CTNF 18/395,512 CTNF 84778 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia 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 07-30-02 AIA 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. 07-34-01 Claim 8 is 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. Claim 8 recites “the apertures” however the direct or indirect parent claims recite simmer burner apertures associated with said simmer burner chamber and apertures associated with said main burner chamber thereby causing confusion as to which burner apertures the limitation in question is referring to thus making the claim indefinite. In the interest of advancing prosecution, the limitation “the apertures” is interpreted as referring to either said simmer burner apertures associated with said simmer burner chamber and/or apertures associated with said main burner chamber. 07-36 AIA 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. 07-36-01 AIA 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 dependent Claim 9 are already present in Claim 3 from which Claim 9 depends indirectly . 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. 07-36-01 AIA Claim 10 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 dependent Claim 10 are already present in Claim 5 from which Claim 10 depends indirectly . 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. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-23-aia AIA 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. 07-20-02-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20200408402 A1 (hereinafter “GERDES”) in view of DE 102008019572 A1 (hereinafter “BALLOTTO”) . PNG media_image1.png 549 1208 media_image1.png Greyscale Regarding Claim 1, GERDES discloses a burner for a residential stove comprising: a base plate ( indicated in annotated Fig. 10 above ) ; a cover plate ( indicated in annotated Fig. 10 above ) ; a burner head (600/602) disposed between the base plate and the cover plate, wherein: the burner head and one of the base plate or cover plate defines a simmer burner chamber (701) ; and the burner head includes in the range of twenty-six to thirty-two spaced simmer burner apertures ( indicated in annotated Fig. 10 above ; Fig. 10 comprises a side view of the burner and since Fig. 1 illustrates that said burner is circular in shape, the side view of Fig. 10 depicts one half of the burner; Fig. 10 shows 13-14 simmer burner apertures therefore the burner comprises 26-28 simmer burner apertures ). GERDES does not disclose the simmer burner apertures being of the order of 1.3mm in diameter. BALLOTTO teaches a burner for a residential stove comprising: burner apertures (3, 5) being of the order of 1.3mm in diameter (see the provided English translation: “The diameter of the output holes 3 is approximately 2.5 mm ± 1 mm.” And: “The output holes 5 . 20 in number, have a diameter of about 1.5 mm and are, spaced from each other, aligned at intervals of 18 ° full angle.” And: “A last consideration concerns the performance of the burner, so that the Number of holes of each ring can vary, while maintaining the above size with the logical Change of the angle "α" and "β"”). PNG media_image2.png 539 1133 media_image2.png Greyscale It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to further modify GERDES wherein the simmer burner apertures being of the order of 1.3mm in diameter as taught and/or suggested by BALLOTTO, since both references teach a burner comprising a plurality of burner apertures of a given size, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to substitute one burner aperture size for the other to achieve the predictable result of providing a plurality of burner flames. Regarding Claim 2, GERDES further discloses wherein the burner head (602) includes twenty-six of the spaced simmer burner apertures ( indicated in annotated Fig. 10 above ; Fig. 10 comprises a side view of the burner and since Fig. 1 illustrates that said burner is circular in shape, the side view of Fig. 10 depicts one half of the burner; Fig. 10 shows 13-14 simmer burner apertures therefore the burner comprises 26-28 simmer burner apertures ). Regarding Claim 3, GERDES further discloses wherein the burner head (602) and the base plate ( indicated in annotated Fig. 10 above ) define the simmer burner chamber (701). Regarding Claim 5, GERDES further discloses wherein the burner head (600) and the cover plate ( indicated in annotated Fig. 10 above ) define a main burner chamber (703) and the burner head (600) includes a plurality of spaced apertures extending from the main burner chamber outwardly through the burner head (see Fig. 10; see main burner flames 610). Regarding Claim 6, GERDES further discloses including means (606) for controllably providing a gas to the simmer burner chamber (see para. [0002]: “As schematically shown in FIG. 10, a conventional dual stacked burner may have two stacked burner bodies 600, 602, each with a separate, dedicated combustion chamber 701, 703 and each being separately supplied with an air-gas mixture by a respective venturi 604 and orifice 606 coupled to a gas supply line (not shown) by a gas valve (not shown).”). Regarding Claim 8, BALLOTTO teaches wherein the apertures (3, 5) are of substantially equal diameter (see the provided English translation: “The diameter of the output holes 3 is approximately 2.5 mm ± 1 mm.” And: “The output holes 5 . 20 in number, have a diameter of about 1.5 mm and are, spaced from each other, aligned at intervals of 18 ° full angle.” And: “A last consideration concerns the performance of the burner, so that the Number of holes of each ring can vary, while maintaining the above size with the logical Change of the angle "α" and "β"”). Regarding Claims 9 and 10, GERDES discloses the claimed limitations as discussed above with regard to Claims 3 and 5 respectively. Regarding Claim 11, GERDES further discloses including means (606) for controllably providing a gas to the simmer burner chamber (see para. [0002]: “As schematically shown in FIG. 10, a conventional dual stacked burner may have two stacked burner bodies 600, 602, each with a separate, dedicated combustion chamber 701, 703 and each being separately supplied with an air-gas mixture by a respective venturi 604 and orifice 606 coupled to a gas supply line (not shown) by a gas valve (not shown).”). Regarding Claim 7, GERDES discloses a burner for a residential stove comprising: a base plate ( indicated in annotated Fig. 10 above ) ; a cover plate ( indicated in annotated Fig. 10 above ) ; a burner head (600/602) disposed between the base plate and the cover plate, wherein: the burner head and one of the base plate or cover plate defines a simmer burner chamber (701) ; and the burner head includes in the range of twenty-six to thirty-two spaced simmer burner apertures ( indicated in annotated Fig. 10 above ; Fig. 10 comprises a side view of the burner and since Fig. 1 illustrates that said burner is circular in shape, the side view of Fig. 10 depicts one half of the burner; Fig. 10 shows 13-14 simmer burner apertures therefore the burner comprises 26-28 simmer burner apertures ). GERDES does not disclose the apertures having a collective aperture surface area in the range of 35mm 2 to 43mm 2 . BALLOTTO teaches a burner for a residential stove comprising: burner apertures (3, 5) being of the order of 1.3mm in diameter (see the provided English translation: “The diameter of the output holes 3 is approximately 2.5 mm ± 1 mm.” And: “The output holes 5 . 20 in number, have a diameter of about 1.5 mm and are, spaced from each other, aligned at intervals of 18 ° full angle.” And: “A last consideration concerns the performance of the burner, so that the Number of holes of each ring can vary, while maintaining the above size with the logical Change of the angle "α" and "β"”). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to further modify GERDES wherein the apertures have a collective aperture surface area in the range of 35mm 2 to 43mm 2 as taught and/or suggested by BALLOTTO, since GERDES discloses 26-28 simmer burner apertures and BALLOTTO teaches burner apertures have a diameter of about 1.5 mm; therefore, 26-28 simmer burner apertures having a diameter of about 1.5 mm equates to a collective aperture surface area in the range of 39mm 2 to 42mm 2 . 07-22-aia AIA Claim (s) 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over GERDES in view of BALLOTTO as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of US 6,263,868 B1 (hereinafter “KOCH”) . Regarding Claim 4, GERDES further discloses wherein the base plate ( indicated in annotated Fig. 10 above ) includes a generally horizontal base plate surface (see Fig. 10) and a center of each of the spaced simmer burner apertures ( indicated in annotated Fig. 10 above ) is spaced above the base plate surface (see again Fig. 10). GERDES in view of BALLOTTO does not explicitly disclose a center of each of the spaced simmer burner apertures is spaced of the order of 1.5mm above the base plate surface. KOCH teaches a burner for a residential stove comprising: spaced simmer burner apertures (19) which are spaced above the base plate surface (18) by on the order of its diameter (see Fig. 1). PNG media_image3.png 773 1255 media_image3.png Greyscale As discussed above, BALLOTTO teaches burner apertures being on the order of 1.5mm. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to further modify GERDES in view of BALLOTTO wherein a center of each of the spaced simmer burner apertures is spaced of the order of 1.5mm above the base plate surface as taught and/or suggested by KOCH, since KOCH discloses the location of said spaced simmer burner apertures being very closely spaced above the base plate surface, spaced on the order of the diameter of said simmer burner apertures and BALLOTTO teaches burner apertures having a diameter on the order of 1.5mm; therefore, the combined teachings would result in a burner comprising a center of each of the spaced simmer burner apertures being spaced of the order of 1.5mm above the base plate surface. In addition, placing said simmer burner apertures further away from, rather than closer to, a cooking vessel being heated by flames emanating from said simmer burner would further the goal of providing a low heat transfer from said simmer burner to said cooking vessel when operating said burner in a simmer heating mode . Conclusion 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure because the references are either in the same field of endeavor or are reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the applicant was concerned. Please see form PTO-892 (Notice of References Cited) attached to, or included with, this Office 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 Application/Control Number: 18/395,512 Page 2 Art Unit: 3799 Application/Control Number: 18/395,512 Page 3 Art Unit: 3799