132 as acknowledged by the applicant directs the incoming premixture into the void 117, which is at the centerline and toward the second end [see FIGs 2A-2B which shows radially inward flow]. It is agreed that the fluid directing structure does not have a downstream/longitudinal directing component, but this is not claimed. It is also reiterated that Scribano and O’Donnell are not relied upon to teach the structure of the fluid directing structure. For these reasons, the applicant’s remarks regarding claims 1, 30-31, 34-35 and 46 are not persuasive, and the previous grounds of rejection will be maintained.
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.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Neumeier [20150153041].
With respect to claim 1, Neumeier discloses: A combustor, comprising: an outer tube (112) having an interior space (136) extending between first and second openings [paragraph 0032]; and an inner tube (130) within the interior space extending along a centerline from a first end to a second end and defining a central passage, the first end being closed by an end wall (134) in a fluid-tight manner, the interior space being supplied with a mixture of air and combustible fuel pre-mixed upstream of the inner tube [paragraph 0027], the inner tube having fluid directing structures (132) for directing the pre-mixed mixture radially inward from the interior space to the central passage such that the pre-mixed mixture converges towards the central axis in a direction extending towards the second end of the inner tube [see FIG 1c reproduced below, paragraph 0028].
PNG
media_image1.png
496
842
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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) 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Neumeier [20150153041], further in view of O’Donnell [20190128516].
With respect to claims 30, Neumeier discloses the invention as substantially claimed, however does not show the further details of the heating appliance.
O’Donnell makes up for these deficiencies by teaching:
{cl. 30} A heating appliance including the combustor of claim 1 [paragraph 0018].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claim invention to modify Neumeier to include the fluid directing as taught by O’Donnell because O’Donnell provides a known structure that allows for complete mixing to ensure efficient use of the combustor.
Claim(s) 31, 35 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Neumeier [20150153041], further in view of Scribano et al [20100291495].
With respect to claim 31, Neumeier discloses: A combustor, comprising: an outer tube (112) defining an interior space extending between first and second openings; an inner tube (130) within the interior space extending along a centerline from a first end to a second end and defining a central passage, the interior space being supplied with a mixture of air and combustible fuel pre-mixed upstream of the inner tube [paragraph 0027], the inner tube having fluid directing structures (132) for directing the pre-mixed mixture radially inward from the interior space to the central passage such that the pre-mixed mixture converges towards the central axis in a direction extending towards the second end of the inner tube [paragraph 0028]; an end wall (134) for securing the first end of the inner tube in a fluid- tight manner such that the fluid directing structures on the inner tube provides a fluid path from the interior space to the central passage [see FIG 1c]; and a flange (114) for securing the second end of the inner tube to the outer tube in a fluid- tight manner [see FIG 1c, paragraph 0027].
Neumeier however does not show the end wall being secured to the outer wall.
Scribano makes up for these deficiencies by teaching
{cl. 31, cont’d} an end wall (8) for securing the first end of the inner tube to the outer tube in a fluid- tight manner such that the fluid directing structures (apertures in shell 9, paragraph 0021) on the inner tube provides a fluid path from the interior space to the central passage [see FIG 3, paragraph 0021-0024, 0026].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claim invention to modify Neumeier to include the end wall as taught by Scribano because Scribano provided the end wall to seal the combustion chamber and provide stable support of the inner tube.
With respect to claim 35, Neumeier discloses: A combustor for an appliance, comprising: an inner tube (130) extending along a central axis and defining a central passage and including fluid directing structures (132) arranged circumferentially about the inner tube; an outer tube (112) extending along the central axis and defining a central passage for receiving the inner tube, a fluid passage (136) being defined between the inner and outer tubes [paragraph 0027]; a partition dividing (144) the central passage of the inner tube into a first section and a second section [paragraph 0027]; an end wall (134) for closing the fluid passage at the first ends of the inner tube [see FIG 3 reproduced below]; wherein the first end of the inner tube receives a pre-mixed mixture of air and combustible fuel such that the pre-mixed mixture flows radially outward through the fluid directing structures into the fluid passage and then radially inward into the second section of the central passage downstream of the partition for ignition by an igniter [see FIG 3 reproduced below, paragraph 0028, 0032].
Neumeier however does not show the end wall being secured to the outer wall.
Scribano makes up for these deficiencies by teaching a burner (1) having an outer tube (4) an inner tube (4), an inner space (5) therein, where the burner combusts a pre-mixed air-fuel flow [see abstract] and;
{cl. 35, continued} an end wall (8) for closing the fluid passage at the first ends of the inner and outer tubes [see FIG 3, paragraph 0021-0024, 0026].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claim invention to modify Neumeier to include the end wall as taught by Scribano because Scribano provided the end wall to seal the combustion chamber and provide stable support of the inner tube.
PNG
media_image2.png
518
722
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 34, 46 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Neumeier [20150153041], in view of Scribano et al [20100291495], further in view of O’Donnell [20190128516].
With respect to claims 34 and 46, Neumeier shows the invention as substantially claimed, however does not show the further details of the fluid directing structures.
O’Donnell makes up for these deficiencies by teaching:
{cl. 34} A heating appliance including the combustor of claim 31 [paragraph 0018].
{cl. 46} A heating appliance including the combustor of claim 35 [paragraph 0018].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claim invention to modify Neumeier to include the fluid directing as taught by O’Donnell because O’Donnell provides a known structure that allows for complete mixing to ensure all combustion reactants are burnt during use of the appliance.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-4, 32-33 and 36-49 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 features of the converging conduit and the different directions of flow are not found in the art and would require impermissible hindsight reasoning to modify. Claim 50 is considered allowable as the flow region claimed without swirl is not shown in the art.
Conclusion
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 AVINASH A SAVANI whose telephone number is (571)270-3762. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday 8am-4pm.
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.
/AVINASH A SAVANI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3762
3/9/2026