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 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.
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 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 9741387 A1 (hereinafter “FERLIN”) in view of EP 0554511 A1 (hereinafter “GERTLER”).
PNG
media_image1.png
863
1589
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 1, FERLIN discloses a burner for a heater, comprising: a shell (62) provided with a circumferential surface (see the figures), a gas chamber (“The center of lower burner head 80 is dish-shaped” and “The center of upper burner head 82 is dish-shaped”), a plurality of flame guide channels (see 88, 98) and an air intake (92); wherein one end of each flame guide channel is communicated with the gas chamber, and other end of each flame guide channel intersects the circumferential surface; the air intake (92) is communicated with the gas chamber; and an ejector assembly (see at least 56) detachably connected to the air intake and provided with an air passage hole (i.e., the inlet and/or outlet of the ejector assembly) communicated with the air intake.
FERLIN does not disclose an extension direction of each flame guide channel is configured to form a non-perpendicular angle relative to the circumferential surface.
GERTLER teaches a burner wherein an extension direction of each flame guide channel (8) is configured to form a non-perpendicular angle (Ɵ, indicated in annotated Fig. 1a below) relative to the circumferential surface.
PNG
media_image2.png
644
1076
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify FERLIN wherein an extension direction of each flame guide channel is configured to form a non-perpendicular angle relative to the circumferential surface as taught and/or suggested by GERTLER, since the provided English translation of GERTLER states that “The inclination of the gas outlet channels relative to an imaginary assigned radius results in a particular swirl. The gas / air mixture is swirled after the outlet through the outlet channels designed according to the invention in a screw-like manner, ie in a spiral-like manner, as a result of which optimum combustion occurs. This reduces CO and NO .sub.x .”.
Regarding Claim 2, FERLIN further discloses wherein the shell (62) comprises: an upper shell (82), provided with a first accommodation recess (“The center of upper burner head 82 is dish-shaped”) and a plurality of first flame guide grooves (98) communicated with the first accommodation recess; and a lower shell (80), connected to the upper shell, and provided with a second accommodation recess (“The center of lower burner head 80 is dish-shaped”) and a plurality of second flame guide grooves (88) communicated with the second accommodation recess; wherein the first accommodation recess and the second accommodation recess are configured to form the gas chamber (inherent; i.e., the space or volume between surfaces 90 and 100); the plurality of first flame guide grooves (98) and the plurality of second flame guide grooves (88) are configured to form the plurality of flame guide channels.
Regarding Claims 3-5, FERLIN further discloses wherein the upper shell is provided with a plurality of rivet joint protrusions (96), and the lower shell is provided with a plurality of rivet joint grooves (94); the plurality of rivet joint protrusions and the plurality of rivet joint grooves are cooperated to rivet the upper shell and the lower shell (The exterior circumferential edge of lower burner head 80 defines a plurality of slots 94 and tabs 96 alternately and evenly spaced around lower burner head 80. In the preferred embodiment, there are 4 slots 94 spaced 90° from each other and 4 tabs 96 spaced 90° from each other and 45 ° from a respective slot. Slots 94 and tabs 96 mate with an identical set of slots 94 and tabs 96 formed on upper burner head 82 to secure heads 80 and 82 together mechanically without brazing or welding.); wherein the upper shell (82) is provided with a first circumferential edge, and the plurality of rivet joint protrusions (96) are arranged at the first circumferential edge with even intervals; the lower shell (80) is provided with a second circumferential edge, and the plurality of rivet joint grooves (94) are arranged at the second circumferential edge corresponding to the plurality of rivet joint protrusions; wherein the upper shell (82) is provided with a first circumferential edge, the plurality of first flame guide grooves (98) are arranged and formed at the first circumferential edge with even intervals by punching (“…a gas burner (14) which is fabricated from a precision steel stamping process.” NOTE: Stamping is a broader sheet metal forming process that shapes metal into specific forms using a die and press. Stamping can include multiple operations such as punching, blanking, bending, embossing, flanging, coining, and deep drawing.), and the plurality of rivet joint protrusions (96) are formed at the first circumferential edge by punching; and/or the lower shell (80) is provided with a second circumferential edge, the plurality of second flame guide grooves (88) are arranged and formed at the second circumferential edge with even intervals by punching, and the plurality of rivet joint grooves (94) are formed at the second circumferential edge by cutting (see Fig. 4 which depicts rivet joint grooves 94 as cuts). Furthermore, Claim 5 is a product-by-process claim, which is a product claim that defines the claimed product in terms of the process by which it is made. "[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985); see also MPEP § 2113. 1.
Regarding Claims 6 and 7, FERLIN further discloses wherein the plurality of flame guide channels (see 88, 98) are arranged at the shell with intervals and evenly arranged along the circumferential surface (“Lower burner head 80 is a generally circular member having a plurality of semi-circular gas ports 88 spaced equally around its circumference. In the preferred embodiment, there are 40 ports 88 spaced equally at 9° .” and “Upper burner head 82 is a generally circular member having a plurality of semi-circular ports 98 spaced around its circumference in an identical pattern to ports 88 of lower burner head 80.”).
FERLIN does not disclose wherein the plurality of flame guide channels form a spiral arrangement; wherein an angle formed between each flame guide channel and the circumferential surface ranges from 100 degrees to 120 degrees, and each angle has a same size.
GERTLER teaches wherein the plurality of flame guide channels (8) form a spiral arrangement; wherein an angle (Ɵ, indicated in annotated Fig. 1a above) formed between each flame guide channel and the circumferential surface ranges from 100 degrees to 120 degrees, and each angle has a same size.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify FERLIN wherein the plurality of flame guide channels form a spiral arrangement; wherein an angle formed between each flame guide channel and the circumferential surface ranges from 100 degrees to 120 degrees, and each angle has a same size as taught and/or suggested by GERTLER, since the provided English translation of GERTLER states that “The inclination of the gas outlet channels relative to an imaginary assigned radius results in a particular swirl. The gas / air mixture is swirled after the outlet through the outlet channels designed according to the invention in a screw-like manner, ie in a spiral-like manner, as a result of which optimum combustion occurs. This reduces CO and NO .sub.x .”.
Regarding Claim 8, FERLIN further discloses wherein the ejector assembly comprises: an ejector tube (56) connected to the shell (62) and provided with the air passage hole (e.g., the inlet and/or outlet of ejector tube 56); a burner support (36) connected to the ejector tube for installing an ignition device (32); and an ejector tube support (54) connected to the air passage hole for installing an electromagnetic valve (“Thermocouple 34 is positioned within the pilot flame and is in electrical communication with control valve 22 to control the supply of gas to both pilot burner 32 and gas burner 14. The operation of control valve 22 and thermocouple 34 are well known in the art and will not be discussed further herein.”).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over FERLIN in view of GERTLER as applied to Claim 8 above, and further in view of US 2022/0163199 A1 (hereinafter “CALOCA”) and US 2019/0107287 A1 (hereinafter “KITABAYASHI”).
Regarding Claim 10, FERLIN in view of GERTLER does not disclose further comprising a graphitic gasket connected between the shell and the ejector assembly.
CALOCA teaches a burner comprising a gasket (184) connected between a shell (158) and an ejector assembly (136).
KITABAYASHI teaches a burner comprising a graphitic gasket (142; “In some embodiments, the gasket comprises graphite or other temperature resistant flexible and compressible material(s).”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to further modify FERLIN in view of GERTLER to further comprise a graphitic gasket connected between the shell and the ejector assembly as taught and/or suggested by the combined teachings of CALOCA and KITABAYASHI, since FERLIN, CALOCA and KITABAYASHI all teach a means of coupling an ejector assembly to a shell, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to substitute one coupling method for the other to achieve the predictable result of coupling said ejector assembly to said shell in a sealed manner. Furthermore, Official Notice is taken that gaskets are a conventional or well-known device used to sealing couple mechanical elements. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify FERLIN in view of GERTLER to include and/or incorporate a gasket, made of a suitable material, between said ejector assembly and said shell in order to sealing couple the two elements together.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 9 is 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure because the references are either in the same field of endeavor or are reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the applicant was concerned. Please see form PTO-892 (Notice of References Cited) attached to, or included with, this Office Action.
For example:
PNG
media_image3.png
698
2218
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JORGE A PEREIRO whose telephone number is (571)270-3932 and whose fax number is (571) 270-4932. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9:00 - 5:00 EST.
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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JORGE A PEREIRO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3799
Prosecution Insights