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 .
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) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Macdonald (EP 0737837 A2) and Becker (CN 104213986 A).
Regarding claim 1, Macdonald teaches a high excess air burner (high excess air burner 11), comprising: a generally tubular body (the assembly of burner housing 12 and cylindrical combustion tube 13) enclosing an air chamber (air chamber 16); a nozzle (nozzle 10) located in the air chamber and spaced radially inwardly of the generally tubular body, the nozzle having first and second combustion cavities (second and third combustion chambers 21 and 22, respectively); a fuel inlet (inlet tube 27) configured to supply a variable volumetric flow rate of fuel (claim 1); and an air inlet (the air inlet through which air enters the air chamber 16) configured to supply air to the air chamber; wherein the first combustion cavity has a first inlet opening (exit end 20B) communicating with the fuel inlet for receiving the variable volumetric flow rate of fuel, the first combustion cavity having first combustion air inlets (passages 31) communicating with the air chamber so that fuel is mixed with combustion air to form a first fuel-air mixture in the first combustion cavity; wherein the second combustion cavity has a second inlet opening (exit end 21B) communicating with the first combustion cavity for receiving the first fuel-air mixture, the second combustion cavity having a sidewall (nozzle housing 23, which terminates in restriction 38) that converges radially inwardly in a downstream direction, and the second combustion cavity having second combustion air inlets (passages 32A and 32B) communicating with the air chamber so that the first fuel-air mixture is mixed with additional combustion air to form a second fuel-air mixture in the second combustion cavity, wherein the second combustion air inlets extend through a side wall of the nozzle at an oblique angle to a central longitudinal axis of the nozzle.
Macdonald fails to teach that an outer surface of the nozzle at a radially-outermost end of each of the second combustion air inlets is perpendicular to central axes of the second combustion air inlets.
However, Becker teaches that an outer surface of the nozzle at a radially-outermost end of each of the second combustion air inlets is perpendicular to central axes of the second combustion air inlets (FIG. 4).
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 Macdonald by making the passages 32A and 32B have outer surfaces that are perpendicular to the axes of the passages, as taught by Becker, 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 Macdonald with these aforementioned teachings of Becker with the motivation of reducing the weight of the assembly.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Macdonald and Becker teaches that each of the first combustion air inlets has the same diameter (Macdonald, FIG. 1).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Macdonald and Becker fails to teach that a largest one of the first combustion air inlets has a first diameter and a smallest one of the first combustion air inlets has a second diameter, wherein the first diameter is at least two times the second diameter.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to make the passages 31 of different sizes such that the larger ones are at least four times as large as the smaller ones, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art (passages 31 are of similar size), discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves (MPEP 2144.05 II. A) only routine skill in the art.
In addition, it is observed that air flow hole size is a result effective variable because it affects flame shape and burn. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to make the passages 31 of different sizes such that the larger ones are at least four times as large as the smaller ones, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Macdonald and Becker fails to teach that a largest one of the first combustion air inlets has a first diameter and a smallest one of the first combustion air inlets has a second diameter, wherein the first diameter is at least four times the second diameter.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to make the passages 31 of different sizes such that the larger ones are at least four times as large as the smaller ones, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art (passages 31 are of similar size), discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves (MPEP 2144.05 II. A) only routine skill in the art.
In addition, it is observed that air flow hole size is a result effective variable because it affects flame shape and burn. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to make the passages 31 of different sizes such that the larger ones are at least four times as large as the smaller ones, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Macdonald and Becker teaches that each of the second combustion air inlets has the same diameter (Macdonald, FIG. 1).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Macdonald and Becker fails to teach that a largest one of the second combustion air inlets has a first diameter and a smallest one of the second combustion air inlets has a second diameter, wherein the first diameter is at least two times the second diameter.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to make the passages 32A and 32B of different sizes such that the larger ones are at least four times as large as the smaller ones, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art (passages 32A and 32B are of similar size), discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves (MPEP 2144.05 II. A) only routine skill in the art.
In addition, it is observed that air flow hole size is a result effective variable because it affects flame shape and burn. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to make the passages 32A and 32B of different sizes such that the larger ones are at least four times as large as the smaller ones, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Macdonald and Becker fails to teach that a largest one of the second combustion air inlets has a first diameter and a smallest one of the second combustion air inlets has a second diameter, wherein the first diameter is at least two times the second diameter.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to make the passages 32A and 32B of different sizes such that the larger ones are at least four times as large as the smaller ones, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art (passages 32A and 32B are of similar size), discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves (MPEP 2144.05 II. A) only routine skill in the art.
In addition, it is observed that air flow hole size is a result effective variable because it affects flame shape and burn. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to make the passages 32A and 32B of different sizes such that the larger ones are at least four times as large as the smaller ones, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Macdonald and Becker fails to teach that the oblique angle at which the second combustion air inlets extend is greater than 20 degrees and less than 25 degrees.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to make the angles of the passages 32A and 32B of Macdonald between 20 and 25 degrees, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art (Macdonald, FIG. 1, the passages are angled), discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves (MPEP 2144.05 II. A) only routine skill in the art.
In addition, it is observed that passage angle is a result effective variable because it affects the shape of the flame. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to make the angles of the passages 32A and 32B of Macdonald between 20 and 25 degrees, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)).
Regarding claims 9 and 17, the combination of Macdonald and Becker teaches that the outer surface of the nozzle has a generally stepped cylindrical shape (Macdonald, the nozzle 10 is generally cylindrical and has several points at which the diameter suddenly changes).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Macdonald and Becker teaches that an upstream end of a portion of the outer surface of the nozzle that surrounds the second combustion cavity includes a circumferential ridge and the second combustion air inlets extend through the circumferential ridge (Macdonald, an upper portion of the nozzle 10 that includes ring 24 includes the passages 32B).
Regarding claims 11 and 20, the combination of Macdonald and Becker teaches that a flow of air between an inner surface of the generally tubular body and the nozzle flowing in a direction parallel to the central longitudinal axis of the nozzle is impeded by projecting portions of the outer surface of the nozzle located in an intermediate portion of the nozzle between opposing ends of the nozzle (Macdonald, the sidewall 35 tapers in near a midpoint of the nozzle 10).
Regarding claim 12, Macdonald teaches a high excess air burner (high excess air burner 11), comprising: a generally tubular body (the assembly of burner housing 12 and cylindrical combustion tube 13) enclosing an air chamber (air chamber 16); a nozzle (nozzle 10) located in the air chamber and spaced radially inwardly of the generally tubular body; a first combustion cavity (first combustion chamber 20) having a first inlet opening (inlet end 20A) communicating with the fuel inlet for receiving the variable volumetric flow rate of fuel, the first combustion cavity having first combustion air inlets (passage 30) communicating with the air chamber so that fuel is mixed with combustion air to form a first fuel-air mixture in the first combustion cavity; a second combustion cavity (second combustion chamber 21) having a second inlet opening (exit end 20B) communicating with the first combustion cavity for receiving the first fuel-air mixture, the second combustion cavity having a sidewall (wall 35) that converges radially inwardly in a downstream direction, and the second combustion cavity having second combustion air inlets (passages 31) communicating with the air chamber so that the first fuel-air mixture is mixed with additional combustion air to form a second fuel-air mixture in the second combustion cavity; and a third combustion cavity (third combustion chamber 22) having a third inlet opening (exit end 21B) communicating with the second combustion cavity for receiving the second fuel-air mixture, the third combustion cavity having third combustion air inlets (passages 32A and 32B) communicating with the air chamber so that the second fuel-air mixture is mixed with supplemental combustion air to form a third fuel-air mixture in the third combustion cavity, wherein the third combustion air inlets extend through a side wall of the nozzle at an oblique angle to a central longitudinal axis of the nozzle.
Macdonald fails to teach that an outer surface of the nozzle at a radially-outermost end of each of the third combustion air inlets is perpendicular to central axes of the third combustion air inlets.
However, Becker teaches that an outer surface of the nozzle at a radially-outermost end of each of the third combustion air inlets is perpendicular to central axes of the third combustion air inlets (FIG. 4).
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 Macdonald by making the passages 32A and 32B have outer surfaces that are perpendicular to the axes of the passages, as taught by Becker, 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 Macdonald with these aforementioned teachings of Becker with the motivation of reducing the weight of the assembly.
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Macdonald and Becker fails to teach that the oblique angle is greater than 40 degrees and less than 50 degrees.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to make the angles of the passages 32A and 32B of Macdonald between 40 and 50 degrees, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art (Macdonald, FIG. 1, the passages are angled), discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves (MPEP 2144.05 II. A) only routine skill in the art.
In addition, it is observed that passage angle is a result effective variable because it affects the shape of the flame. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to make the angles of the passages 32A and 32B of Macdonald between 40 and 50 degrees, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)).
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Macdonald and Becker teaches that the second combustion air inlets extend through the side wall of the nozzle at a shallow angle (macdonald, an angle near zero) to the central longitudinal axis of the nozzle, and wherein an outer surface of the nozzle at a radially-outermost end of each of the second combustion air inlets is perpendicular to central axes of the second combustion air inlets (Macdonald, FIG. 1).
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Macdonald and Becker teaches that the shallow angle is less than the oblique angle (40-50 is greater than zero).
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Macdonald and Becker fails to teach that the shallow angle is greater than 20 degrees and less than 25 degrees.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to make the angles of the passages 31 of Macdonald between 20 and 25 degrees, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art (Macdonald, FIG. 1, the passages are angled), discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves (MPEP 2144.05 II. A) only routine skill in the art.
In addition, it is observed that passage angle is a result effective variable because it affects the shape of the flame. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to make the angles of the passages 31 of Macdonald between 20 and 25 degrees, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)).
Regarding claim 18, the combination of Macdonald and Becker teaches that an upstream portion of the outer surface of the nozzle that surrounds the second combustion cavity has a smaller diameter than a downstream portion of the outer surface of the nozzle that surrounds the third combustion cavity. (Macdonald, the diameter of the nozzle at exit 21B is narrower than the diameter at ring 24).
Regarding claim 19, the combination of Macdonald and Becker teaches that an upstream end of a portion of the outer surface of the nozzle that surrounds the third combustion cavity includes a circumferential ridge and the third combustion air inlets extend through the circumferential ridge (Macdonald, an upper portion of the nozzle 10 that includes ring 24 includes the passages 32B).
Claim(s) 21, 23, and 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Macdonald in view of Parks (US 20130280664 A1).
Regarding claim 21, Macdonald teaches a high excess air burner (high excess air burner 11), comprising: a housing including a generally tubular body (the assembly of burner housing 12 and cylindrical combustion tube 13) enclosing an air chamber (air chamber 16), and including an air inlet (passage 30, which has an axis perpendicular to the axis of the nozzle) with an air inlet axis oriented perpendicular to a longitudinal axis of the high excess air burner; a nozzle (nozzle 10) located in the air chamber and spaced radially inwardly of the generally tubular body; a rear cover (backplate 14) coupled to the generally tubular body and to the nozzle, where the rear cover encloses an upstream end of the air chamber; a fuel inlet (inlet tube 27) configured to supply a variable volumetric flow rate of fuel (claim 1); an air inlet (the air inlet through which air enters the air chamber 16) configured to supply air to the air chamber; a first combustion cavity (first combustion chamber 20) provided within the rear cover, the first combustion cavity having a first inlet opening (inlet end 20A) communicating with the fuel inlet for receiving the variable volumetric flow rate of fuel, the first combustion cavity having first combustion air inlets (passage 30) communicating with the air chamber so that fuel is mixed with combustion air to form a first fuel-air mixture in the first combustion cavity, and wherein the first combustion air inlets extend at oblique angles to the air inlet axis of the air inlet of the housing; and at least a second combustion cavity (third combustion chamber 22) having a second inlet opening (exit area 21B) communicating with the first combustion cavity for receiving the first fuel-air mixture, and the second combustion cavity having second combustion air inlets (passages 32A and 32B) communicating with the air chamber so that the first fuel-air mixture is mixed with additional combustion air to form a second fuel-air mixture in the second combustion cavity.
Macdonald fails to teach that the rear cover is configured to be coupled to the housing in incremental rotational orientations (the backplate 14 may be connected at one or more angles (that is, the assembly may be rotated so that the bolts on either side are installed into the opposite socket)).
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 Macdonald by making the back plate adjustable, as taught by Park, 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 Macdonald with these aforementioned teachings of Park with the motivation of allowing a user to adjust air flow into the system to change the burn.
However, Park teaches that the rear cover is configured to be coupled to the housing in incremental rotational orientations (adjustable shutter plates 20 may be adjusted a full 360 degrees).
Regarding claim 23, Macdonald teaches that central longitudinal axes of the first combustion air inlets are not coincident with one another, are offset from one another, and are parallel to one another (passages 30 and 31).
Regarding claim 24, Macdonald teaches that the rear cover is configured to be coupled to the housing in incremental rotational orientations of ninety degrees, and wherein, irrespective of the incremental rotational orientation of the rear cover, the first combustion air inlets extend at oblique angles to the air inlet axis of the air inlet of the housing (Park, the plate may be rotated in 90 degree increments (i.e., 360))).
Claim(s) 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Macdonald and Parks as applied to claims 21, 23, and 24 above, and further in view of Macdonald.
Regarding claim 22, Macdonald fails to teach that the oblique angles are greater than 40 degrees and less than 50 degrees.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to make the angles of the passages 32A and 32B of Macdonald between 40 and 50 degrees, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art (Macdonald, FIG. 1, the passages are angled), discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves (MPEP 2144.05 II. A) only routine skill in the art.
In addition, it is observed that passage angle is a result effective variable because it affects the shape of the flame. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to make the angles of the passages 32A and 32B of Macdonald between 40 and 50 degrees, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)).
Claim(s) 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Macdonald and Parksas applied to claims 21, 23, and 24 above, and further in view of Tamura (CN 1650131 A).
Regarding claim 25, Macdonald fails to teach that the rear cover includes an igniter passage for receiving a spark plug or igniter and a flame sensor passage for receiving a flame sensor, wherein the igniter passage and the flame sensor passage are arranged along a reference axis that extends perpendicular to and intersects a central longitudinal axis of the first combustion cavity, and wherein the first combustion air inlets extend at oblique angles to the reference axis.
However, Tamura teaches that the rear cover includes an igniter passage (FIG. 1, the passage containing ignition nozzle device 5) for receiving a spark plug or igniter and a flame sensor passage (FIG. 1, the passage containing infrared sensing control device) for receiving a flame sensor, wherein the igniter passage and the flame sensor passage are arranged along a reference axis that extends perpendicular to and intersects a central longitudinal axis of the first combustion cavity, and wherein the first combustion air inlets extend at oblique angles to the reference axis (FIG. 1).
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 Macdonald by including a sensor, as taught by Tamura, 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 Macdonald with these aforementioned teachings of Tamura with the motivation of monitoring the burn.
Claim(s) 26 and 30-33 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Macdonald, Tamura, and Sahashi (JP 2011106729 A).
Regarding claim 26, Macdonald teaches a burner (burner 11), comprising: a nozzle (nozzle 10); a fuel inlet (inlet end 20A) configured to supply a fuel; an air inlet (passage 30) configured to supply air.
Macdonald fails to teach a flame sensor passage for receiving a flame sensor; and an ultraviolet-limiting device positioned or provided in the flame sensor passage, the ultraviolet-limiting device having surface features that reduce interference with measurements made by the flame sensor by absorbing or redirecting a portion of ultraviolet light entering the flame sensor passage.
However, Tamura teaches a flame sensor passage for receiving a flame sensor (FIG. 1, the passage containing infrared sensing control device).
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 Macdonald by including a sensor, as taught by Tamura, 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 Macdonald with these aforementioned teachings of Tamura with the motivation of monitoring the burn.
Tamura fails to teach an ultraviolet-limiting device positioned or provided in the flame sensor passage, the ultraviolet-limiting device having surface features that reduce interference with measurements made by the flame sensor by absorbing or redirecting a portion of ultraviolet light entering the flame sensor passage.
However, Sahashi teaches an ultraviolet-limiting device (FIG. 1-3, sensor unit mounting plate 21, which shields the sensor 20 from ultraviolet rays) positioned or provided in the flame sensor passage, the ultraviolet-limiting device having surface features that reduce interference with measurements made by the flame sensor by absorbing or redirecting a portion of ultraviolet light entering the flame sensor passage.
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 Macdonald by including an ultraviolet shield, as taught by Sahashi, 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 Macdonald with these aforementioned teachings of Sahashi with the motivation of ensuring sensor accuracy.
Regarding claim 30, the combination of Macdonald, Tamura, and Sahashi teaches that the surface features of the ultraviolet-limiting device are coated by an ultraviolet-reflective material (Tamura, the piece 21 has a surface that absorbs or reflects UV light).
Regarding claim 31, the combination of Macdonald, Tamura, and Sahashi teaches that the surface features of the ultraviolet-limiting device are coated by an ultraviolet-absorbent material (Tamura, the piece 21 has a surface that absorbs or reflects UV light).
Regarding claim 32, the combination of Macdonald, Tamura, and Sahashi teaches that the surface features of the ultraviolet-limiting device are configured such that ultraviolet light traveling parallel or generally parallel to a longitudinal axis of the ultraviolet-limiting device continue uninterrupted through the flame sensor passage toward the flame sensor, and such that a substantial portion of ultraviolet light traveling obliquely to the longitudinal axis of the ultraviolet-limiting device is absorbed or redirected out of the flame sensor passage away from the flame sensor (“a sensor unit mounting plate 21 that shields ultraviolet rays incident from the other, and the upper portion of the shielding cylinder 28 extends from the surface of the top plate 13. It protrudes.”).
Regarding claim 33, the combination of Macdonald, Tamura, and Sahashi teaches that the ultraviolet-limiting device is provided in the form of a component that is removeably insertable in the flame sensor passage (in the above combination, the sensor of Sahashi fits into the passage of Tamura).
Claim(s) 27-29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Macdonald, Tamura, and Sahashi as applied to claims 26 and 30-33 above, and further in view of Yang (WO 2021190210 A1).
Regarding claim 27, the combination of Macdonald, Tamura, and Sahashi fails to teach that the surface features of the ultraviolet-limiting device are threads.
However, Yang teaches that the surface features of the ultraviolet-limiting device are threads (FIG. 1, threads 6 thread into threads of an ultraviolet shield body).
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 Macdonald by including a threaded ultraviolet shield, as taught by Yang, 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 Macdonald with these aforementioned teachings of Yang with the motivation of making installation easy.
Regarding claim 28, the combination of Macdonald, Tamura, and Sahashi fails to teach that the surface features of the ultraviolet-limiting device are grooves.
However, Yang teaches that the surface features of the ultraviolet-limiting device are grooves (FIG. 1, threads 6 thread into threads (which include grooves) of an ultraviolet shield body).
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 Macdonald by including a threaded ultraviolet shield, as taught by Yang, 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 Macdonald with these aforementioned teachings of Yang with the motivation of making installation easy.
Regarding claim 29, the combination of Macdonald, Tamura, and Sahashi fails to teach that the surface features of the ultraviolet-limiting device are steps.
However, Yang teaches that the surface features of the ultraviolet-limiting device are steps (FIG. 1, threads 6 thread into threads (i.e., stepped threads) of an ultraviolet shield body).
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 Macdonald by including a threaded ultraviolet shield, as taught by Yang, 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 Macdonald with these aforementioned teachings of Yang with the motivation of making installation easy.
Conclusion
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