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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“fuel actuating mechanism” in claims 8 and 16;
“external air filling device” in claim 11;
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Factors that will support a conclusion that the prior art element is an equivalent are:
(A) The prior art element performs the identical function specified in the claim in substantially the same way, and produces substantially the same results as the corresponding element disclosed in the specification. Kemco Sales, Inc. v. Control Papers Co., 208 F.3d 1352, 1364, 54 USPQ2d 1308, 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (An internal adhesive sealing the inner surfaces of an envelope pocket was not held to be equivalent to an adhesive on a flap which attached to the outside of the pocket. Both the claimed invention and the accused device performed the same function of closing the envelope, but the accused device performed the function in a substantially different way (by an internal adhesive on the inside of the pocket) with a substantially different result (the adhesive attached the inner surfaces of both sides of the pocket)); Odetics Inc. v. Storage Tech. Corp., 185 F.3d 1259, 1267, 51 USPQ2d 1225, 1229-30 (Fed. Cir. 1999); Lockheed Aircraft Corp. v. United States, 193 USPQ 449, 461 (Ct. Cl. 1977). The concepts of equivalents as set forth in Graver Tank & Mfg. Co. v. Linde Air Products, 339 U.S. 605, 85 USPQ 328 (1950) are relevant to any "equivalents" determination. Polumbo v. Don-Joy Co., 762 F.2d 969, 975 n.4, 226 USPQ 5, 8-9 n.4 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
(B) A person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the interchangeability of the element shown in the prior art for the corresponding element disclosed in the specification. Caterpillar Inc. v. Deere & Co., 224 F.3d 1374, 56 USPQ2d 1305 (Fed. Cir. 2000); Al-Site Corp. v. VSI Int’ l, Inc., 174 F.3d 1308, 1316, 50 USPQ2d 1161, 1165 (Fed. Cir. 1999); Chiuminatta Concrete Concepts, Inc. v. Cardinal Indus. Inc., 145 F.3d 1303, 1309, 46 USPQ2d 1752, 1757 (Fed. Cir. 1998); Lockheed Aircraft Corp. v. United States, 193 USPQ 449, 461 (Ct. Cl. 1977); Data Line Corp. v. Micro Technologies, Inc., 813 F.2d 1196, 1 USPQ2d 2052 (Fed. Cir. 1987).
(C) There are insubstantial differences between the prior art element and the corresponding element disclosed in the specification. IMS Technology, Inc. v. Haas Automation, Inc., 206 F.3d 1422, 1436, 54 USPQ2d 1129, 1138 (Fed. Cir. 2000); Warner-Jenkinson Co. v. Hilton Davis Chemical Co., 520 U.S. 17, 41 USPQ2d 1865, 1875 (1997); Valmont Industries, Inc. v. Reinke Mfg. Co., 983 F.2d 1039, 25 USPQ2d 1451 (Fed. Cir. 1993). See also Caterpillar Inc. v. Deere & Co., 224 F.3d 1374, 56 USPQ2d 1305 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (A structure lacking several components of the overall structure corresponding to the claimed function and also differing in the number and size of the parts may be insubstantially different from the disclosed structure. The limitation in a means- (or step-) plus-function claim is the overall structure corresponding to the claimed function. The individual components of an overall structure that corresponds to the claimed function are not claim limitations. Also, potential advantages of a structure that do not relate to the claimed function should not be considered in an equivalents determination under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-4, 6-14, 16, and 19-24 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 19 have been amended to recite “the cone-shaped element positioned downstream of the fuel nozzle opening at a predetermined distance. This limitation was not in the original disclosure. On the contrary, the applicant’s original disclosure (namely figure 2 and the associated description) depicts “cone-shaped element 24” upstream from “fuel nozzle opening 13.” The examiner suspects the applicant may be conflating the nozzle arrangement 20 with the fuel nozzle opening. The nozzle arrangement 20 comprises an outer cylindrical wall 26 from which the cone shaped element 24 is downstream.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-4, 6-14, 16, and 19-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a), but possess subject matter that would otherwise be allowable.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The closest prior art of record to independent claim 1 is Shin (KR 200182380 Y1) and Li (CN 109974045 A) and Lantrua (FR 2590968 A1).
Shin discloses a flame producing assembly comprising:
a fuel container fillable with fuel (“tank 10” all citations from the machine translation appended to the foreign reference),
a fuel nozzle arrangement for producing a flame comprising a fuel nozzle and a fuel supply channel, the fuel supply channel extending from the fuel container to an opening of the fuel nozzle, the fuel nozzle opening being oriented along an axis in a flame direction (“an ignition device 12 and an injection nozzle 13 are mounted on the upper side of the tank 10 into which the gas is injected”),
a curtain around the flame, the curtain configured to not interfere with the flame (“Windproof cover 20 is installed so as to surround the nozzle for spraying 13 in this way can act as a windshield to prevent the closing of the flame such as extinguished by the wind”).
PNG
media_image1.png
598
272
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
464
288
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
470
282
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Shin does not disclose the claimed curtain, namely:
a nozzle arrangement having a nozzle outlet which at least partially encircles the fuel nozzle arrangement,
a compressed fluid supply for storing compressed fluid, and
a compressed fluid valve,
wherein the nozzle arrangement is suppliable with compressed fluid from the compressed fluid supply via activation of the compressed fluid valve, and
wherein the nozzle arrangement comprises a cone-shaped element arranged around the axis, the cone-shaped element positioned downstream of the fuel nozzle opening at a predetermined distance such that, when compressed fluid is supplied to the nozzle arrangement during operation of the flame producing assembly, the compressed fluid is diverted by the cone-shaped element to form a fluid curtain around the flame, the fluid curtain configured to not interfere with the flame.
Li teaches:
a nozzle arrangement having a nozzle outlet which at least partially encircles the fuel nozzle arrangement (21),
a compressed fluid supply (“motor (41) of the fan blade (42) and the pressurizing device (43)”), and
wherein the nozzle arrangement is suppliable with fluid from the compressed fluid supply (“the blowing device in this embodiment with the annular air curtain forming part 2 on the outlet 21 connected”), and
wherein the nozzle arrangement comprises a cone-shaped element arranged around the axis (24), the cone-shaped element positioned such that, when compressed fluid is supplied to the nozzle arrangement during operation of the flame producing assembly, the compressed fluid is diverted by the cone-shaped element to form a fluid curtain around the flame, the fluid curtain configured to not interfere with the flame (“an annular air curtain comprises an air outlet forming member, air outlet direction of the air outlet is inclined diverges upwards arranged to the outside in the form of air curtain wall surrounding the periphery of the cooker burner of the generated flame. and the air outlet is connected with a blowing device, so that air blown by the blowing device of the forming member from the annular air curtain air outlet blowing out, so as to form a stable flame”).
PNG
media_image4.png
376
630
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
346
560
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Shin, as modified by Li, does not disclose:
the compressed fluid supply for storing compressed fluid, and
a compressed fluid valve,
wherein the nozzle arrangement is suppliable with compressed fluid via activation of the compressed fluid valve, and
the cone-shaped element positioned downstream of the fuel nozzle opening at a predetermined distance.
Lantrua teaches:
the compressed fluid supply for storing compressed fluid, and
a compressed fluid valve,
wherein the nozzle arrangement is suppliable with compressed fluid via activation of the compressed fluid valve (“The rear part is constituted by a conventional air generator blower with an electric motor supplied autonomously (rechargeable batteries or batteries) or blower with compressed air whose air flow is controlled by a valve. This compressed air can be produced by interchangeable cartridges. It can also have been pressurized in a tank or by a hand device (pneumatic pump). either by a compressor type device or by bottles” All citations from the machine translation).
Shin, as modified by Li and Lantrua, does not disclose the cone-shaped element positioned downstream of the fuel nozzle opening at a predetermined distance.
No art was found such that further modification of Shin, Li, and Lantrua would have rendered claim 1 obvious.
Claim 19 is non-obvious by substantially the same rationale.
Claims 2-4, 6-14, 16, and 20-24 depend from claims 1 or 19.
As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Reize (US 2557010 A)
PNG
media_image6.png
332
530
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Anderson (US 2949391 A) “small passages 66 which are circumferentially spaced around the torch tip as best illustrated in Fig. 4. (54) These passages open at one end into the plenum 63 and at the other end into the lower end face 67 of the jacket and they direct jets of air from the plenum 63 downwardly along the surface of the tip body to enshroud it” column 7, line 60
PNG
media_image7.png
480
352
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Wonisch (US 4190034 A)
PNG
media_image8.png
232
610
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Creuz (US 3881863 A) “The last row of apertures at the large end of the burner cone is employed to provide a cylindrical-shaped air curtain extending downstream of the burner, there being a forwardly projecting air curtain baffle ring attached within the cone on the upstream side of this last row of air apertures for the purpose. Thus, the emanating flame is not permitted to be dispersed laterally, but is contained within the projected forward area of the burner” column 3, line 1
PNG
media_image9.png
390
434
media_image9.png
Greyscale
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 LOGAN P JONES whose telephone number is (303)297-4309. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:30-5:00 EST.
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, Michael Hoang can be reached at (571) 272-6460. 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.
/LOGAN P JONES/Examiner, Art Unit 3762 /MICHAEL G HOANG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3762
Prosecution Insights