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
The claims are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 12 should read roll formed, “… wherein the flame arrestor is roll
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4, 13-15, and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by US 6418884 B1 to Rucker.
Regarding claim 1. Rucker teaches a gas water heater appliance (fig. 1), comprising:
a tank for storage of water for heating (tank 14);
a combustion chamber wall positioned below the tank and defining a combustion chamber and a pilot air inlet (inner vertical side wall 28 defining combustion chamber 22 and having lower holes 44);
a gas burner positioned within the combustion chamber to heat the water in the tank (burner 32); and
an arrestor assembly mounted to the combustion chamber wall above the pilot air inlet and below the gas burner (scale deflector 10 and perforated plate 24), the arrestor assembly comprising:
a flame arrestor (perforated plate 24); and
a restrictor plate positioned adjacent the flame arrestor (scale deflector 10), the restrictor plate defining a bottom of the combustion chamber (the scale deflector 10 could be considered as defining the bottom of the combustion chamber to the same extent that Applicant’s restrictor plate could be) and comprising one or more apertures that provide fluid communication between the pilot air inlet and the combustion chamber (figs. 1-2, cutout area 46).
PNG
media_image1.png
500
676
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2. Rucker teaches the gas water heater appliance of claim 1, wherein the restrictor plate defines an arcuate profile within a vertical plane (fig. 1, the scale deflector 10 can be seen to have an arcuate profile).
Regarding claim 4. Rucker teaches the gas water heater appliance of claim 1, wherein the one or more apertures are defined proximate a center of the restrictor plate (fig. 2, generally circular central portion 46a).
Regarding claim 13. Rucker teaches the gas water heater appliance of claim 1, wherein the flame arrestor is a mesh screen (optional limitation) or a perforated plate (perforated plate 24).
Regarding claim 14. The claim is rejected using substantially the same rationale as applied to claim 1.
Regarding claim 15. The claim is rejected using substantially the same rationale as applied to claim 2.
Regarding claim 17. The claim is rejected using substantially the same rationale as applied to claim 4.
Claim(s) 1, 7-11, 14, and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by US 6109216 A to Reynolds.
Regarding claim 1. Reynolds teaches a gas water heater appliance (fig. 2), comprising:
a tank for storage of water for heating (tank 14);
a combustion chamber wall positioned below the tank and defining a combustion chamber and a pilot air inlet (skirt 54 and vertical wall of base pan 12, defining combustion chamber 46 and air inlet 100);
a gas burner positioned within the combustion chamber to heat the water in the tank (conventional gas burner 48); and
an arrestor assembly mounted to the combustion chamber wall above the pilot air inlet and below the gas burner (flame arrestor support 78 and attached components), the arrestor assembly comprising:
a flame arrestor (flame arrestor 74, attached to support 78); and
a restrictor plate positioned adjacent the flame arrestor (radiation shield 58, attached to support 78 and adjacent the flame arrestor 74), the restrictor plate defining a bottom of the combustion chamber (radiation shield 58 could be said to define the bottom of the combustion chamber 46 to the same extent as Applicant’s restrictor plate) and comprising one or more apertures that provide fluid communication between the pilot air inlet and the combustion chamber (apertures 104, described on col. 5 ll. 40-45, “As indicated by the arrows in FIG. 2, air flows through the screen 102, into the plenum 86, through the flame arrestor 74, and around the radiation shield 58 or through apertures 104 in the radiation shield 58 (see also FIG. 7).”).
PNG
media_image2.png
519
756
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 7. Reynolds teaches the gas water heater appliance of claim 1, wherein a gap is formed between the restrictor plate and the combustion chamber wall (as noted in col. 5 ll. 40-45 and shown in fig. 2, a gap is formed between the radiation shield 58 and the skirt 54).
Regarding claim 8. Reynolds teaches the gas water heater appliance of claim 7,
But fails to explicitly teach wherein a total cross-sectional area of the one or more apertures and the gap is between about 3 and 8 square inches.
With regards to the limitation of “a total cross-sectional area of the one or more apertures and the gap is between about 3 and 8 square inches.”, it is the examiner’s position that choosing a cross sectional area of one or more apertures and a gap has predictable and expected results. For example, this cross sectional area could be optimized by increasing for more air flow to the burner or decreasing to provide more radiation shielding, the result of this optimization would have predictable and expected results. Since a total cross sectional area is a results effective variable which could be achieved through routine experimentation, the total cross sectional area is selected expectedly based on the desired application.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to optimize the total cross sectional area to be within the claimed range, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05 Section II A and B.
Examiner Note: The limitation to “about” is not being interpreted as unclear under 112(b) in view of para. 24 of the Applicant’s PGPUB.
Regarding claim 9. Reynolds teaches the gas water heater appliance of claim 7,
But fails to explicitly teach wherein a nominal gap length of the gap is between about 0.03 and 0.07 inches.
With regards to the limitation of “a nominal gap length of the gap is between about 0.03 and 0.07 inches.”, it is the examiner’s position that choosing a nominal gap length has predictable and expected results. For example, this length could be optimized by increasing for more airflow through the gap or decreasing to provide more radiation shielding, the result of this optimization would have predictable and expected results. Since a length is a results effective variable which could be achieved through routine experimentation, the length is selected expectedly based on the desired application.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to optimize the nominal gap length to be within the claimed range, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05 Section II A and B.
Examiner Note: The limitation to “about” is not being interpreted as unclear under 112(b) in view of para. 24 of the Applicant’s PGPUB.
Regarding claim 10. Reynolds teaches the gas water heater appliance of claim 1, further comprising:
a burner support bracket mounted on a top of the restrictor plate for supporting the gas burner (fig. 2, retainer member 62, described in cols. 6-7, “Referring now to FIG. 2, the retainer member 62 performs a number of functions, including supporting the burner 48 in the operating position shown, positioning the radiation shield 58 in the operating position shown, holding the flame arrestor 74 in the operating position shown”).
Regarding claim 11. Reynolds teaches the gas water heater appliance of claim 10, wherein the burner support bracket is welded to the arrestor assembly (col. 7 l. 25, “A ring portion 166 of the retainer member 62 includes a downwardly-facing convex surface that compresses the seals 66, 70 so that a quality seal may be achieved. The ring portion 166 may be tack or spot welded to the flame arrestor support 78”).
PNG
media_image3.png
317
618
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 14. The claim is rejected using substantially the same rationale as applied to claim 1.
Regarding claim 19. The claim is rejected using substantially the same rationale as applied to claim 7.
Regarding claim 20. The claim is rejected using substantially the same rationale as applied to claim 8.
Examiner Note: The limitation to “about” is not being interpreted as unclear under 112(b) in view of para. 24 of the Applicant’s PGPUB
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.
Claim(s) 5-6, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rucker as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 9038575 B2 to Boros.
Regarding claim 5. Rucker teaches the gas water heater appliance of claim 1, wherein the one or more apertures are defined on a raised portion of the restrictor plate (Rucker fig. 1, the scale deflector shield 10 has an aperture on a raised portion).
But fails to teach the raised portion being an embossment.
Boros teaches a restrictor plate having one or more apertures defined on a raised embossment (fig. 3, bottom wall 60 with air supply opening 78 on platform structure 74).
PNG
media_image4.png
525
638
media_image4.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the device of Rucker to implement a scale deflector having a platform structure, as taught by Boros. This would provide the predictable result and benefit of allowing for components to be mounted in a suitable way, as suggested by Boros in col. 5 ll. 5-10, “Representatively, the pilot burner 42 is operatively supported within the combustion chamber 24 by a bracket 82 secured to the main burner gas supply line 34, and the tube 48 is operatively supported within the combustion chamber 24 by a bracket 84 secured to the top side wall 76 of the platform structure 74.”
Regarding claim 6. Modified Rucker teaches the gas water heater appliance of claim 5,
But fails to teach wherein the gas water heater appliance further comprises:
a pilot light, wherein the raised embossment is defined directly below the pilot light.
As per the modification by Boros, the scale deflector of Rucker would be provided as a platform structure. It would have further been obvious to arrange a pilot burner on the platform structure, as taught by Boros (fig. 3, pilot burner 42).
This would provide the predictable result and benefit of providing a pilot burner for ignition of the main burner, while effectively utilizing the heat of the pilot burner, as suggested by Boros in col. 3 l. 65 – col. 4 l. 15, “During "standby" periods of the water heater 12 (i.e., periods when the main burner 26 is not being fired), the pilot burner 42 continues to generate the indicated pilot flame 46 within the combustion chamber 24, the pilot flame 46 being used to ignite the main burner 26 when the gas valve and control 32 supplies gas to it the next time the main burner needs to be fired. In many conventional standing pilot systems, most of the heat from the standing pilot flame 46 simply goes up the flue 28 without adding appreciable heat to the tank water 22. However, in the standing pilot burner system 10 of the present invention, this waste of standby pilot flame heat is reduced by the provision within the combustion chamber 24 of a heat concentrating structure representatively in the form of a generally vertically oriented tube member 48 having an open upper end 50 positioned downwardly adjacent the bottom head 16, and a downwardly and horizontally outwardly flared open lower end 52 disposed above the standing pilot flame 46.”
Regarding claim 18. The claim is rejected using substantially the same rationale as applied to claim 5, above, where Rucker teaches the arrestor assembly of claim 14.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rucker as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 20030196609 A1 to Stretch.
Regarding claim 12. Rucker teaches the gas water heater appliance of claim 1, wherein the flame arrestor is formed along with the combustion chamber wall to secure the arrestor assembly within the combustion chamber wall (fig. 1, plate 24 can be seen to be formed along with the combustion chamber wall 28, i.e. no gap is present).
But fails to teach the flame arrestor is roll
Stretch teaches a flame arrestor is roll formed along with the combustion chamber wall (para. 44, “The bottom wall of the combustion chamber 18 is defined by a specially designed circular arrestor plate 24 having a peripheral edge portion received and captively retained in an annular roll-formed crimp area 26 of the skirt upwardly spaced apart from its lower end 27.”)
PNG
media_image5.png
502
762
media_image5.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the device of Rucker such that the plate 24 is roll formed along with the combustion chamber wall, as taught by Stretch. This would provide the predictable result and benefit of suitably forming the bottom wall of the combustion chamber, as suggested by Stretch in para. 44, cited above.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3 and 16 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 3. Rucker and/or Reynolds, each applied to claims 1 and/or 14, represents the closest prior art of record to the claimed invention. The prior art fails to teach, “wherein the restrictor plate is formed as a hyperbolic paraboloid.”, in addition to the rest of the claim.
Instead, Rucker teaches a substantially saucer shaped restrictor plate, col. 4 l. 20, “The shield 10 has a generally inverted saucer shape” and Reynolds teaches a substantially flat radiation shield 58. Furthermore, it would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to arrange these elements as hyperbolic paraboloids, as claimed, based on the prior art of record, since this would add complexity with no clear motivation.
Regarding claim 16. The claim is allowable for the same reason as claim 3.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Kurt J Wolford whose telephone number is (571)272-9945. The examiner can normally be reached 6:30 AM - 4:00 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, Michael G 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.
/KURT J WOLFORD/Examiner, Art Unit 3762 /MICHAEL G HOANG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3762
Prosecution Insights