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 Amendment
The amendments filed 6/9/2026 are entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
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) 1-3, 5-10, 12, and 14-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nett (EP 3961097 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Nett teaches a hatch lid (FIG. 3, burner cap 314) for use with a furnace system (FIG. 3, furnace 230A), the hatch lid comprising: a body (FIG. 3, the body of the burner cap 314) including: an upper portion (FIG. 3, the topmost portion of the burner cap 314); and a lower portion (FIG. 3, the lower portion of the burner cap 314 (the portion through which the arrows flow)) extending outwardly from the upper portion, wherein the body forms a baffle area (FIG. 3, the portion of the burner cap 314 in which the fuel mixture is redirected) designed to direct a fluid fuel source into the furnace system, wherein the upper portion has a first diameter, and the lower portion has a second diameter that is less than the first diameter (FIGS. 3 and 4, the lower portion of the burner cap 314 has a smaller diameter than the upper portion of the burner cap 314, see FIG. A below).
PNG
media_image1.png
522
476
media_image1.png
Greyscale
FIG. A
Regarding claim 2, Nett teaches that the hatch lid is provided in the form of at least one of aluminum, steel, stainless steel, or combinations thereof (paragraph 78, the assembly may be made of aluminum).
Regarding claim 3, Nett teaches that the upper portion is provided in the form of an approximately circular shape (FIGS. 3 and 5, the burner has a circular profile).
Regarding claim 6, Nett teaches that the baffle area includes at least one curved surface (FIGS. 3 and 4).
Regarding claim 7, Nett teaches that at least a portion of the upper portion extends over the baffle area (FIG. 3).
Regarding claim 8, Nett teaches a cover plate assembly (FIG. 3, burner cap 314) for use with a furnace system (FIG. 3, furnace 230A), comprising: a plate (FIG. 3, pressure vessel 322); a central opening formed within the plate (FIG. 3, the opening in which the burner cap 314 rests); a hatch lid (FIG. 3, burner cap 314) positioned at least partially within the central opening, including a body (FIG. 3, the body of the burner cap 314) with a baffle area (FIG. 3, the lower portion of the burner cap 314 (the portion through which the arrows flow)); and an inlet structure (FIG. 3, burner inlet 311) designed to direct a fluid fuel source (FIG. 3, premixed combination of predominately vapor fuel and air 310) towards the central opening (FIG. 3, the burner inlet 311 is located at the central aperture), wherein the baffle area is positioned towards the inlet structure forming a fluid pathway between the inlet structure and the baffle area (FIG. 3, the burner inlet 311 and the lower portion of the burner cap are positioned such that fluid flows in between them and into the baffle passageway).
Regarding claim 9, Nett teaches that the plate has an approximately circular shape and the central opening is formed in approximately a center of the plate (FIG. 3).
Regarding claim 10, Nett teaches that the central opening has an approximately circular shape (FIGS. 3 and 4).
Regarding claim 12, Nett teaches that the inlet structure includes an inlet opening having an approximately circular shape (FIGS. 3 and 4).
Regarding claim 14, Nett teaches that the body of the hatch lid includes an upper portion including a plurality of connection points designed to connect the upper portion to the plate (FIG. 3, the bolts that connect the assembly).
Regarding claim 15, Nett teaches a furnace system (FIG. 3, furnace 230A) for generating heat, the furnace system comprising: a housing (FIG. 3, the housing of the furnace 230A) including a combustion chamber (FIG. 3, the inner chamber of the furnace 230A) positioned within an internal chamber (FIG. 3, the internal chamber of the pressure vessel 322) designed to combust a fuel source (FIG. 3, premixed combination of predominately vapor fuel and air 310); and a cover plate assembly (FIG. 3, the assembly of burner cap 314) coupled to the housing, the cover plate assembly including: a central opening (FIG. 3, the opening in which the burner cap 314 rests) positioned in approximately a center of the cover plate assembly; a hatch lid (FIG. 3, burner cap 314) positioned within the central opening, including a body (FIG. 3, the body of the burner cap 314) with a baffle area (FIG. 3, the lower portion of the burner cap 314 (the portion through which the arrows flow)); and an inlet structure (FIG. 3, burner inlet 311) designed to direct a fluid fuel source (FIG. 3, the source of the premixed combination of predominately vapor fuel and air 310) towards the central opening and into the combustion chamber (FIG. 3, the burner inlet 311 is oriented to direct air through the central passageway and into the chamber).
Regarding claim 16, Nett teaches that at least a portion of the hatch lid is designed to extend into the internal chamber and wherein the hatch lid is designed to reduce an air volume between the hatch lid and the combustion chamber (FIG. 3, the material of the burner cap 314 takes up volume).
Regarding claim 17, Nett teaches that the hatch lid is removable (FIG. 3, the assembly may be disassembled).
Regarding claim 18, Nett teaches that the hatch lid includes a lower portion including a plurality of connection points designed to connect the hatch lid to the combustion chamber (FIG. 3, the bolts that secure the assembly).
Regarding claim 19, Nett teaches that the fuel source is a mixture of gas and air (paragraph 28, the mixture 310 is of air and gas).
Regarding claim 20, Nett teaches a heat exchanger designed to utilize heat generated from the fuel source (FIG. 3, heat exchanger tubes 300).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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) 4 and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nett as applied to claims 1-3, 5-10, 12, and 14-20 above, and further in view of Chung (EP 1426681 A2).
Regarding claim 4, Nett fails to teach that the body includes one or more indentations designed to reduce a volume of the lower portion.
However, Chung teaches that the body includes one or more indentations designed to reduce a volume of the lower portion (FIG. 1, the burner walls have sections 36 which are indentations in the structure).
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the teachings of Nett by including indentations in the curner cap walls, as taught by Chung, with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention. At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Nett with these aforementioned teachings of Chung with the motivation of increasing rigidity while minimizing volume.
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Nett and Chung teaches that the body includes one or more support structures separating the one or more indentations to provide structural support for the body (FIG. 1, baffles 40).
Claim(s) 11 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nett as applied to claims 1-3, 5-10, 12, and 14-20 above, and further in view of Monfared (US 20210247068 A1).
Regarding claim 11, Nett fails to teach that the inlet structure includes an inlet opening having an approximately rectangular shape (FIG. 4, blower outlet pattern 400 is rectangular (note that the outlet is producing mixed fuel into a burner)).
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the teachings of Nett by making the apparatus rectangular, as taught by Monfared, with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention. At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Nett with these aforementioned teachings of Monfared with the motivation of increasing the volume of fuel able to burnt in the same dimensional volume.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/9/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. On pages 5-7, the applicant asserts that the upper and lower diameters of the burner cap 314 of Nett have the same diameter. However, the Examiner respectfully points out that this is not true, as illustrated by FIG. A, reproduced below.
PNG
media_image1.png
522
476
media_image1.png
Greyscale
FIG. A
The Applicant goes on to argue on pages 7 and 8 that the lower portion of the burner cap 314 is not “positioned toward” the burner inlet 311 of Nett, and that the Examiner did not explain how this could be. However, the Examiner respectfully notes that under the broadest reasonable interpretation, to position a piece “toward” another piece can be construed as being placed alongside it. In fact, it is unclear what else the Applicant could have meant by it.
Lastly, on pages 9 and 10 of the remarks, the Applicant claims that the Examiner improperly cited one element of Nett to teach multiple features of claims 8 and 15. Specifically, the Applicant argues that it is improper to use the burner cap 314 of Nett as both the cover plate assembly and the hatch lid of the claims. The Examiner respectfully notes that in claim 15, the Examiner cited “the assembly of burner cap 314” to reject the cover plate assembly, meaning the collection of items including and surrounding the burner cap 314, and cited the burner cap 314 itself to reject the hatch lid, which is not explicitly noted as separate from the assembly of the cover plate in claims 8 and 15.
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 WILLIAM C. WEINERT whose telephone number is (571)272-6988. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00-5:00 ET.
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, Helena Kosanovic can be reached at (571) 272-9059. 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.
/WILLIAM C WEINERT/Examiner, Art Unit 3762
/Allen R. B. Schult/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3762
Prosecution Insights