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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 80-100, in the reply filed on 7/1/26 is acknowledged.
Claims 101-102 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 7/1/26.
Claim Interpretation
Regarding claims 85-87. The claims recite the limitations, “mm2”, this is being interpreted as corresponding to mm2 or square millimeters. This is understood to be the Applicant’s intent based on paras. 70-72 of the PGPUB.
Regarding claim 100. The claim recites, “wherein a water content of the heat exchanger at a maximum output of 22 kW is less than seven liters.” This is being interpreted to correspond to the physical amount of liquid present within the volume of the heat exchanger. This interpretation appears to be supported by Applicant’s PGPUB in para. 94.
Claim Objections
The claims are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 86 should be amended to include a missing two and a missing period, as follows, “…100 m2 and 900 mm2.”
Appropriate correction is required.
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 80-100 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.
Regarding claims 82 and 84-87. The term “approximately” in each claim is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “approximately” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
For the purpose of substantive examination, Examiner will consider prior art that substantially teaches the claimed limitations as reading on the claimed invention.
Regarding claims 92 and 97. The phrase "preferably " renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
For the purpose of substantive examination, Examiner will consider the limitations following “preferably” as not being required to read on the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 91. The phrase "for example" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
For the purpose of substantive examination, Examiner will consider the limitations following “for example” as not being required to read on the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 80. The claim recites the limitation, “wherein the jacket-shaped intermediate space in the flame tube and the space between the flame tube and deflecting part define a combustion chamber” This is unclear because it reads as if the jacket shaped intermediate space is in the flame tube; whereas the jacket shaped intermediate space was previously defined as being in between the flame tube and the cylindrical heat exchanger, i.e. outside of the flame tube.
For the purpose of substantive examination, Examiner will consider the claim as if requiring the combustion chamber to be defined by three parts, the jacket shaped intermediate space, in the flame tube, and the space between the flame tube and deflecting part. This may have been applicant’s intent, and if so, it is kindly recommended to amend as such; for example, using commas to differentiate the separate parts that make up the combustion chamber.
Regarding claims 80-81. The claims recites “a differential pressure zone” It is unclear what the claimed differential pressure zones are in reference to. It is the Examiner’s best understanding that the differential pressure zone is the pressure difference between the limitations immediately prior to the differential pressure zone and the limitations described as “compared to” in the claim. For the purpose of substantive examination, Examiner will consider the claims as follows:
Claim 80. The differential pressure corresponding to the difference between a) the blower pressure and b) the pressure in the combustion chamber between the flame tube and the heat exchanger in a region of the slot-like pass-through openings.
Claim 81. The differential pressure corresponding to the difference between a) the pressure at the plurality of guide vanes and b) the pressure in the combustion chamber between the flame tube and the heat exchanger.
To the extent that Applicant disagrees with the Examiner’s interpretation of the claims, provided above, clarification is kindly requested in any subsequent reply.
Regarding claim 93. The claim recites the limitations, “a gas burner control unit with a safety time in accordance with the standards for gas”. It is unclear what is required by safety time and what the referenced standards for gas are.
For the purpose of substantive examination, Examiner will consider these limitations in view of para. 51 of the Applicant’s PGPUB, which states, “The burner is advantageously monitored with a burner safety monitor. Control units and operating parameters as are normally used for gas burners can be used for this type of burner safety monitoring. This means that the burner must light within seconds of starting, otherwise it will be switched off again after approximately 3 seconds safety time.”
Regarding claim 94. The claim recites “wherein the burner output can be adjusted up to a control ratio of 1:4 by regulating the blower pressure.” It is unclear what a control ratio is, i.e. a ratio of X/Y, where X and Y are unexplained. Para. 84 of the Applicant’s PGPUB states, “The burner output can advantageously be adjusted up to a control ratio of 1:4. This makes it possible to operate the burner continuously over a longer period of time. Due to the reduced number of switch-offs and switch-ons, the service life of the burner can be significantly increased and energy savings further improved.” This fails to explain what the ratio actually is, and instead just lists advantages of the ratio being 1:4.
For the purpose of substantive examination, Examiner will consider the claimed control ratio as corresponding to the ratio introduced in claim 93, and further as dependent upon claim 93.
Examiner Note: As noted below, the claims are replete with rejections based on a lack of antecedent basis. Applicant’s assistance is requested in ensuring the claims are reviewed to address all issues of antecedent basis.
Regarding Claim 80. The claim recites the limitation "the fuel-air-gas mixture" in the fifth paragraph. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
For the purpose of substantive examination, Examiner will consider the claim as if first introducing a fuel-air-gas mixture.
Regarding Claim 80. The claim recites the limitation "the fuel" in the seventh paragraph. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
For the purpose of substantive examination, Examiner will consider the claim as if first introducing a fuel. This limitation is understood to be related to the “fuel-air-gas mixture” discussed above.
Regarding Claim 82. The claim recites the limitation "the guide vanes". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
For the purpose of substantive examination, Examiner will consider claim 82 as if depending from 81, which properly recites, “wherein the faceplate has a plurality of guide vanes …”
Regarding Claims 85-87. The claims recite the limitation "the recirculation openings". There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claims.
For the purpose of substantive examination, Examiner will consider the claims as if first introducing recirculation openings.
Regarding Claim 91. The claim recites the limitation "the nozzle body shaft". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
For the purpose of substantive examination, Examiner will consider claim 91 as if depending from claim 90, which properly introduces, “wherein the nozzle unit comprises … a nozzle body shaft …”
Regarding Claim 93. The claim recites the limitation "the selected output". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
For the purpose of substantive examination, Examiner will consider the claim as if first introducing a selected output.
Regarding Claim 95. The claim recites the limitation "the oil pressure" in . There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
For the purpose of substantive examination, Examiner will consider the claim as if first introducing an oil pressure.
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) 80-82, 84-90, 92, and 97-99 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20010031440 A1 to Fullemann in view of US 11236903 B2 to Nett.
Regarding claim 80. Fullemann teaches a condensing or condensing combi boiler (para. 22, exhaust gas and condensates) using a blue flame burner (para. 39, last sentence), comprising:
a boiler housing with an inlet for combustion air (para. 18, air supply passage) and an outlet for combustion gases (para. 10, “The exhaust gas is … partially exhausted through the flue.”);
a cylindrical heat exchanger arranged in the boiler housing, with a slot-like pass-through openings for the combustion gases (fig. 2, heat exchanger 15);
a flame tube arranged in the cylindrical heat exchanger (fig. 2, fire tube 23) so that a jacket-shaped intermediate space is defined between the flame tube and the cylindrical heat exchanger (fig. 2, area 65);
PNG
media_image1.png
442
589
media_image1.png
Greyscale
ignition electrodes (fig. 5, spark electrodes 147) extending into the flame tube for the ignition of a fuel-air-gas mixture (para. 51);
a baffle plate with a faceplate arranged in the flame tube (figs. 5-6, baffle plate 113 having air vent 129 with swirl generating guide plates 131), through which face plate the combustion air is fed into the flame tube (para. 46);
a nozzle unit with a nozzle for atomization of a fuel (fig. 5, fuel injector 119, with fuel injector head 123);
a flame-deflecting part arranged at an axial distance from the flame tube (fig. 2, deflector piece 39),
wherein the jacket-shaped intermediate space, in the flame tube, and the space between the flame tube and deflecting part define a combustion chamber (fig. 2, combustion chamber 17 could be considered as including the area 65, within the flame tube 23, and between the flame tube 23 and the deflector piece 39, consistent with the rejection under 112(b) above); and
a blower connected to the boiler housing for generating a blower pressure (para. 57, “A fuel supply line and a blower (not shown) are attached to the supply passage.”), the blower configured to generate a blower pressure that when the burner is at full load, a differential pressure zone is generated with a differential pressure compared to a pressure in the combustion chamber between the flame tube and the heat exchanger in a region of the slot-like pass-through openings (Fig. 2, the gas flow is understood to flow from the air supply passage through the heater to the exhaust 31 and flue, therefore, a pressure differential between the blower and the pass through openings would be present at full load).
PNG
media_image2.png
537
845
media_image2.png
Greyscale
But fails to explicitly teach a differential pressure of at least 0.25 mbar.
Nett teaches a pressure drop across a conventional burner of greater than 3.7 mbar (table 3, copied below, and col. 23 ll. 35-55, “Note that the pressure drop (difference between the fan outlet pressure and the furnace inlet pressure) across the burner is only 1.5 inches, which is more than 40% improvement over conventional burner technology.” In other words, conventional burner technology would be even higher than the 1.5 inches of water column, equivalent to higher than approximately 3.7 mbar).
PNG
media_image3.png
332
608
media_image3.png
Greyscale
With regards to the limitation of “a differential pressure of at least 0.25 mbar”, it is the examiner’s position that choosing a differential pressure has predictable and expected results. For example, this pressure could be optimized by increasing for more flow through the water heater and decreasing for less pressure losses, the result of this optimization would have predictable and expected results. Since a differential pressure is a results effective variable which could be achieved through routine experimentation, the differential pressure 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 differential pressure to greater than or equal to 0.25 mbar, as claimed, 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.
Regarding claim 81. Modified Fullemann teaches the boiler according to claim 80, wherein the faceplate has a plurality of guide vanes (guide plates 131) projecting at an angle (para. 46, “Air vent 129 is furthermore equipped with swirl generating guide plates 131. These guide plates 131 are positioned radially and are slanted relative to the centerline 117 of fire tube and the direction of flow 114, so that air flowing through air vent 129 is energized into a rotary motion around centerline 117.”) so that during operation of the burner, under full load, a differential pressure zone of at least 0.25 mbar, compared to a pressure in the combustion chamber between the flame tube and the heat exchanger, can be generated (as noted by Nett above, typical burners would have a pressure differential across the burner of over 3.7 mbar, much higher than the claimed 0.25 mbar. Even considering the pressure differential of claim 81 as corresponding to a pressure differential other than across the entire burner, the claimed differential would still likely be present and/or obvious to optimize, as noted in the rejection to claim 80).
Regarding claim 82. Modified Fullemann teaches the boiler according to claim 81, wherein the faceplate is a disc with a central opening (fig. 7, central opening can be seen), wherein the guide vanes are arranged around the central opening (guide plates 131), each of the guide vanes connected to the disc by a web (portion labeled 132) wherein a width of the web of the guide vane in relation to a diameter of the faceplate is less than approximately 10 (the width of the portion labeled 132 is much smaller than the diameter of the faceplate).
PNG
media_image4.png
337
528
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 84. Modified Fullemann teaches the boiler according to claim 80,
But fails to teach wherein the blower is adapted to provide an adjustable blower pressure in front of the baffle plate of between approximately 4 mbar at low load and up to approximately 28 mbar at full load
Nett further teaches an adjustable blower (col. 9 ll. 15-25, “The resulting flame is typically monitored using a sensor 308 that can detect when the flame is extinguished and/or used as an element in a control system to, for example, modulate the flow rate and/or concentrations of the premix fuel-air mixture.”) with a blower pressure of 24.4 mbar (as noted in Nett Table 3, the premix discharge pressure, i.e. blower pressure, is 9.8 inches of water column, or 24.4 mbar).
PNG
media_image5.png
332
608
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 further modify the device of Fullemann to implement a suitable sensor and adjustable air flow rate, as taught by Nett. This would provide the predictable result and benefit of increasing system adjustability, as suggested by Nett in the portion cited above, col. 9 ll. 15-25.
With regards to the limitation of “a pressure of between approximately 4 mbar at low load and up to approximately 28 mbar at full load”, it is the examiner’s position that choosing a range of blower pressures has predictable and expected results. For example, this range could be optimized by selecting a range of suitable pressures for the system to operate, the result of this optimization would have predictable and expected results. Since a range of pressures is a results effective variable which could be achieved through routine experimentation, the range 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 range of Fullemann to 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.
Regarding claim 86. Modified Fullemann teaches the boiler according to any claim 80, wherein in a flame tube diameter of 80 mm (para. 50, “The fire tube 115 comprises an inner tube diameter of approximately 80 mm …”), 2 and 900 mm2. (as per para. 49, there are 18 recirculation openings having a diameter of 6mm; therefore, the cumulative area of the 18 openings is 508.86 mm2, which is within the claimed range)
Regarding claim 85. Modified Fullemann teaches the boiler according to claim 80,
But fails to explicitly teach wherein in a flame tube diameter of 90 mm, 2 and 1030 mm2.
Instead, as noted in the rejection to claim 86, Fullemann teaches a tube diameter of 80 mm and 508.86 mm2 of recirculation openings.
With regards to the limitation of “a flame tube diameter of 90 mm, recirculation openings occupy a region of between approximately 130 mm2 and 1030 mm2”, it is the examiner’s position that choosing a diameter and recirculation opening area has predictable and expected results. For example, this diameter and area could be optimized by scaling the overall flame tube taught by Fullemann up or down; to produce different heat outputs, the result of this optimization would have predictable and expected results. Since a diameter and area are results effective variables which could be achieved through routine experimentation, the diameter and area are 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 size of the flame tube to 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.
Further, MPEP 2144.04 IV.A. describes changes in size/proportion being obvious. And slightly scaling up the dimensions of Fullemann’s device would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 87. The claim is rejected using substantially the same rationale as applied to claim 85, above, where it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to slightly scale down the dimensions of Fullemann’s device.
Regarding claim 88. Modified Fullemann teaches the boiler according to claim 80, wherein a burner housing closing the boiler housing on one side is provided (cover 57 and/or panel insert 125), on which boiler housing the flame tube and the nozzle unit are arranged and the inlet for combustion air is provided (figs. 2 and 5, described in para. 38, “On the side of the boiler 11 that houses the burner head resides cover 57, which is bolted against housing 13. Cover 57 comprises an opening 59 on whose inside resides a panel or baffle plate 61, onto which the fire tube 23 is mounted.”).
Regarding claim 89. Modified Fullemann teaches the boiler according to claim 88, wherein at the burner housing is closed with a detachable burner housing cover (at least the cover 57 and or panel insert 125 is detachable), in which the nozzle unit is arranged wherein the burner housing defines an inflow chamber for the combustion air (fig. 5, the fuel injector head 123 is arranged in the inflow chamber defined by the guide plates 131).
Regarding claim 90. Modified Fullemann teaches the boiler according to claim 89, wherein the nozzle unit comprises a nozzle body with a nozzle body head located outside the burner housing (left side of 119 in the figure) and a nozzle body shaft extending in the inflow chamber (right side of 119 in the figure) and accommodating the nozzle (123).
PNG
media_image6.png
392
600
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 92. Modified Fullemann teaches the boiler according to claim 80, wherein at least one strainer insert, preferably a perforated plate (fig. 9, perforated plate 157) having a hole diameter between 1 and 3 mm (interpreted as not required to read on the claim due to “preferably”), is provided upstream of the faceplate to calm the combustion air in the direction of flow (para. 57, “However, a perforated plate 157 is positioned downstream in front of the baffle plate 113 and a distance to said baffle plate 113. The perforated plate 157 comprises an opening 158 through which the oil injector 119 penetrates. Several holes are places around this area which serve to create a pressure loss designed to avoid a blow-back of the flames into the supply passage 155. A fuel supply line and a blower (not shown) are attached to the supply passage.” Where the air flow is understood to be at least partially clamed in the direction of flow by the presence of the perforated plate 157, at least to the same extent as the Applicant’s).
Regarding claim 97. Modified Fullemann teaches the boiler according to claim 80, wherein the blower is configured to generate in the space between the flame tube and the heat exchanger a pressure of more than 0.2 mbar, preferably more than 0.3 mbar and more preferably more than 0.4 mbar (As taught by Nett, the furnace inlet pressure is 8.3 inches of water column, or 20.7 mbar, much higher than claimed. Therefore, it would have been obvious to operate the system of Fullemann within the claimed range, as described in the rejection to claim 80).
Regarding claim 98. Modified Fullemann teaches the boiler according to claim 80, wherein the electrodes for the ignition of the fuel-air-gas mixture are guided laterally through an opening in the flame tube (fig. 5, the electrodes are guided in from the left, through the left opening in the flame tube, para. 51).
Regarding claim 99. The boiler according to claim 80, wherein the ignition electrodes are guided through an opening in the flame tube casing at a distance downstream of the air faceplate (para. 51, “The spark electrodes 147 are inserted through the baffle plate 13 near the periphery of the fire tube 115 with insulating elements 149 and protrude with their ends 151 into the fire tube 115. The point 153 at which the spark is generated is placed at a distance from the baffle plate 113 equal to approximately 2/5 of the length of fire tube 115.” From para. 50, the total length of the fire tube is 160 mm, meaning the distance of the spark electrodes is 64 mm from the baffle plate 113)
But fails to teach between 40 and 55 mm.
As noted in the rejection to claim 85, it would have been obvious to scale down the device of Fullemann. When suitably scaling down the device of Fullemann, it would have been obvious to optimize the electrodes to within the claimed range. Therefore, 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.
Claim(s) 83 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fullemann in view of Nett as applied to claim 80 above, and further in view of US 20200224941 A1 to Cocuzza.
Regarding claim 83. Modified Fullemann teaches the boiler according to claim 80,
But fails to teach wherein the flame-deflecting part comprises a plate of a ceramic material.
Cocuzza teaches a plate of a ceramic material (fig. 1, insulation 26, described in para. 21, “Insulation 26 surrounds at least the top and upper portion of the side of the combustion chamber 22.” And “The insulation 26 retains heat in the combustion chamber 22 to maximize heat transfer to water and steam in the steam tube 28.” Where the disclosure further describes insulation as ceramic, “Insulation can be as simple as an air gap, or may include any known type of insulation used in furnaces, such as refractory ceramic fiber, mineral fiber, or the like.”).
PNG
media_image7.png
792
437
media_image7.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 Fullemann to utilize a suitable ceramic material for the flame deflecting part, as taught by Cocuzza. As noted in MPEP 2144.07, “The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination …” in this case, selecting a ceramic material as the flame deflecting part of Fullemann would have been obvious.
Claim(s) 91 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fullemann in view of Nett as applied to claim 90 above, and further in view of the attached NPL to Danfoss, Oil Nozzles, with a Google date of 3/24/21.
Regarding claim 91. Modified Fullemann teaches the boiler according to claim 90,
But fails to explicitly teach wherein at least the nozzle body shaft is made of a material with good thermal conductivity, for example, brass or aluminum.
It is known in the art from Danfoss to provide an oil nozzle made of brass (“Danfoss offers a range of oil nozzles in both brass and steel for standard burner systems.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify the device of Fullemann to implement a fuel injector made of brass, as taught by Danfoss. This would have been obvious since brass is a known material suitable for burner nozzles, see MPEP 2144.07, which states, “The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination …”
Claim(s) 93 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fullemann in view of Nett as applied to claim 80 above, and further in view of the attached NPL to Cornell, 248 CMR, § 7.03 - Installation of Burners and Controls, effective 12/5/2014.
Regarding claim 93. Modified Fullemann teaches the boiler according to claim 80,
wherein the gas burner control unit is adapted such that the ratio of the blower pressure before the faceplate and the differential pressure in the flame tube automatically adjusts according to a selected output (given a burner output, the blower pressure and differential pressure would have some ratio that automatically adjusts, per se).
But fails to teach wherein it comprises a gas burner control unit with a safety time in accordance with the standards for gas to monitor the burner.
Cornell teaches that it is known to have a burner with flame safeguard (section 4, “Primary Safety Control (Flame Safeguard) (a) Unless a flame safeguard control is provided by the manufacturer, each burner assembly shall be provided with a non-recycling primary safety control that will de-energize the main gas safety shutoff valve(s) upon loss of flame at point of supervision.”)
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 Fullemann to implement a suitable flame safeguard, as taught by Cornell. This would provide the predictable result and benefit of increasing safety, as suggested by Cornell is section 4.
Claim(s) 95 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fullemann in view of Nett as applied to claim 80 above, and further in view of the attached NPL to HVAC School, Oil Nozzles, published on 1/27/17.
Regarding claim 95. Modified Fullemann teaches the boiler according to claim 80, wherein the boiler comprises a pressure generator for regulating an oil pressure (para. 17, “For oil operation, an injector sprays oil into the exhaust gas being re-circulated into the fire tube; the inlet openings into the fire tube for fresh air as well as exhaust are designed so that fresh air and exhaust are mixed together inside the hollow cylinder or the hollow truncated cone making up the turbulent zone. As the oil mixes with the exhaust, it fully evaporates prior to its mixing with air. This assures very low exhaust emission values and an excellent starting behavior of the burner.”),
But fails to explicitly teach wherein the oil pressure can be regulated in a range between 3 bar and 28 bar.
It is known in the art from HVAC School that oil burners operate at about 6.9 bar (“Nozzles are generally rated at 100 psi, and that is the pressure that most residential-style oil burners run at …” where 100 psi is about 6.9 bar).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to operate the device of Fullemann with an oil pressure of 6.9 bar, as taught by HVAC School. This would provide the predictable result and benefit of providing the desired spray pattern for manufactured nozzles, as suggested by HVAC School in the first two paragraphs.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 94, 96, and 100 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 94. Fullemann in view of Nett and Cornell, applied to claim 93, represents the closest prior art of record to the claimed invention. The prior art fails to teach, “wherein the burner output can be adjusted up to a control ratio of 1:4 by regulating the blower pressure”, in addition to the rest of the claim.
Specifically, the ratio as interpreted in view of the rejection under 112(b) above, i.e. the ratio of claim 93: “the ratio of the blower pressure before the faceplate and the differential pressure in the flame tube”. Furthermore, it would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device of Fullemann to operate as claimed, at least since the blower pressure before the faceplate would be much higher than any differential pressure in the flame tube. This relationship can be seen from Nett Table 3, where the device of Fullemann would be expected to operate similarly to the device of Nett. In particular, the ratio of the premix discharge pressure to the burner pressure drop is 9.8:1.5 or about 6.5, much higher than 1:4 or 0.25 as claimed.
PNG
media_image3.png
332
608
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 96. The combination of Fullemann in view of Nett, applied to claim 80, represents the closest prior art of record to the claimed invention. The prior art fails to teach, “wherein the ratio of flame tube length to flame tube diameter is between 1.5 and 0.8”, in addition to the rest of the claim.
Instead, Fullemann teaches “The fire tube 115 comprises an inner tube diameter of approximately 80 mm and a length of 160 mm.”, para. 50. Therefore, the ratio is 2 in Fullemann. Furthermore, it would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the flame tube of Fullemann to have the claimed dimensional ratio, since this would go against the teachings of para. 51, see also fig. 6 and paras. 52-56, which discuss the desired combustion properties along the length of the tube. Finally, shortening the tube would not have been an obvious change in size/proportion as detailed in MPEP 2144.04 IV.A, since the proportion would remain when scaling up or down in size.
PNG
media_image8.png
440
763
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 100. Fullemann in view of Nett, applied to claim 80, represents the closest prior art of record to the claimed invention. The prior art fails to teach, “wherein the boiler comprises a condensing combi boiler and wherein a water content of the heat exchanger at a maximum output of 22 kW is less than seven liters”, in addition to the rest of the claim.
Instead, Fullemann is silent as to the maximum output of the boiler and any combi boiler function. Furthermore, it would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Fullemann to have the water capacity in a heat exchanger with maximum output, as claimed; especially given the teachings of Nett, which state “Typical burner systems range in capacity from 30 kW to 1,500 kW (approximately 40 HP to 2,100 HP) and can be adapted to a wide range of uses including incinerators, boilers, drying systems, industrial ovens and furnaces.”, col. 6 ll. 30-35. Where the prior art also fails to teach the particular water capacity claimed.
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 7:30 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