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 4/9/2026 has been entered. Amended Claims 1-2 and 10 have been noted. The amendment has overcome the drawing objections, claim objections and specification objections previously set forth - those drawing objections, claim objections and specification objections have been withdrawn accordingly. Claims 1-19 are currently pending.
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.
Claims 1 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hemsath (US 5,020,596) in view of Sighinolfi et al. (US 2022/0170631 A1) (hereinafter “Sighinolfi”).
Regarding Claim 1, Hemsath teaches of a burner (30) for an appliance having a blower (Note that the limitation of the burner being “for an appliance having a blower” is being interpreted as the burner being capable of use with an appliance having a blower, wherein an appliance having a blower is not a part of the claimed burner apparatus. In the instant case, Hemsath teaches that the burner is a part of an appliance (Fig. 6) that comprises an “air line 76” that conveys air at “appropriate operating pressures” (see at least Col. 16 lines 6-24 and Figs. 5-6) which indicates that the burner is capable of use with “an appliance having a blower” since a blower creates operating pressure in an air line (see at least Col. 16 lines 6-24 and Figs. 5-6). Hemsath accordingly teaches that the burner is “for an appliance having a blower” as claimed.), comprising:
a tube (62) extending from an inlet end (right-hand end of tube (62) relative to Fig. 6) to an outlet end (left-hand end of tube (62) relative to Fig. 6) and having radially extending openings (A) along its length (see at least Col. 15 line - Col. 16 line 5, Col. 16 lines 25-37 and Figs. 5-7);
a cap (67) closing the outlet end in a fluid-tight manner (see at least Col. 15 line - Col. 16 line 5 and Figs. 5-7); and
a mixer (mixer comprising element (75) that produces a “mixture” of “gas” and “air”) (see at least Col. 16 lines 11-20 and Fig. 6) downstream from the blower (since element (75) receives air that is already pressurized, element (75) is necessarily configured to be downstream from the blower) that extends into the inlet end (as is shown in Fig. 5-6) for delivering a pre-mixed mixture of air and fuel (“mixture”) to the interior of the tube (see at least Col. 16 lines 11-20 and Figs. 5-7) for ignition by an igniter (via “igniting” to produce flames (79)) (see at least Col. 16 lines 11-20 and Figs. 5-7).
Hemsath fails to explicitly teach that the igniter is disposed around an exterior of the tube for ignition of premixed mixture that is delivered radially outward through the openings.
Sighinolfi discloses a relatable gas burner (2) for an appliance (1) having a blower (5) (see at least [0048]-[0050] and Figs. 1-3) wherein the burner comprises a tube (outer tube comprising element (14) as shown in Fig. 3) with radially extending openings (radially extending openings that facilitate “combustion area 8” as is shown in Figs. 2-3) (see at least [0064] and Figs. 2-3) through which a pre-mixed mixture (“combustible gas” - (13)) permeates (see at least [0062] and Figs. 1-3). Sighinolfi teaches of disposing an igniter (6) around an exterior of the tube (as is shown in Fig. 1) for ignition of the premixed mixture that is delivered radially outward through the openings (see at least [0051], [0053] and Figs. 1-3) and teaches that such arrangement enables ignition as desired via an “operating program” or “user commands” (see at least [0053] and Figs. 1-3) and the consequent formation of a heat producing “combustion area” (8) on the tube itself (see at least [0051]-[0052] and Figs. 1-3)
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the burner taught by Hemsath by disposing an igniter around an exterior of the existing tube for ignition of the existing premixed mixture that would flow radially outward through the existing openings based on the teachings of Sighinolfi. Doing so would have enabled ignition as desired and the formation of a heat producing combustion area on the tube. Note that such modification would have necessarily resulted in the invention as claimed.
Regarding Claim 9, Hemsath and Sighinolfi teach the burner of Claim 1 (see the rejection for Claim 1) but Hemsath fails to explicitly teach of a fiber mesh provided over the tube. However, such a fiber mesh is also taught by Sighinolfi.
Sighinolfi also teaches of disposing a fiber mesh (14) over the outer tube (see at least [0056], [0062]-[0068] and Figs. 1-3) and that doing so provides a “diffuser layer” (see [0063]) that serves to provide diffusion and a “combustion surface” (see [0063]) for flame to develop (see at least [0062]-[0068] and Figs. 1-3).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have further modified the combined apparatus by disposing a fiber mesh over the existing outer tube as is also taught by Sighinolfi. Doing so would have provided a diffuser layer that would have facilitated diffusion and a created a combustion surface for flame to develop. Note that such modification would have necessarily resulted in the invention as claimed.
Claims 2-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hemsath and Sighinolfi further in view of Levey et al. (US 2,077,424) (hereinafter “Levey”) and Rooyen (US 3,514,041).
Regarding Claim 2, Hemsath and Sighinolfi teach the burner of Claim 1 (see the rejection for Claim 1) but fail to explicitly teach that the mixer comprises a mixing system that includes a tubular venturi having an upstream end and a downstream end; a gas supply tube extending into the upstream end and receiving fuel; and a fuel nozzle positioned in the gas tube so as to be longitudinally aligned with the upstream end of the venturi, wherein air from the blower is received in a radial space between the venturi and the fuel nozzle such that the air is mixed with the fuel flowing from the fuel nozzle and delivered as a mixture of air and fuel to the central passage of the tube.
Levey discloses a relatable gas burner (gas burner comprising element (10)) for an appliance (Fig. 2) that has a blower (24) (see at least Col. 1 line 46 - Col. 2 line 19 and Fig. 2). Levey teaches that the gas burner has a mixing system (mixing system comprising element (13)) disposed downstream from the blower (24) yet upstream from a surface of the burner (10) (as is shown in Fig. 2) and teaches that the mixing system comprises: a tubular venturi (14) having an upstream end (left-hand end of element (14) with respect to Fig. 2) and a downstream end (right-hand end of element (14) with respect to Fig. 2); a gas supply tube (15) extending into the upstream end and receiving fuel (as is shown in Fig. 2) (see at least Col. 1 lines 46-54 and Fig. 2); and a fuel nozzle (16) positioned in the gas tube so as to be longitudinally aligned with the upstream end of the venturi (as is shown in Fig. 2), wherein air from the blower (24) is received in a radial space between the venturi and the fuel nozzle (see at least Col. 1 line 46 - Col. 2 line 19 and Fig. 2) such that the air is mixed with the fuel flowing from the fuel nozzle and delivered as a mixture of air and fuel to the central passage of the tube (see at least Col. 1 line 46 - Col. 2 line 19 and Fig. 2). Levey teaches that a mixing system of this type, inter alia, provides means for “simple and accurate” control over air-fuel ratio to thereby assure “efficient combustion” (see at least Col. 3 lines 46-63).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have further modified the combined apparatus by configuring the existing mixer to include a mixing system that comprises a tubular venturi having an upstream end and a downstream end; a gas supply tube extending into the upstream end and receiving fuel; and a fuel nozzle including radially extending openings and positioned in the gas tube so as to be longitudinally aligned with the upstream end of the venturi, wherein air from the blower is received in a radial space between the venturi and the fuel nozzle such that the air is mixed with fuel flowing through the fuel nozzle and delivered as a mixture of air and fuel to the central passage of the tube as is taught by Levey. Doing so would have provided means for simple and accurate control over air-fuel ratio to thereby assure efficient combustion.
Furthermore, Hemsath, Sighinolfi and Levey fail to explicitly teach that the fuel nozzle includes radially extending openings.
Rooyen discloses a relatable gas burner (Fig. 1) for an appliance (see at least Abstract and Fig. 1) that has a mixing system comprising a venturi (10), a gas supply tube (12) and a fuel nozzle (fuel nozzle comprising element (16)) (see at least Col. 2 lines 4-22 and Fig. 1). Rooyen teaches that the fuel nozzle includes radially extending openings (52) and that such openings enable the flame to “lengthen and intensify” (see at least Col. 2 lines 57-72 and Fig. 1).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have further modified the combined apparatus by configuring the existing fuel nozzle to include radially extending openings as is taught by Rooyen. Doing so would have provided means for lengthening and intensifying the produced flames. Note that such modification would have necessarily resulted in air being mixed with fuel flowing through radial openings in the fuel nozzle as claimed and would have accordingly resulted in the invention as claimed.
Regarding Claim 3, Rooyen also teaches that an end of the gas supply tube that receives the fuel nozzle of the combined apparatus is flared (the end of gas supply tube (12) is “internally threaded” to receive the fuel nozzle wherein the internal threads form a flared end of the gas supply tube that receives the fuel nozzle - see at least Col. 2 lines 44-66 and Fig. 1). The combined apparatus accordingly meets the limitations of Claim 3 as claimed.
Regarding Claim 4, Leavey also teaches that the upstream end of the venturi (14) that would be used in the combined apparatus is converging (as is shown in Fig. 2) and that the downstream end of the venturi is diverging (as is shown in Fig. 2) (see at least Col. 1 line 46 - Col. 2 line 19 and Fig. 2). The combined apparatus accordingly meets the limitations of Claim 4 as claimed.
Regarding Claim 5, Hemsath, Sighinolfi, Leavey and Rooyen teach the burner of Claim 2 (see the rejection for Claim 2), and Leavey also teaches that the upstream end of the venturi (14) that would be used in the combined apparatus is converging (as is shown in Fig. 2).
Leavey (in addition to Hemsath, Sighinolfi and Rooyen) fails to explicitly teach of an embodiment wherein the downstream end of the venturi is straight. However, merely configuring the downstream end of the existing venturi to be straight (as opposed to diverging) would have been an obvious matter of design choice.
To support a conclusion that a claim is directed to obvious subject matter, i.e., that a feature is an obvious matter of design choice, an Examiner must present a ‘convincing line of reasoning’ as to why one of ordinary skill in the art would have found the claimed feature to have been obvious. Ex parte Clapp, 227 U.S.P.Q. 972, 973 (BPAI 1985). When determining whether a rejection based on design choice is appropriate, the Examiner must review the Specification and ascertain if the limitation in question is disclosed as serving any advantage or particular purpose, or whether it solves a stated problem. The Examiner also should explain the reasoning used to determine that the prior art would have performed equally as well as the claimed invention. These two steps help present the aforementioned ‘convincing line of reasoning.’ Ex parte Clapp, 227 U.S.P.Q. at 973.
It is apparent from Applicant’s specification that configuring the downstream end of the existing venturi to be straight (as opposed to diverging) is not critical to the invention and that specifically using a venturi with a “straight” end as opposed to an end with a different shape does not serve any advantage, particular purpose, or solve a stated problem since the specification fails to disclose any criticality for a venturi with a straight end and discloses and claims (see e.g., Claim 4) an opposing configuration wherein the downstream end of the venturi is “diverging” as opposed to straight (see at least Claim 4 of the instant application). Furthermore, it is evident that that the prior art would have performed equally as well as the claimed invention since the prior art teaches of Leavey teaches that the downstream end of the venturi (14) that would be used in the combined apparatus is diverging (as is shown in Fig. 2) (see at least Col. 1 line 46 - Col. 2 line 19 and Fig. 2) which the specification discloses to be an acceptable alternative to a venturi with a straight downstream end that fulfills the same purpose equally as well (as is evident from at least Claim 4 of the instant application).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to modify the combined apparatus by configuring the downstream end of the existing venturi to be straight (as opposed to diverging) as claimed since such modification would have been considered a mere design consideration which fails to patentably distinguish over the prior art. Note that such modification would have necessarily resulted in the invention as claimed.
Regarding Claim 6, Leavey also teaches of a mounting flange (40) for connecting the inlet end of the tube (15) to the venturi (14) that would be used in the combined apparatus (see at least Col. 3 lines 18-28, Fig. 2 and the rejection for Claim 2 above).
Claims 10-11, 13-17 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hemsath in view of Levey, Rooyen and Sighinolfi.
Regarding Claim 10, Hemsath teaches of a burner (30) for an appliance having a blower (Note that the limitation of the burner being “for an appliance having a blower” is being interpreted as the burner being capable of use with an appliance having a blower, wherein an appliance having a blower is not a part of the claimed burner apparatus. In the instant case, Hemsath teaches that the burner is a part of an appliance (Fig. 6) that comprises an “air line 76” that conveys air at “appropriate operating pressures” (see at least Col. 16 lines 6-24 and Figs. 5-6) which indicates that the burner is capable of use with “an appliance having a blower” since a blower creates operating pressure in an air line (see at least Col. 16 lines 6-24 and Figs. 5-6). Hemsath accordingly teaches that the burner is “for an appliance having a blower” as claimed.), comprising:
an inner tube (62) extending along a centerline from a first end (right-hand end of tube (62) relative to Fig. 6) to a second end (left-hand end of tube (62) relative to Fig. 6) and defining a central passage (as is shown in Fig. 6), wherein openings (A) extend radially through the inner tube to the central passage (as is shown in Fig. 6-7) (see at least Col. 15 line - Col. 16 line 5, Col. 16 lines 25-37 and Figs. 5-7);
an outer tube (61) extending along a centerline from a first end to a second end and defining a central passage for receiving the inner tube (as is shown in Fig. 6), wherein openings (O) extend radially through the outer tube to the central passage thereof (as is shown in Fig. 6-7) (see at least Col. 15 line - Col. 16 line 5, Col. 16 lines 25-37 and Figs. 5-7);
an end cap (67) closing the second ends in a fluid-tight manner (see at least Col. 15 line - Col. 16 line 5 and Figs. 5-7); and
a mixer (mixer comprising element (75) that produces a “mixture” of “gas” and “air”) (see at least Col. 16 lines 11-20 and Fig. 6).
Hemsath fails to explicitly teach that the mixer extends into the first end of the inner tube and comprises a venturi having a central passage in fluid communication with the central passage of the tube, a gas supply tube having a first end for receiving fuel and a second end extending into the venturi and a fuel nozzle extending into the second end of the gas supply tube, wherein blower air is received in a radial space between the venturi and the fuel nozzle such that the air is mixed with the fuel and delivered as a mixture of air and fuel to the central passage of the inner tube.
Levey discloses a relatable gas burner (gas burner comprising element (10)) for an appliance (Fig. 2) that has a blower (24) (see at least Col. 1 line 46 - Col. 2 line 19 and Fig. 2). Levey teaches that the gas burner has a mixer (mixer comprising element (13)) disposed downstream from the blower (24) yet upstream from a surface of the burner (10) (as is shown in Fig. 2) and teaches that the mixer extends into a first end of an inner tube (39) of the burner and comprises a venturi (14) having a central passage in fluid communication with the tube (as is shown in Fig. 2), a gas supply tube (gas supply tube comprising elements (15) and (41)) having a first end for receiving fuel (left-hand end of element (15) with respect to Fig. 2) and a second end extending into the venturi (right-hand end of elements (15)/(41) with respect to Fig. 2) and a fuel nozzle (16) extending into the second end of the gas supply tube (as is shown in Fig. 2) (see at least Col. 1 line 46 - Col. 2 line 19 and Fig. 2), wherein blower air (via blower (24)) is received in a radial space between the venturi and the fuel nozzle such that the air is mixed with the fuel and delivered as a mixture of air and fuel to the central passage of the inner tube (see at least Col. 1 line 46 - Col. 2 line 19 and Fig. 2) (see at least Col. 1 line 46 - Col. 2 line 19 and Fig. 2). Levey teaches that a mixer of this type, inter alia, provides means for “simple and accurate” control over air-fuel ratio to thereby assure “efficient combustion” (see at least Col. 3 lines 46-63).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the burner taught by Hemsath by configuring the existing mixer to extend into the first end of the inner tube and comprise a venturi having a central passage in fluid communication with the central passage of the tube, a gas supply tube having a first end for receiving fuel and a second end extending into the venturi and a fuel nozzle extending into the second end of the gas supply tube, wherein blower air is received in a radial space between the venturi and the fuel nozzle such that the air is mixed with the fuel and delivered as a mixture of air and fuel to the central passage of the inner tube based on the teachings of Levey. Doing so would have provided means for simple and accurate control over air-fuel ratio to thereby assure efficient combustion. Note that such modification would have necessarily resulted in the invention comprising a mixer as claimed.
Furthermore, Hemsath and Levey fail to explicitly teach that the fuel nozzle includes radially extending openings.
Rooyen discloses a relatable gas burner (Fig. 1) for an appliance (see at least Abstract and Fig. 1) that has a mixing system comprising a venturi (10), a gas supply tube (12) and a fuel nozzle (fuel nozzle comprising element (16)) (see at least Col. 2 lines 4-22 and Fig. 1). Rooyen teaches that the fuel nozzle includes radially extending openings (52) and that such openings enable the flame to “lengthen and intensify” (see at least Col. 2 lines 57-72 and Fig. 1)
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have further modified the combined apparatus by configuring the existing fuel nozzle to include radially extending openings as is taught by Rooyen. Doing so would have provided means for lengthening and intensifying the produced flames. Note that such modification would have necessarily resulted in air being mixed with fuel flowing through radial openings in the fuel nozzle as claimed.
Furthermore, Hemsath fails to explicitly teach that the igniter is disposed around an exterior of the tube for ignition of premixed mixture that is delivered radially outward through the openings.
Sighinolfi discloses a relatable gas burner (2) for an appliance (1) having a blower (5) (see at least [0048]-[0050] and Figs. 1-3) wherein the burner comprises a tube (outer tube comprising element (14) as shown in Fig. 3) with radially extending openings (radially extending openings that facilitate “combustion area 8” as is shown in Figs. 2-3) (see at least [0064] and Figs. 2-3) through which a pre-mixed mixture (“combustible gas” - (13)) permeates (see at least [0062] and Figs. 1-3). Sighinolfi teaches of disposing an igniter (6) around an exterior of the tube (as is shown in Fig. 1) for ignition of the premixed mixture that is delivered radially outward through the openings (see at least [0051], [0053] and Figs. 1-3) and teaches that such arrangement enables ignition as desired via an “operating program” or “user commands” (see at least [0053] and Figs. 1-3) and the consequent formation of a heat producing “combustion area” (8) on the tube itself (see at least [0051]-[0052] and Figs. 1-3)
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have further modified the combined apparatus by disposing an igniter around an exterior of the existing outer tube for ignition of the existing premixed mixture that would flow radially outward through the existing openings based on the teachings of Sighinolfi. Doing so would have enabled ignition as desired and the formation of a heat producing combustion area on the outer tube. Note that such modification would have necessarily resulted in the invention as claimed.
Regarding Claim 11, Rooyen also teaches that a second end of the gas supply tube that receives the fuel nozzle of the combined apparatus is flared (the second end of gas supply tube (12) is “internally threaded” to receive the fuel nozzle wherein the internal threads form a flared end of the gas supply tube that receives the fuel nozzle - see at least Col. 2 lines 44-66 and Fig. 1). The combined apparatus accordingly meets the limitations of Claim 11 as claimed.
Regarding Claim 13, Rooyen also teaches that the radial openings (52) that would be used in the fuel nozzle of the combined apparatus are longitudinally aligned with a curved portion of the venturi (as is shown in Fig. 2 of Rooyen). Thus, the combined apparatus accordingly meets the limitations of Claim 13 as claimed.
Regarding Claim 14, Leavey also teaches that the venturi (14) that would be used in the combined apparatus extends from a converging end (the left-hand end of element (14) with respect to Fig. 2) longitudinally aligned with the radially extending openings (as would be the case in the combined apparatus since the radially extending openings (52) taught by Rooyen that would be used in the combined apparatus are longitudinally aligned with the converging end of the venturi - see at least Fig. 1 of Rooyen and the rejection for Claims 10 above) to a diverging end (the right-hand end of element (14) with respect to Fig. 2) for delivering the mixture of air and fuel to the central passage (see at least Col. 1 line 46 - Col. 2 line 19 and Fig. 2). The combined apparatus accordingly meets the limitations of Claim 14 as claimed.
Regarding Claim 15, Leavey also teaches that the converging portion of the venturi (14) that would be used in the combined apparatus is upstream of the diverging portion (as is shown in Fig. 2) (see at least Col. 1 line 46 - Col. 2 line 19 and Fig. 2).
Regarding Claim 16, Hemsath, Levey, Rooyen and Sighinolfi teach the burner of Claim 10 (see the rejection for Claim 10) and Leavey also teaches that the venturi (14) that would be used in the combined apparatus extends from a converging end (the left-hand end of element (14) with respect to Fig. 2) longitudinally aligned with the radially extending openings (as would be the case in the combined apparatus since the radially extending openings (52) taught by Rooyen that would be used in the combined apparatus are longitudinally aligned with the converging end of the venturi - see at least Fig. 1 of Rooyen and the rejection for Claims 10 above) to a diverging end (the right-hand end of element (14) with respect to Fig. 2) for delivering the mixture of air and fuel to the central passage (see at least Col. 1 line 46 - Col. 2 line 19 and Fig. 2).
Leavey (in addition to Hemsath, Rooyen and Sighinolfi) fails to explicitly teach of an embodiment wherein the downstream end of the venturi is straight. However, merely configuring the downstream end of the existing venturi to be straight (as opposed to diverging) would have been an obvious matter of design choice.
To support a conclusion that a claim is directed to obvious subject matter, i.e., that a feature is an obvious matter of design choice, an Examiner must present a ‘convincing line of reasoning’ as to why one of ordinary skill in the art would have found the claimed feature to have been obvious. Ex parte Clapp, 227 U.S.P.Q. 972, 973 (BPAI 1985). When determining whether a rejection based on design choice is appropriate, the Examiner must review the Specification and ascertain if the limitation in question is disclosed as serving any advantage or particular purpose, or whether it solves a stated problem. The Examiner also should explain the reasoning used to determine that the prior art would have performed equally as well as the claimed invention. These two steps help present the aforementioned ‘convincing line of reasoning.’ Ex parte Clapp, 227 U.S.P.Q. at 973.
It is apparent from Applicant’s specification that configuring the downstream end of the existing venturi to be straight (as opposed to diverging) is not critical to the invention and that specifically using a venturi with a “straight” end as opposed to an end with a different shape does not serve any advantage, particular purpose, or solve a stated problem since the specification fails to disclose any criticality for a venturi with a straight end and discloses and claims (see e.g., Claim 4) an opposing configuration wherein the downstream end of the venturi is “diverging” as opposed to straight (see at least Claim 14 of the instant application). Furthermore, it is evident that that the prior art would have performed equally as well as the claimed invention since the prior art teaches of Leavey teaches that the downstream end of the venturi (14) that would be used in the combined apparatus is diverging (as is shown in Fig. 2) (see at least Col. 1 line 46 - Col. 2 line 19 and Fig. 2) which the specification discloses to be an acceptable alternative to a venturi with a straight downstream end that fulfills the same purpose equally as well (as is evident from at least Claim 14 of the instant application).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to modify the combined apparatus by configuring the downstream end of the existing venturi to be straight (as opposed to diverging) as claimed since such modification would have been considered a mere design consideration which fails to patentably distinguish over the prior art. Note that such modification would have necessarily resulted in the invention as claimed.
Regarding Claim 17, Hemsath also teaches of a mounting flange (68) for connecting the first ends of the inner and outer tubes to each other (as is shown in Fig. 6) (see at least Col. 15 lines 53-65 and Fig. 6) which would in turn also necessarily connect to the venturi of the combined apparatus since the venturi of the combined apparatus is configured to connect to a mounting flange (as is taught by Levey - see Fig. 2 of Levey and the rejection for Claim 10 above). The combined apparatus accordingly meets the limitations of Claim 17 as claimed.
Regarding Claim 19, Hemsath, Levey, Rooyen and Sighinolfi teach the burner of Claim 10 (see the rejection for Claim 10) but Hemsath fails to explicitly teach of a fiber mesh provided over the tube. However, such limitation is also taught by Sighinolfi of the combined apparatus.
Sighinolfi also teaches of disposing a fiber mesh (14) over the outer tube (see at least [0056], [0062]-[0068] and Figs. 1-3) and that doing so provides a “diffuser layer” (see [0063]) that serves to provide diffusion and a “combustion surface” (see [0063]) for flame to develop (see at least [0062]-[0068] and Figs. 1-3).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have further modified the combined apparatus by disposing a fiber mesh over the existing outer tube as is also taught by Sighinolfi. Doing so would have provided a diffuser layer that would have facilitated diffusion and a created a combustion surface for flame to develop. Note that such modification would have necessarily resulted in the invention comprising a mixing system as claimed.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hemsath and Sighinolfi further in view of Pryor (US 3,044,551).
Regarding Claim 8, Hemsath and Sighinolfi teach the burner of Claim 1 (see the rejection for Claim 1) but fail to explicitly teach of a flame arrester liner defining a central passage of the tube.
Pryor discloses a relatable burner apparatus (Fig. 2) that comprises a burner tube (burner tube comprising element (43)) in addition to a flame arrester liner (52) defining a central passage of the tube (as is shown in Fig. 2) (see at least Col. 2 lines 53-72 and Fig. 2). Pryor teaches that the flame arrester liner (52), inter alia, prevents burning of combustible mixture upstream of the liner to thereby enhance safety (see at least Col. 2 lines 53-72 and Fig. 2).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have further modified the combined apparatus by disposing a flame arrester liner into the existing tube of the apparatus that defines a central passage of the existing tube based on the teachings of Pryor. Doing so would have prevented burning of combustible mixture upstream of the liner to thereby enhance safety. Note that such modification would have necessarily resulted in the invention comprising a mixing system as claimed.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hemsath, Levey, Rooyen and Sighinolfi further in view of Pryor.
Regarding Claim 12, Hemsath, Levey, Rooyen and Sighinolfi teach the burner of Claim 10 (see the rejection for Claim 10) but fail to explicitly teach of a flame arrester liner defining the central passage of the inner tube.
Pryor discloses a relatable burner apparatus (Fig. 2) that comprises an inner burner tube (inner burner tube comprising element (43)) in addition to a flame arrester liner (52) defining a central passage of the inner burner tube (as is shown in Fig. 2) (see at least Col. 2 lines 53-72 and Fig. 2). Pryor teaches that the flame arrester liner (52), inter alia, prevents burning of combustible mixture upstream of the liner to thereby enhance safety (see at least Col. 2 lines 53-72 and Fig. 2).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have further modified the combined apparatus by disposing a flame arrester liner into the existing inner tube of the apparatus that defines a central passage of the existing inner tube based on the teachings of Pryor. Doing so would have prevented burning of combustible mixture upstream of the liner to thereby enhance safety. Note that such modification would have necessarily resulted in the invention comprising a mixing system as claimed.
Allowable Subject Matter
7. Dependent Claims 7 and 18 are objected to as being dependent upon 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.
Regarding dependent Claim 7: The subject matter of Claim 7 is considered to be allowable for the reasons set forth in the Non-Final Rejection filed 12/16/2025 (see Section #11). However, Claim 7 is objected for depending upon a rejected base claim (i.e., Claim 6) and is consequently not in condition for allowance at this time.
Regarding dependent Claim 18: The subject matter of Claim 18 is considered to be allowable for the reasons set forth in the Non-Final Rejection filed 12/16/2025 (see Section #11). However, Claim 18 is objected for depending upon a rejected base claim (i.e., Claim 17) and is consequently not in condition for allowance at this time.
It is recommended that Applicant incorporate the subject matter of Claim 7 (and therefore also necessarily that of Claims 6 and 2) into Claim 1 (and then cancel Claims 2, 6 and 7) to facilitate allowance of Independent Claim 1. Similarly, it is recommended that Applicant incorporate the subject matter of Claim 18 (and therefore also necessarily that of Claim 17) into Claim 10 (and then cancel Claims 17 and 18) to facilitate allowance of Independent Claim 10.
Response to Arguments
8. The arguments filed 4/9/2026 have been fully considered but are moot in light of the new grounds of rejection necessitated by the claim amendments.
Conclusion
9. 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:
Barozzi (US 2022/0364726 A1)
Kurzinski (US 5,145,361)
Haedike (US 2,263,170)
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 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 7/1/2026
/GREGORY A WILSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3762 7/10/2026
Prosecution Insights