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
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1, 2, 8, 27, 35, and 37-43 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 2, 8, 22, 26, 27-29, and 31-34 of copending Application No. 18/569,885 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant claims are more broadly recited.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
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.
Claims 7, 8, 30, 31, and 39 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 7 recites the limitation "the vaporizing temperature.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of examination, “the vaporizing temperature” will be interpreted as -a vaporizing temperature-.
Claim 30 recites the limitations "the vaporizing temperature,” “the second fuel pump,” and “the air pump.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. For the purpose of examination, “the vaporizing temperature” will be interpreted as -a vaporizing temperature-, “the second fuel pump” will be interpreted as -a second fuel pump-, and “the air pump” will be interpreted as -an air pump-.
Claim 31 recites the limitations "the storage heating device” and “the fuel line heating device.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. For the purpose of examination, “the storage heating device” will be interpreted as -a storage heating device-, and “the fuel line heating devices” will be interpreted as -a fuel line heating device-.
Claim 39 recites the limitation "the vaporizing temperature.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of examination, “the vaporizing temperature” will be interpreted as -a vaporizing temperature-.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1-3, 10, 11, 13, 27, 34, and 44 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Serrano (GB 555598 A), hereinafter Serrano.
Regarding claim 1, Serrano discloses a hybrid domestic fireplace comprising:
a mixing device (At least elements 1-9 and 27), configured to:
heat a second fuel comprising a combustible long chain hydrocarbon fuel to a mixing temperature (“Figure 1 shows a triple annular chamber, in the first ring of which the liquid is vaporized” page 1, line 38 and “A tank is provided having two independent compartments 16 and 17 for petroleum and heavy oil respectively” page 1, line 105); and
mix a first fuel and the heated second fuel to form a fuel mixture (A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. In the present case, the device of Serrano does not appear to be intended to mix the fuels, however line 23 and 24 lead to 27. Therefore, the first and second fuels are configured to mix beginning at 27 and are capable of performing the intended use);
a first fuel supply, configured to supply the first fuel to the mixing device (16);
a second fuel supply, configured to supply the second fuel to the mixing device (17);
a burner, configured to combust the fuel mixture (“The gaseous mixture (gas and air) issuing through jet 10 is projected into bell 12 of flame distributor 13” page 1, line 76).
PNG
media_image1.png
254
532
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
656
598
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
200
492
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Serrano discloses the hybrid domestic fireplace according to claim 1, wherein the first fuel supply is further configured to supply the first fuel to the mixing device in a liquid state; and
wherein the mixing device is further configured to heat the first fuel to a vaporizing temperature to vaporize the first fuel in the mixing device (“a vapor burner for liquid fuel, comprising a multiple ring chamber which surrounds the combustion zone and in which the fuel is initially vaporized” page 1, line 25).
Regarding claim 3, Serrano discloses the hybrid domestic fireplace according to claim 2, wherein the first fuel is in a liquid state at room temperature (“a vapor burner for liquid fuel, comprising a multiple ring chamber which surrounds the combustion zone and in which the fuel is initially vaporized” page 1, line 25).
Regarding claim 10, Serrano discloses the hybrid domestic fireplace according to claim 1, wherein the first fuel supply comprises:
a first fuel storage, configured to store the first fuel (16);
a first fuel line, extending between the first fuel storage and the mixing device (24);
a first fuel pump, configured to pump the first fuel through the first fuel line, i.e. from the first fuel storage to the mixing device (18).
Regarding claim 11, Serrano discloses the hybrid domestic fireplace according to claim 10, wherein the first fuel storage is further configured to store the first fuel in a liquid state (“a vapor burner for liquid fuel, comprising a multiple ring chamber which surrounds the combustion zone and in which the fuel is initially vaporized” page 1, line 25).
Regarding claim 13, Serrano discloses the hybrid domestic fireplace according to claim 1, wherein the second fuel supply comprises:
a second fuel storage, configured to store the second fuel (17);
a second fuel line, extending between the second fuel storage and the mixing device (23); and
a second fuel pump, configured to pump the second fuel through the second fuel line, i.e. from the second fuel storage to the mixing device (19).
Regarding claim 27, Serrano discloses the hybrid domestic fireplace according to claim 1 further comprising an air supply, projecting into the mixing device and configured to provide a flow of air through the mixing device;
wherein the mixing device is further configured to mix the fuel mixture with the air supplied by the air supply (“two lateral openings 9 are provided, through which air enters… The gaseous mixture (gas and air) issuing through jet 10” page 1, line 70).
Regarding claim 34, Serrano discloses the hybrid domestic fireplace according to claim 1, wherein the second fuel comprises an oil and is in a liquid state at room temperature (“heavy oil” page 1, line 106).
Regarding claim 44, Serrano discloses the hybrid domestic fireplace according to claim 1, wherein the mixing device comprises a second heating element for heating the second fuel (“in the first ring of which the liquid is vaporized; in the second ring is further heated; and in the third ring is superheated” page 1, line 39).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 5, 6, 9, 34, 37, and 42 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cripps (GB 178734 A), hereinafter Cripps, in view of Robertson (US 0155389 A), hereinafter Robertson.
Regarding claim 1, Cripps discloses a hybrid domestic fireplace comprising:
a mixing device (“V is the evaporating, heating and mixing chamber” page 1, line 63), configured to:
heat a second fuel comprising a combustible long chain hydrocarbon fuel to a mixing temperature (“By opening the cock of the sight feed Z, the liquid to be vaporized is passed through the top plate by means of the pipe Q, and delivered on the metal spiral shelf H… The oil then flows gently down the heated spiral shelf H from which it is evaporated or vaporized in its downward course, and from the hot bottom plate P, to which the spiral shelf extends” page 2, line 34 and “This invention relates to apparatus for evaporating paraffin or other liquids” page 1, line 11); and
mix a first fuel and the heated second fuel to form a fuel mixture (“The coal gas is admitted at I in the lower part of the vessel V and passes upwards… During its upward course, it is intimately incorporated with the paraffin or other vapor arising from the hot surfaces” page 2, line 64);
a first fuel supply, configured to supply the first fuel to the mixing device (At I);
a second fuel supply, configured to supply the second fuel to the mixing device (At Z).
PNG
media_image4.png
720
513
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Cripps does not disclose a burner, configured to combust the fuel mixture.
However, Robertson teaches a burner, configured to combust the fuel (“This invention relates to improvements in fireplaces or stoves which are specially adapted for the burning of air and coal-gas” column 1).
PNG
media_image5.png
388
470
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
272
414
media_image6.png
Greyscale
In view of Robertson's teachings it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include a burner because the court has held combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results supports a conclusion of obviousness Anderson’s-Black Rock, Inc. v. Pavement Salvage Co., 396 U.S. 57, 163 USPQ 673 (1969). In this case, Cripps discloses apparatus for mixing coal gas with vaporized paraffin, but is silent on how the mixture is used. The examiner notes that the mixture is ostensibly intended to be burned at some point downstream, but such is not explicitly disclosed. Robertson teaches burning coal gas in a fireplace burner. The combination of these references results, predictably, in no more or less than the sum of the constituent parts. The court has also held that “the convenience of putting… together… elements in one machine, though perhaps a matter of great convenience does not produce a new or different function.” Id. at 60, 163 USPQ at 674.
Regarding claim 5, Cripps, as modified by Robertson, discloses the hybrid domestic fireplace according to claim 1.
Cripps, as modified by Robertson, does not disclose wherein the mixing temperature is in the range between 250°C and 350°C. However, it has been held that “[w]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” See MPEP §2144.05(II)(A) (quoting In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Although, it has been further held that "[a] particular parameter must first be recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e. a variable which achieves a recognized result, before determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation. Refer to MPEP §2144.05(II)(B)(quoting In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). In this case, Cripps discloses a mixing vessel temperature for evaporating “paraffin or other liquids,” but does not specifically recite the claimed mixing temperature. Achieving the claimed temperature range is a results-effective variable the temperature must be in the range to evaporate the second fuel. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the temperature, because the selection of temperature to achieve evaporation constitutes the optimization of design parameters, which fails to distinguish the claim.
Regarding claim 6, Cripps, as modified by Robertson, discloses the hybrid domestic fireplace according to claim 1, wherein the mixing device comprises a first heating element for heating the first fuel (The coal gas of Cripps will be heated by at least element F).
Regarding claim 9, Cripps, as modified by Robertson, discloses the hybrid domestic fireplace according to claim 1, wherein the first fuel supply is further configured to supply the first fuel to the mixing device in a gaseous state (“The coal gas is admitted at I” page 2, line 64).
Regarding claim 34, Cripps, as modified by Robertson, discloses the hybrid domestic fireplace according to claim 1, wherein the second fuel comprises an oil and is in a liquid state at room temperature (“By opening the cock of the sight feed Z, the liquid to be vaporized is passed through the top plate by means of the pipe Q, and delivered on the metal spiral shelf H… The oil then flows gently down the heated spiral shelf H from which it is evaporated or vaporized in its downward course, and from the hot bottom plate P, to which the spiral shelf extends” page 2, line 34).
Regarding claim 37, Cripps discloses a method comprising the steps of:
supplying a first combustible fuel to a mixing device (“The coal gas is admitted at I in the lower part of the vessel V and passes upwards” page 2, line 64);
supplying a second combustible fuel, comprising a combustible long chain hydrocarbon fuel, to the mixing device (“By opening the cock of the sight feed Z, the liquid to be vaporized is passed through the top plate by means of the pipe Q, and delivered on the metal spiral shelf H” page 2, line 34 and “This invention relates to apparatus for evaporating paraffin or other liquids” page 1, line 11);
heating, in the mixing device the second fuel to a mixing temperature (“The oil then flows gently down the heated spiral shelf H from which it is evaporated or vaporized in its downward course, and from the hot bottom plate P, to which the spiral shelf extends”);
mixing, in the mixing device, the first fuel with the heated second fuel to form a fuel mixture (“During its upward course, it is intimately incorporated with the paraffin or other vapor arising from the hot surfaces”).
Cripps does not disclose a method of creating a fire in a hybrid domestic fireplace comprising combusting the fuel mixture with a burner of the fireplace to create the fire.
However, Roberson teaches a method of creating a fire in a hybrid domestic fireplace comprising combusting the fuel with a burner of the fireplace to create the fire (“This invention relates to improvements in fireplaces or stoves which are specially adapted for the burning of air and coal-gas” column 1).
In view of Robertson's teachings it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include a burner because the court has held combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results supports a conclusion of obviousness Anderson’s-Black Rock, Inc. v. Pavement Salvage Co., 396 U.S. 57, 163 USPQ 673 (1969). In this case, Cripps discloses apparatus for mixing coal gas with vaporized paraffin, but is silent on how the mixture is used. The examiner notes that the mixture is ostensibly intended to be burned at some point downstream, but such is not explicitly disclosed. Robertson teaches burning coal gas in a fireplace burner. The combination of these references results, predictably, in no more or less than the sum of the constituent parts. The court has also held that “the convenience of putting… together… elements in one machine, though perhaps a matter of great convenience does not produce a new or different function.” Id. at 60, 163 USPQ at 674.
Regarding claim 42, Cripps, as modified by Robertson, discloses the method according to claim 37, wherein the second fuel is in a liquid state at room temperature (“By opening the cock of the sight feed Z, the liquid to be vaporized is passed through the top plate by means of the pipe Q, and delivered on the metal spiral shelf H… The oil then flows gently down the heated spiral shelf H from which it is evaporated or vaporized in its downward course, and from the hot bottom plate P, to which the spiral shelf extends” page 2, line 34).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Serrano.
Regarding claim 4, Serrano discloses the hybrid domestic fireplace according to claim 2.
Serrano does not explicitly disclose wherein the vaporizing temperature is in the range between 50°C and 130°C. However, it has been held that “[w]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” See MPEP §2144.05(II)(A) (quoting In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Although, it has been further held that "[a] particular parameter must first be recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e. a variable which achieves a recognized result, before determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation. Refer to MPEP §2144.05(II)(B)(quoting In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). In this case, Serrano discloses a temperature for vaporizing the fuel but does not specifically recite the claimed fuel vaporization temperature. Achieving the claimed temperature range is a results-effective variable the temperature must be in the range to vaporize the fuel. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the temperature, because the selection of temperature to achieve vaporization constitutes the optimization of design parameters, which fails to distinguish the claim.
Claims 7, 8, and 39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cripps, in view of Robertson, and further in view of Hashimoto (WO 0166998 A1), hereinafter Hashimoto.
Regarding claims 7 and 8, Cripps, as modified by Robertson, discloses the hybrid domestic fireplace according to claim 1
Cripps, as modified by Robertson, does not disclose:
a control unit, configured to control the mixing device to set the vaporizing temperature or the mixing temperature;
a temperature sensor located in the mixing device, configured to emit a temperature sensor signal representative for the temperature in the mixing device;
wherein the control unit is configured to control the mixing device on the basis of the temperature signal to set the vaporizing temperature or the mixing temperature.
However, Hashimoto teaches:
a control unit, configured to control the mixing device to set the vaporizing temperature or the mixing temperature;
a temperature sensor located in the mixing device, configured to emit a temperature sensor signal representative for the temperature in the mixing device;
wherein the control unit is configured to control the mixing device on the basis of the temperature signal to set the vaporizing temperature or the mixing temperature (“the temperature in the high temperature chamber 10 is set to a temperature higher than the boiling point of kerosene (set temperature). In step 504, the heater 112 is operated to heat the heater, and in step 506, the temperature in the high-temperature chamber 10 reaches the set temperature based on the temperature detected by the sensor 36” all citations from the machine translation appended to the foreign reference).
PNG
media_image7.png
404
730
media_image7.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image8.png
536
416
media_image8.png
Greyscale
In view of Hashimoto’s teachings, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the control unit and temperature sensor as is taught in Hashimoto, in the assembly disclosed by Cripps because the court has held that broadly providing an automatic or mechanical means to replace a manual activity which accomplished the same result is not sufficient to distinguish over the prior art In re Venner, 262 F.2d 91, 95, 120 USPQ 193, 194 (CCPA 1958). In this case, the difference between Cripps and the claim is the provision of a control unit and sensor for providing an automatically adjustable temperature. Hashimoto teaches a control unit and sensor for automatically adjusting a temperature which can replace the manual activity of Cripps to accomplish the same result.
Regarding claim 39, Cripps, as modified by Robertson, discloses the method according to claim 37.
Cripps, as modified by Robertson, does not disclose:
measuring, with a temperature sensor, the temperature of the mixing device; and
controlling, with a control unit, the heating of the first fuel and the second fuel on the basis of the measured temperature to set the vaporizing temperature and the mixing temperature.
However, Hashimoto teaches:
measuring, with a temperature sensor, the temperature of the mixing device; and
controlling, with a control unit, the heating of the first fuel and the second fuel on the basis of the measured temperature to set the vaporizing temperature and the mixing temperature (“the temperature in the high temperature chamber 10 is set to a temperature higher than the boiling point of kerosene (set temperature). In step 504, the heater 112 is operated to heat the heater, and in step 506, the temperature in the high-temperature chamber 10 reaches the set temperature based on the temperature detected by the sensor 36” all citations from the machine translation appended to the foreign reference).
In view of Hashimoto’s teachings, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the control unit and temperature sensor as is taught in Hashimoto, in the assembly disclosed by Cripps because the court has held that broadly providing an automatic or mechanical means to replace a manual activity which accomplished the same result is not sufficient to distinguish over the prior art In re Venner, 262 F.2d 91, 95, 120 USPQ 193, 194 (CCPA 1958). In this case, the difference between Cripps and the claim is the provision of a control unit and sensor for providing an automatically adjustable temperature. Hashimoto teaches a control unit and sensor for automatically adjusting a temperature which can replace the manual activity of Cripps to accomplish the same result.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Serrano, in view of Van Bemmel (US 5165883 A), hereinafter Van Bemmel.
Regarding claim 22, Serrano discloses the hybrid domestic fireplace according to claim 13.
Serrano does not disclose wherein the second fuel storage comprises a second fuel level sensor, configured to emit a second fuel level sensor signal representative for the amount of second fuel remaining in the second fuel storage.
However, Van Bemmel teaches wherein the fuel storage comprises a fuel level sensor, configured to emit a second fuel level sensor signal representative for the amount of fuel remaining in the fuel storage (“The fuel level is monitored in a continuous manner at the bottom of the fuel tank by means of conventional circuitry. If the level is too low, an intermittent buzzer signal will be emitted together with a flashing bottom light for a time of e.g. 3 minutes. The amount of fuel available at the tank bottom in this condition is sufficient to keep the burner operating for another 30 minutes or so” column 7, line 67).
In view of Van Bemmel’s teachings, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include a fuel level sensor as is taught in Van Bemmel, in the device disclosed by Serrano because including a fuel level sensor will prevent the device from accidentally or unintentionally running out of fuel.
Claim 32 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Serrano, in view of Smith (US 0051976 A), hereinafter Smith.
Regarding claim 32, Serrano discloses the hybrid domestic fireplace according to claim 1, wherein the first fuel is in a liquid state at room temperature.
Serrano does not disclose wherein the first fuel comprises an alcohol.
However, Smith teaches wherein the first fuel comprises an alcohol (“It is intended to use petroleum or coal-oil in the lamps; but alcohol or other suitable burning-fluid may be employed” column 2).
Serrano does not disclose the claimed fuel. Smith teaches the claimed fuel. The substitution of one known element (the petroleum of Serrano) for another (the alcohol of Smith) would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention, since the substitution of the alcohol taught in Smith would have yielded predictable results, namely, fuel for combustion Agrizap, Inc. v. Woodstream Corp., 520 F.3d 1337, 86 USPQ2d 1110 (Fed. Cir. 2008).
Claims 35 and 36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cripps, in view of Robertson, and further in view of Hashimoto (WO 0166998 A1), hereinafter Hashimoto.
Regarding claims 35 and 36, Cripps, as modified by Robertson, discloses the hybrid domestic fireplace according to claim 1 further comprising:
a combustion chamber, in which the burner is accommodated (The fireplace of Robertson).
Cripps, as modified by Robertson, does not disclose a flue gas discharge configured to discharge flue gasses out of the combustion chamber, wherein the flue gas discharge further comprises a filter device configured to purify the flue gasses.
However, Cox teaches a flue gas discharge configured to discharge flue gasses out of the combustion chamber, wherein the flue gas discharge further comprises a filter device configured to purify the flue gasses (“The flue channel 40 may be formed by a brick chimney, a metallic pipe or duct, or any other suitable outlet for hot exhaust gases emitted by a fire in the fireplace. Positioned within flue channel 40 is a filter 50, which comprises a porous filter element 52 surrounded around its periphery by a frame 54 as shown in FIG. 2. When in use during a fire, filter 50 is supported and held in place in the fireplace flue channel 40” column 3, line 56).
PNG
media_image9.png
656
482
media_image9.png
Greyscale
In view of the teachings of Cox, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include a flue gas discharge configured to discharge flue gasses out of the combustion chamber, wherein the flue gas discharge further comprises a filter device configured to purify the flue gasses as is taught in Cox, in the fireplace as modified because Cox states “When in use, the filter 50 will filter out and remove smoke and dust particles and creosote components from the hot exhaust gases that rise from the fire, thereby reducing the amount of air pollution emitted by the fireplace” (column 4, line 24). Therefore, including the filter of Cox will reduce pollution emitted by the fireplace as modified.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 12, 14-21, 23-26, 28, 29, 33, and 45 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 30 and 31 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 38, 40, 41, and 43 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the double patenting rejections set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 12 recites “wherein the first fuel pump is a peristaltic pump.” The closest prior art Serrano discloses a pump, but not a peristaltic pump. No art was found such that the modification of Serrano would have rendered the claim obvious. Therefore, this limitation when combined with every other limitation of the independent and intervening claims, distinguishes the claim from the prior art.
Claim 14 recites “wherein the second fuel storage is, at least during use of the fireplace, configured to store the second fuel in a liquid state at an elevated storage temperature compared to the temperature of the surroundings of the fireplace.” The closest prior art Serrano discloses storing the second fuel in a liquid state, but not at an elevated storage temperature. No art was found such that the modification of Serrano would have rendered the claim obvious. Therefore, this limitation when combined with every other limitation of the independent and intervening claims, distinguishes the claim from the prior art. Claims 15-20 are objected to at least because they depend from claim 14.
Claim 21 recites “wherein the second fuel pump is a pulse pump.” The closest prior Serrano discloses a pump, but not a pulse pump. No art was found such that the modification of Serrano would have rendered the claim obvious. Therefore, this limitation when combined with every other limitation of the independent and intervening claims, distinguishes the claim from the prior art. Claim 23 is objected to at least because it depends from claim 21.
Claim 24 recites “wherein the second fuel storage comprises a fuel capsule holder, which is configured to receive a fuel capsule containing the second fuel.” The closest prior Serrano discloses a fuel holder, but not a fuel capsule holder. No art was found such that the modification of Serrano would have rendered the claim obvious. Therefore, this limitation when combined with every other limitation of the independent and intervening claims, distinguishes the claim from the prior art. Claims 25 and 26 objected to at least because they depend from claim 24.
Claim 28 recites “wherein the air supply comprises an air pump and an air hose, extending between the air pump and the mixing device; and wherein the air pump is configured to pump the air through the air hose.” The closest prior Serrano discloses an air supply, but not an air pump. No art was found such that the modification of Serrano would have rendered the claim obvious. Therefore, this limitation when combined with every other limitation of the independent and intervening claims, distinguishes the claim from the prior art.
Claim 29 recites “wherein the air supply forms part of the first fuel supply, configured to supply a gas mixture to the mixing device, which gas mixture comprises the flow of air and the gaseous first fuel.” The closest prior Serrano discloses an air supply, but not mixing air with the first fuel. No art was found such that the modification of Serrano would have rendered the claim obvious. Therefore, this limitation when combined with every other limitation of the independent and intervening claims, distinguishes the claim from the prior art.
Claim 30 recites “a control unit, configured to control the mixing device to set the vaporizing temperature or the mixing temperature; wherein the control unit is further configured to control the first fuel pump, the second fuel pump and the air pump.” The closest prior Serrano discloses an air supply, but not an air pump. No art was found such that the modification of Serrano would have rendered the claim obvious. Therefore, this limitation when combined with every other limitation of the independent and intervening claims, distinguishes the claim from the prior art. Claim 31 is objected to at least because it depends from claim 30.
Claim 33 recites “wherein the second fuel comprises wax and is in a solid state at room temperature.” The closest prior Cripps discloses paraffin, but not in a solid state. No art was found such that the modification of Cripps would have rendered the claim obvious. Therefore, this limitation when combined with every other limitation of the independent and intervening claims, distinguishes the claim from the prior art.
Claim 38 recites “heating, in the mixing device, the first fuel to a vaporizing temperature to vaporize the first fuel.” The closest prior Cripps discloses wherein the first fuel is a gas. No art was found such that the modification of Cripps would have rendered the claim obvious. Therefore, this limitation when combined with every other limitation of the independent and intervening claims, distinguishes the claim from the prior art.
Claim 40 recites “wherein the first fuel is in a liquid state at room temperature.” The closest prior Cripps discloses wherein the first fuel is a gas. No art was found such that the modification of Cripps would have rendered the claim obvious. Therefore, this limitation when combined with every other limitation of the independent and intervening claims, distinguishes the claim from the prior art.
Claim 41 recites “wherein the second fuel is in a solid state at room temperature.” The closest prior Cripps discloses paraffin, but not in a solid state. No art was found such that the modification of Cripps would have rendered the claim obvious. Therefore, this limitation when combined with every other limitation of the independent and intervening claims, distinguishes the claim from the prior art.
Claim 43 recites “preheating the burner according to a preheating cycle.” The closest prior Cripps as modified by Robertson discloses a burner, but not preheating the burner according to a preheating cycle. No art was found such that the modification of Cripps and Robertson would have rendered the claim obvious. Therefore, this limitation when combined with every other limitation of the independent and intervening claims, distinguishes the claim from the prior art.
Claim 45 recites “wherein the second fuel is in a solid state at room temperature.” The closest prior Cripps discloses paraffin, but not in a solid state. No art was found such that the modification of Cripps would have rendered the claim obvious. Therefore, this limitation when combined with every other limitation of the independent and intervening claims, distinguishes the claim from the prior art.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Societe Guenet et Abbat (GB 200108 A) “the reservoir 1 is filled with paraffin and, before screwing the plug again, a small quantity of alcohol is poured in” page 1, line 59
PNG
media_image10.png
380
478
media_image10.png
Greyscale
Frenette (US 20070169759 A1)
PNG
media_image11.png
472
654
media_image11.png
Greyscale
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