DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1 line 16, “extending” should read “extends”.
In claim 1 line 17, “extending” should read “extends”.
In claim 1 line 21, “bypassing” should read “bypasses”.
In claim 1 line 18-19, “the reserve of preheated air being delimited” should read “the reserve of preheated air is delimited”.
In claim 3, “wherein a fresh air inlet adjustment flap” should read “wherein the wood heating device further comprises a fresh air inlet adjustment flap”.
In claim 13, “at least one closure flap” should read “the at least one closure flap”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claim 1, and claims 2-13 by dependency, are 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 1 recites, in line 13 “at least one reserve of preheated air” and in then in lines 16, 18, and 21 refers to “the reserve of preheated air.” Since “at least one” indicates that there may be more than one reserve of air, it is not clear whether later references to “the reserve of preheated air” should be interpreted to all instances of reserves of preheated air, or whether, when there are a plurality of reserves of preheated air, they should refer to one particular of the reserves of preheated air. Similarly, line 13 recites “at least one oxidant air duct”, while line 17 refers to “the oxidant air duct”, line 7 recites “at least one distinct oxidant air inlet orifice” while line 18 refers to “the oxidant air inlet orifice”, and line 11 recites “at least one outside-air opening” while line 16-17 and line 22 refer to “the outside-air opening.” For the purposes of this Office Action, “the at least one reserve of preheated air” in line 13 is being interpreted as “a reserve of preheated air”, “at least one oxidant air duct” in line 17 is being interpreted as “an oxidant air duct,” and “at least one outside air opening” in line 11 is being interpreted as “an outside-air opening.” Examiner notes that, while this interpretation does not necessarily limit the device to a single of these elements, it makes clear that all references to these components throughout the claims are referring to the same element.
Claim 9 recites “outside-air supply openings.” Since claim 1 is interpreted as requiring only a single outside-air supply opening, claim 9 is being interpreted for clarity as “The wood heating device, according to claim 1, further comprising a second outside-air supply opening arranged laterally to the intake of the combustion space in the side opposite the first out-side air supply opening, wherein the reserve of preheated air extends on either side and laterally to the combustion space, from the first and second outside-air supply openings.”
In claim 10, “the at least one oxidant air inlet orifice” is being interpreted as “the oxidant air inlet orifice” to align with the interpretation of claim 1.
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.
Claims 1-7 and 10-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DE 3833263 by Riener (hereinafter “Riener”) in view of US 2018/0017261 by Bolton (hereinafter “Bolton”) and in further view of FR 2632387 by Brisach (hereinafter “Brisach”).
Regarding claim 1, Riener teaches a wood heating device (Fig 1 heating device 1), comprising:
a combustion chamber (Fig 1 combustion chamber 6) delimited by a combustion space (Fig 1 inner housing 3 and grate plate 8 and bottom of duct 27), having an intake (Fig 1 intake at front of combustion chamber), equipped with closing means (Fig 1 doors 10), and
a distinct oxidant air inlet orifice (Fig 1 outlet openings 30), said combustion space being housed in an outer casing (Fig 1 outer wall 4),
wherein the outer casing comprises a front opening coinciding with the intake of the combustion space (Fig 1) and comprises an outside-air supply opening arranged laterally to the intake (Fig 2 shows air flow 20 through opening in the same lateral plane as intake),
wherein an oxidant air duct (Fig 1 supply air duct 22 and air duct 27) and a reserve of preheated air (Fig 1 and 2 the air supply flowing into the outer casing 3 prior to flowing through inlet 25 into air supply duct 22 may be considered a reserve of air that is preheated by the walls of the combustion chamber; this air flow 26 flows from the reserve to air duct 22) are provided between the outer casing and the combustion space (Fig 1),
wherein the reserve of preheated air extends from the outside-air supply opening to an end of the oxidant air duct (Fig 1 reserve of preheated air extends from the outside to inlet 25 of oxidant air duct), the oxidant air duct extending from said end to the oxidant air inlet orifice (Fig 1 oxidant air duct 22/27 extends from end at 25 to orifices 30), the reserve of preheated air being delimited at least in part by an internal wall of the outer casing and by an outer wall of the combustion space (Fig 1),
wherein the reserve of preheated air bypasses the combustion space by at least one side starting from the outside-air supply opening (Fig 1).
But Riener does not explicitly teach that the closing means is retractable or that the combustion space is delimited by a metal casing or that the outer casing is made of metal.
However, Bolton teaches a wood heating device (Abstract; paragraph [0002]) having a metal casing surrounding a combustion chamber (Fig 4 rear wall 404 and side walls 406/408 define combustion area 410; paragraph [0049] walls 404/406/408 made of steel) and a metal outer casing (Fig 8 outer shell 802; paragraph [0067], 802 is made of steel).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the wood heating device of Riener by making the outer walls of the combustion chamber and the outer casing from metal, as taught by Bolton. Bolton teaches that metals are one of various materials that may be chosen for use in wood heating devices for its ability to withstand heat. It has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select known (as evidenced by Bolton) material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice (In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416, MPEP 2144.07). Please note that in the instant application, the Applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitation.
But Riener/Bolton does not teach that the closing means is of the retractable type.
However, Brisach teaches a wood heating device (Fig 1) having a combustion chamber with retractable closing means configured to close the intake of the combustion chamber (Fig 2 glass pane 18 which is retractable into the hood of the device; shown partially retracted in Fig 3 and fully retracted in Fig 1; paragraph [0005]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the wood heating device of Riener/Bolton by making the closing means to be of the retractable type, in order to allow easy access to the combustion chamber and/or to allow for the user to use the device in a manner which allows for better viewing of the fire in the combustion chamber.
Please note that the claims in this specification are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2173.01 I) Accordingly, where claim 1 recites “a metal combustion space” in line 5, “combustion space” has been interpreted to mean a casing or enclosure which surrounds the combustion space. Also, where claim 1 recites “reserve of preheated air” in line 13, this is being interpreted to mean a supply of air which may be heated by its proximity to the combustion space before entering the oxidant air duct.
Regarding claim 2, Riener further teaches that the combustion space comprises a rear part located diametrically opposite the intake (Fig 1 rear part of combustion space opposite the intake opening and doors), the reserve of preheated air extending to said rear part (Fig 1 reserve extends to at least inlet 25 at rear portion of device and at/near rear portion of combustion space).
Regarding claim 3, Riener further teaches a fresh air inlet adjustment flap configured to regulate an air inlet within the combustion space (Fig 3 adjusting member 13 with locking elements 17/18), the fresh air inlet adjustment flap being in fluid communication with the reserve of preheated air and being in fluid communication with the oxidant air duct (Fig 1 and 2).
Regarding claim 4, Riener teaches that the oxidant air inlet orifice is placed downstream of the fresh air inlet adjustment flap, in the direction in which air circulates from the outside-air supply opening (Fig 2 orifice 30 is downstream of flap 13; air flow shown with arrows).
Regarding claim 5, Riener teaches that the fresh air inlet adjustment flap is offset relative to the outside-air supply opening (Fig 2).
Regarding claim 6, Riener teaches that the fresh air inlet adjustment flap is located at the end of the oxidant air duct (Fig 2 flap 13 is at inlet 25 at end of duct 22 of oxidant air duct).
Regarding claim 7, Riener teaches that the oxidant air duct extends partially above the combustion space (Fig 1 duct 27 of oxidant air duct extends above combustion space 6).
Regarding claim 10, Riener teaches that the oxidant air inlet orifice opens into the combustion chamber, above the intake (Fig 1 orifice 30 above intake).
Regarding claim 11, Riener teaches that the inner wall of the outer casing is located immediately opposite the outer wall of the combustion space, the heating device having no intermediate wall inserted between said inner wall of the outer casing and said outer wall of the combustion space (Fig 1).
Regarding claim 12, Riener teaches that the closing means are defined by at least one closure flap pivotably or slidably mounted on the combustion space to close the intake in the closed position (Riener Fig 1 doors 10 shown with hinges). Brisach also teaches that the closing means are defined by at least one closure flap pivotably or slidably mounted on the combustion space to close the intake in the closed position (Brisach Fig 2 shows closing means 18 hinged open; Figs 1-3 also show closing means 18 sliding in guides 14/15 through various retraction states). Thus Riener, as modified by Brisach teaches the limitation claimed.
Regarding claim 13, Riener teaches that at least one closure flap comprises a glazed wall (Riener Fig 1 door 10 comprises glass 12). Brisach also teaches that the at least one closure flap comprises a glazed wall (Brisach Fig 2 closing means 18 is a glass door; paragraph [0005]). Thus Riener, as modified by Brisach teaches the limitation claimed.
Claims 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Riener, Bolton, and Brisach and in further view of EP 2762785 by Stack (hereinafter “Stack).
Regarding claim 8, Riener/Bolton/Brisach teaches the wood heating device of claim 1. See details in claim 1 rejection above, including the motivation for one of ordinary skill to modify. The outside-air supply opening of Riener appears to be between the outer casing and the combustion space. But Riener/Bolton/Brisach does not explicitly teach that the outside-air supply opening is delimited at least in part by the front opening of the outer casing and at least partially by the combustion space.
However, Stack teaches a wood heating device (Fig 1 fireplace insert appliance 1 for burning solid fuel) having a combustion chamber delimited by a combustion space (Fig 6 fireback unit 2 along with inner front panel 4) and an intake and equipped with closing means (Fig 7 door 8 closes opening 17), an outer casing comprising a front opening coinciding with an intake of the combustion space (Fig 4 outer casing 5), at least one outside-air supply opening arranged laterally to the intake (Fig 4 gap 9),and a reserve of preheated air (Fig 6; paragraph [0034], ambient air A flowing through gap 9 provides a pre-heated air chamber of air to be used in appliance). Stack further teaches that the outside-air supply opening is delimited at least in part by the front opening of the outer casing and at least partially by the combustion space (Fig 4, outside air opening 9 is delimited by front opening of outer casing 5 and by inner panel 4 of combustion space).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the wood heating device of Riener/Bolton by making the outside-air supply opening to be delimited at least in part by the front opening of the outer casing and at least partially by the combustion space, as taught by Stack, in order to simplify manufacturing.
Regarding claim 9, Riener/Bolton teaches the wood heating device of claim 1. See details in claim 1 rejection above, including the motivation for one of ordinary skill to modify. But Riener/Bolton does not teach that the device further comprises a second outside-air supply opening arranged laterally to the intake of the combustion space in the side opposite the first out-side air supply opening, wherein the reserve of preheated air extends on either side and laterally to the combustion space, from the first and second outside-air supply openings.
However, Stack teaches a wood heating device (Fig 1 fireplace insert appliance 1 for burning solid fuel) having a combustion chamber delimited by a combustion space (Fig 6 fireback unit 2 along with inner front panel 4) and an intake and equipped with closing means (Fig 7 door 8 closes opening 17), an outer casing comprising a front opening coinciding with an intake of the combustion space (Fig 4 outer casing 5), and a reserve of preheated air (Fig 6; paragraph [0034], ambient air A flowing through gap 9 provides a pre-heated air chamber of air to be used in appliance). Stack further teaches that the device further comprises a second outside-air supply opening arranged laterally to the intake of the combustion space in the side opposite the first out-side air supply opening, wherein the reserve of preheated air extends on either side and laterally to the combustion space, from the first and second outside-air supply openings (Fig 4, reserve of preheated air flows into appliance through gap 9 from outside air openings that are arranged laterally on either side of intake).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the wood heating device of Riener/Bolton by extending the reserve of preheated air on either side and laterally to the combustion space, from outside air supply openings arranged laterally on either side of the intake of the combustion space. Although Riener shows an air supply opening on only one lateral side of the combustion space, the addition of a duplicate or similar air supply opening on the laterally opposite side of the combustion space would allow additional outside air into the space between the combustion space and the outer casing. This preheated reserve of air could then be fed back into the room as warm air once it is preheated and/or it could be regulated with an adjusting member and combined with air from the other side to be used in the oxidant air duct.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
EP 0480870 by Frei teaches a wood heating device made of metal components and having an air intake lateral to the combustion space leading to an air duct between the inner and outer casing leading to an air outlet above the combustion space.
FR 2900461 by Haas teaches a wood heating device having a retractable door, an air inlet with a fresh air inlet adjustment flap leading to an air duct at both lateral sides of the combustion chamber and an outlet above the combustion chamber.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Amy E Carter whose telephone number is (703)756-5894. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00 AM - 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, 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 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.
/AMY E CARTER/Examiner, Art Unit 3762
/Allen R. B. Schult/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3762