DETAILED ACTION
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 listed below are objected to because of the following informalities:
In Claim 1, lines 3-4, change “an injector holder (6) to be applied in correspondence with an opening intended to be made in a hob (10) of a caravan” to -- an injector holder (6) configured to fit within an opening of a hob (10) of a caravan -- (or equivalent)
In Claim 1, line 8, change “comprising” to -- comprises --
In Claim 1, lines 9-10, change “the combustible mixture” to -- a combustible mixture --
In Claim 2, line 4, change “the support/overlapping direction” to -- a support/overlapping direction --
In Claim 10, the 2nd to last line, change “obtained” to -- disposed --
In Claim 11, change “wherein said at least one fastening member (59) passes through said at least one opening (54) which is through, obtained in the flame spreader (4), to thus come out from a bottom portion of the flame spreader itself,” to -- wherein said at least one fastening member (59) passes through said at least one opening (54) of the flame spreader (4) and comes out from a bottom portion of the flame spreader (4), -- (or equivalent)
In Claim 11, the 2nd to last line, change “said second element” to -- a second element --
In Claim 12, change “wherein said at least one fastening member (59) passes through said at least one opening (54) which is through, obtained in the flame spreader (4), to thus come out from the bottom of the flame spreader itself,” to -- wherein said at least one fastening member (59) passes through said at least one opening (54) of the flame spreader (4) and comes out from a bottom of the flame spreader (4), -- (or equivalent)
In Claim 12, line 5, change “said second element” to -- a second element --
In Claim 12, the last line, change “a bottom portion” to -- the bottom portion --
In Claim 13, lines 4-6, change “wherein said fastening means comprise said at least one first element (70) of the magnetic connection means which is configured to be mounted on the injector holder (6)” to -- wherein said fastening means comprise at least one first magnetic element (70) that is configured to be mounted on the injector holder (6) -- (or equivalent)
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“locking means (59, 54) to prevent or limit movement, at least a lateral movement, between the flame spreader (4) and the lid (8)” (Claim 1)
“means (70, 80) for magnetically connecting the injector holder (6) with the flame spreader (4) and/or the lid (8)” (Claim 1)
“means for fastening the injector holder (6) to the plate of the cooking hob (10)” (Claim 14)
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
“locking means (59, 54) to prevent or limit movement, at least a lateral movement, between the flame spreader (4) and the lid (8)” (from Claim 1), given at least pg. 5 lines 12-14, is being interpreted as a pin, a screw or a bolt and a corresponding opening, and equivalents thereof
“means (70, 80) for magnetically connecting the injector holder (6) with the flame spreader (4) and/or the lid (8)” (from Claim 1), given at least pg. 12 lines 1-8, is being interpreted as the combination of first and second magnetic elements wherein one element comprises a magnetized material and the other element comprises a ferromagnetic material, and equivalents thereof
“means for fastening the injector holder (6) to the plate of the cooking hob (10)” (from Claim 14), given at least pg. 6 lines 20-24, is being interpreted as a magnetic element that comprises a magnetic material or a ferromagnetic material, and equivalents thereof
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claims 1-6, 10 and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Breccia et al. (US 2019/0041056 A1) (hereinafter “Breccia”) in view of Frost (US 9,217,571 B1).
Regarding Claim 1, Breccia teaches of a gas burner (Fig. 1) for caravans, boats or vehicles (see Abstract and Fig. 1 - “A gas burner for caravans, boats and vehicles”), the gas burner comprising:
- an injector holder (6) (see at least [0025] and Figs. 1-4) configured to fit within an opening of a hob (10) (as is shown in Figs. 3-4) of a caravan, boat or vehicle (see at least [0026] and Figs. 1-4), said injector holder (6) being provided with at least one injector (22) (see at least [0027] and Fig. 4) which is connected to at least one gas inlet (gas inlet that feeds “gas” to injector (22)) (see at least [0046] and Fig. 4),
- a flame spreader (4), which is positioned above said injector holder (6) (as is shown in Figs. 3-4) and comprises at least one duct (42) (see at least [0038] and Fig. 4) in fluid communication with said at least one injector (22) and with at least one distribution chamber (40) (see at least [0038] and Fig. 4) of a combustible mixture (“gas/primary air mixture”) (see [0041] and Fig. 4), for the generation of at least one crown of flames (“flame ring”) (see [0041] and Figs. 3-4),
- a lid (8), resting on said flame spreader (4) (as shown in Figs. 3-4) and delimiting said at least one distribution chamber (40) of the combustible mixture at a top portion thereof (see at least [0040] and Figs. 3-4),
- locking means (locking means comprising pin elements (60) and corresponding openings (54)) (see at least [0043] and Figs. 2, 4) to prevent or limit movement, at least a lateral movement, between the flame spreader (4) and the lid (8) (as is evident from at least [0043] and Figs. 2-4), and
- means (26) for connecting the injector holder (6) with the flame spreader (4) and/or the lid (8) (means (26), which are attached to injector holder (6), engage with elements (60) of the lid (8) to thereby connect the injector holder (6) with the flame spreader (4) and the lid (8) as is shown in Fig. 4) (see at least [0044]-[0045] and Figs. 2-4).
Breccia fails to explicitly teach that the means for connecting comprise means for “magnetically connecting” as claimed.
Frost discloses a relatable gas burner apparatus (10) that comprises an injector holder (12), a flame spreader (24) and a lid (8) (see at least Col. 2 lines 27-31, Col. 2 lines 40-43 and Figs. 1-2A). Frost teaches of means for magnetically connecting the lid (28) to the flame spreader (means comprising magnetized elements (30), (32) (see at least Col. 2 line 65 - Col. 3 line 3 and Figs. 1-2A) and the ferrous underside (52) of element (28) (see at least Col. 1 lines 53-55 and Figs. 1-2A - “The burner cap is preferably formed, at least partially of a ferromagnetic material, such as steel”), and in turn connecting the lid (28) to the injector holder (12) (the lid is connected magnetically to the injector holder (12), via the flame spreader (24), once assembled - see at least Col. 2 line 65 - Col. 3 line 3 and Figs. 1-2A). Frost teaches that “The burner cap 28 is normally set on top of the burner head 24 and retained in position by gravity and, possibly a mating geometry” (see at least Col. 2 lines 51-52 and Figs. 1-2A) and that the magnetic connecting means “can more securely retain the burner cap 28 to the burner head 24” during times of excessive disturbance such as “Motion of the recreational vehicle as it travels” (see at least Col. 2 lines 62-64 and Figs. 1-2A).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the burner taught by Breccia by configuring the burner to comprise means for magnetically connecting the existing lid to the flame spreader, and in turn also to the existing injector holder, via the flame spreader, as is taught by Frost. Doing so would have provided means for more securely retaining the lid to the remainder of the burner assembly, including the flame spreader and injector holder, during times of excessive disturbance such as recreational vehicle motion. Note that Breccia already teaches that the lid (8) attaches directly to the injector holder (6) via elements (60) and to the flame spreader (4) (as is shown in Fig. 4) and that such modification would have necessarily resulted in the magnetic connecting means connecting the lid down into its position of use wherein contact is made with the injector holder and flame spreader (as is shown in Fig. 4). Thus, such modification would have necessarily resulted in the burner comprising means for magnetically connecting the injector holder with the flame spreader and/or the lid as claimed.
Regarding Claim 2, Breccia also teaches that said locking means (locking means comprising pin elements (60) and corresponding openings (54)) are configured to block both the lateral movement between the flame spreader (4) and the lid (8) (see at least [0045] and Figs. 2, 4), and their movement along a support/overlapping direction of the lid (8) on the flame spreader (4) (via at least elements (26) that restrict movement in the upwards support/overlapping direction of the lid (8) as shown in Fig. 4) (see at least [0045] and Figs. 2, 4), to define an assembly (assembly comprising elements (4) and (8)) to be applied/removed on/from the injector holder (6) with a single movement (via gripping element (4) and removing both of elements (4) and (8) upwards simultaneously) (see at least [0045] and Figs. 2, 4).
Regarding Claim 3, Breccia also teaches that the locking means (locking means comprising pin elements (60) and corresponding openings (54)) between the lid (8) and the flame spreader (4) comprise fastening members (60) which would (at least) support the magnetic connection means of the lid and/or flame spreader to the injector holder via facilitating the physical connection between the lid (8) and the injector holder (6) as shown in Fig. 4) (see at least [0045] and Figs. 2, 4).
Regarding Claim 4, Breccia also teaches that the locking means (locking means comprising pin elements (60) and corresponding openings (54)) between the lid (8) and the flame spreader (4) comprise fastening members (60) which are independent and distinct from the magnetic connection means of the lid and/or flame spreader to the injector holder (6) (since elements (60) are distinct elements that would be separate from the magnet elements that would be a part of the combined burner as taught by Frost - see at least [0045] and Figs. 2, 4 of Breccia, Fig. 1 of Frost and the rejection for Claim 1 above).
Regarding Claim 5, Breccia also teaches that the flame spreader (4), alone or joined to the lid (8) to define an assembly (as shown in Figs. 3-4), rests on the injector holder (6) (as shown in Figs. 3-4), and in the combination of Breccia and Frost, the flame spreader would rest on the injector holder in correspondence with areas of mutual contact of said magnetic connection means taught by Frost since the areas of mutual contact of said magnetic connection means (means comprising (30), (32) - see Fig. 1 of Frost) would contribute to pulling the flame spreader down onto its resting place on the injector holder with at least elements (60) of the lid (8) (see at least [0043] and Figs. 2, 4 of Breccia) and thus correspond with the resting of the flame spreader on the injector holder (see Figs. 2, 4 of Breccia, Fig. 2 of Frost and the rejection for Claim 1 above). Thus, the combination of Breccia and Frost would have necessarily resulted in the invention as claimed.
Regarding Claim 6, Breccia also teaches that a body portion of the flame spreader (4), alone or joined to the lid (8) to define an assembly (as shown in Fig. 4), rests directly on a body portion (15) of the injector holder (6) (see at least [0034] and Fig. 4).
Regarding Claim 10, Breccia also teaches that the locking means (locking means comprising pin elements (60) and corresponding openings (54)) between the lid (8) and the flame spreader (4) comprise at least one fastening member (60) which is associated with the lid (8) and which fits into at least one opening (54) obtained in the flame spreader (4) (as is shown in Fig. 4) (see at least [0043] and Figs. 3-4).
Regarding Claim 13, Breccia and Frost teach the gas burner according to Claim 1 (see the rejection for Claim 1) and Breccia also teaches of means for fastening the injector holder to the plate of the cooking hob (means in the form of “fastening screws 11”) (see at least [0026] and Fig. 4) that comprise at least one first element (11) that is configured to be mounted on the injector holder so as to constrain the injection holder to the plate of the cooking hob (as is shown in Fig. 4) (see at least [0026] and Fig. 4).
Breccia (and Frost) fails to explicitly teach that the means for fastening the injector holder to the plate of the cooking hob comprises at least one first magnetic element.
However, merely configuring the existing means for fastening the injector holder to the plate of the cooking hob to be in the form of at least one first magnetic element as opposed to a fastening screw would have been an obvious matter of design choice.
To support a conclusion that a claim is directed to obvious subject matter, i.e., that a feature is an obvious matter of design choice, an Examiner must present a ‘convincing line of reasoning’ as to why one of ordinary skill in the art would have found the claimed feature to have been obvious. Ex parte Clapp, 227 U.S.P.Q. 972, 973 (BPAI 1985). When determining whether a rejection based on design choice is appropriate, the Examiner must review the Specification and ascertain if the limitation in question is disclosed as serving any advantage or particular purpose, or whether it solves a stated problem. The Examiner also should explain the reasoning used to determine that the prior art would have performed equally as well as the claimed invention. These two steps help present the aforementioned ‘convincing line of reasoning.’ Ex parte Clapp, 227 U.S.P.Q. at 973.
It is apparent from Applicant’s specification that specifically configuring the means for fastening the injector holder to the plate of the cooking hob to be in the form of at least one first magnetic element as opposed to a fastening screw is not critical to the invention and does not serve any advantage, particular purpose, or solve a stated problem over a comparable configuration that facilitates the same fastening since the specification explicitly discloses that “In a possible and preferred embodiment (see FIG. 7), in correspondence with the flanges 14 two or more first threaded holes 13′ can be obtained to be crossed by screws 11 fastening the injector holder 6 to the plate of the cooking hob 10” (see at least pg. 10 lines 34-36 and Fig. 7). Furthermore, it is evident that that the prior art would have performed equally as well as the claimed invention since the prior art combination of Breccia and Frost teaches of a configuration that comprises means for fastening the injector holder to the plate of the cooking hob that is in the form of “fastening screws 11” (see at least [0026] and Fig. 4 of Breccia) which the specification discloses as an acceptable alternative to a magnetic element (see at least [0026] and Fig. 4 of Breccia).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to further modify the combined apparatus by configuring the existing means for fastening the injector holder to the plate of the cooking hob to be in the form of at least one first magnetic element as opposed to a fastening screw as claimed since such modification would have been considered a mere design consideration which fails to patentably over the prior art. Note that such modification would have necessarily resulted in the invention as claimed.
Regarding Claim 14, Breccia also teaches of means for fastening the injector holder to the plate of the cooking hob (means in the form of “fastening screws 11”) (Note that “fastening screws 11” perform the same function of fastening the injector holder to the plate of the cooking hob as a magnetic element would (since both structures facilitate the same function of fastening - see at least [0026] and Fig. 4) and accordingly, in light of the 112(f) interpretation presented above in this Office Action, constitutes a structural equivalent to means for fastening the injector holder to the plate of the cooking hob. Therefore, “fastening screws 11” constitute means for fastening the injector holder to the plate of the cooking hob as claimed.) which are distinct and separate with respect to said at least one first element of the magnetic connection means (as taught by Frost in the combined apparatus) which is mounted or integrated on the injector holder (as is evident from at least Fig 4 of Breccia which show the “fastening screws 11” in a distinct and separate location than the at least one first element of the magnetic connection means would be as taught by Frost) (see at least Fig. 4 of Breccia, Fig. 1 of Frost and the rejection for Claim 1 above). Thus, the combination of Breccia and Frost would have necessarily resulted in the invention as claimed.
Claims 7-9 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Breccia and Frost further in view of Wang (CN 109579060 A) (see attached original document and translation for reference).
Regarding Claim 7, Breccia and Frost teach the gas burner according to Claim 1 (see the rejection for Claim 1) and Breccia also teaches that connection means comprise at least a first element (26) mounted on the injector holder (6) (as is shown in Fig. 4) (see at least [0044]-[0045] and Figs. 2, 4) and at least a corresponding second element (62) which is mounted, or integrated, on the flame spreader (4) and/or on the lid (8) (element (62) is mounted on the lid (8) as shown in Figs. 2, 4), and which interacts with said at least one first element (26) (as is shown in Fig. 4) (see at least [0044]-[0045] and Figs. 2, 4).
Breccia and Frost fail to explicitly teach that the second element interacts magnetically with said at least one first element.
Wang discloses a relatable gas burner apparatus (Fig. 1) that comprises an injector holder (12) (see at least [0032], [0038] and Figs. 2-3, 5 and note that element (12) holds the injector comprising element (9) as shown in Fig. 5 and accordingly constitutes an injector holder as claimed), a flame spreader (flame spreader (1) that comprises element (3) as shown in Figs. 2-3) and a lid (4) (see at least [0030] and Figs. 1-3). Wang teaches of connection means (connection means comprising the upper “magnetic layer” disposed on top of injector holder (12) and the corresponding ferrous downward projecting flange element of flame spreader (1) that magnetically connects to element (12) as shown in Fig. 2) (see at least [0032] and Figs. 2-3) that comprise at least a first element (the upper “magnetic layer” disposed on top of injector holder (12)) (see at least [0032] and Figs. 2-3) and at least a corresponding second element (the downward projecting ferrous flange element of flame spreader (1) that interacts with element (12) to form the magnetic connection therebetween as shown in Figs. 2-3) which is mounted, or integrated, on the flame spreader (1) (as is shown in Fig. 2) (see at least [0032] and Figs. 2-3), and which magnetically interacts with said at least one first element (the upper “magnetic layer” disposed on top of injector holder (12)) (see at least [0032] and Figs. 2-3). Wang teaches that the upper surface of the injector holder (12) comprises a perimeter plate structure (“plate structure” formed by element (14) as shown in fig. 2) (see at least [0032] and Figs. 2-3) in addition to the “magnetic layer” (see at least [0032] and Figs. 2-3) and that such arrangement enables the injector holder (12) to “effectively” collect “debris and grease” (see [0032] and Figs. 2-3) wherein the first element in the form of the upper “magnetic layer” disposed on top of injector holder (12) that magnetically interacts with the second element (the downward projecting ferrous flange element of flame spreader (1) that interacts with element (12) as shown in Figs. 2-3) in turn makes it “easy to disassemble and clean when cleaning is required” (see [0032] and Figs. 2-3).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have further modified the combined apparatus by configuring the existing injector holder to comprise a perimeter plate structure in addition to a first element in the form of an upper magnetic layer that is configured to interact with a second element in the form of a downward extending ferrous portion of the burner to thereby establish a magnetic connection therebetween based on the teachings of Wang. Doing so would have provided means for effectively collecting debris and grease in addition to easily disassembling the same when cleaning is required. Note that such modification would have necessarily resulted in the existing downward extending second element (62) taught by Breccia, which already connects to the injector holder (6) (see Fig. 4 of Breccia), being made at least in part in ferrous material and contacting an upper magnetic layer of the existing injector holder (6) to thereby facilitate magnetic connection therebetween (as is taught by Wang). Thus, such modification would have necessarily resulted in the second element interacting magnetically with said at least one first element as claimed.
Regarding Claim 8, Breccia, Frost and Wang teach gas burner according to Claim 7 (see the rejection for Claim 7) and Wang also teaches that said at least one first element (the upper “magnetic layer” disposed on top of the injector holder) that would be used in the combined apparatus (see at least [0032], Figs. 2-3 of Wang and the rejection for Claim 7 above) is made, at least in part, in magnetized material, or is a magnet (“magnetic layer”) (see at least [0032], Figs. 2-3 of Wang and the rejection for Claim 7 above), while said at least one second element is made at least in part in ferromagnetic material (the downward projecting flange element of flame spreader (1) that interacts with element (12) is made at least in part in ferromagnetic material to thereby facilitate the magnetic connection therebetween as shown in Figs. 2-3). Thus, it follows that the existing second element (62) already taught by Breccia (as is shown in Figs. 2, 4 of Breccia) would necessarily also be made at least in part in ferromagnetic material to thereby facilitate the magnetic connection to the first element as is taught by Wang (see at least [0032] of Wang and the rejection for Claim 7 above). Thus, the combination of Breccia, Frost and Wang would have necessarily resulted in the invention as claimed.
Regarding Claim 9, Breccia, Frost and Wang teach gas burner according to Claim 7 (see the rejection for Claim 7) and Wang also teaches that said at least one first element (the upper “magnetic layer” disposed on top of the injector holder) that would be used in the combined apparatus (see at least [0032], Figs. 2-3 of Wang and the rejection for Claim 7 above) is made, at least in part, in magnetized material, or is a magnet (“magnetic layer”) (see at least [0032], Figs. 2-3 of Wang and the rejection for Claim 7 above), while said at least one second element (the downward projecting ferrous flange element of flame spreader (1) that interacts with element (12) to form the magnetic connection therebetween as shown in Figs. 2-3) which is mounted, or integrated, on the flame spreader (1) (as is shown in Fig. 2) (see at least [0032] and Figs. 2-3) is made at least in part in ferromagnetic material to facilitate magnetic connection between the first and second elements (the downward projecting flange element of flame spreader (1) that interacts with element (12) is made at least in part in ferromagnetic material to thereby facilitate the magnetic connection therebetween as shown in Figs. 2-3) (see at least [0032], Figs. 2-3 of Wang and the rejection for Claim 7 above).
Wang (in addition to Breccia and Frost) fails to explicitly teach of an embodiment wherein said at least one second element is made at least in part in magnetized material, or a magnet, and wherein said at least one first element and said at least one second element are arranged so that they face each other with poles of opposite sign which, therefore, attract each other. However, merely configuring the existing at least one second element to facilitate its magnetic connection by being in the form of a magnetized material, or a magnet, so that poles of opposite sign with the first element face each other to therefore attract the second element to the first element, as opposed to the second element being in the form of a ferrous material to attract the second element to the first element, would have been an obvious matter of design choice.
To support a conclusion that a claim is directed to obvious subject matter, i.e., that a feature is an obvious matter of design choice, an Examiner must present a ‘convincing line of reasoning’ as to why one of ordinary skill in the art would have found the claimed feature to have been obvious. Ex parte Clapp, 227 U.S.P.Q. 972, 973 (BPAI 1985). When determining whether a rejection based on design choice is appropriate, the Examiner must review the Specification and ascertain if the limitation in question is disclosed as serving any advantage or particular purpose, or whether it solves a stated problem. The Examiner also should explain the reasoning used to determine that the prior art would have performed equally as well as the claimed invention. These two steps help present the aforementioned ‘convincing line of reasoning.’ Ex parte Clapp, 227 U.S.P.Q. at 973.
It is apparent from Applicant’s specification that specifically configuring the existing at least one second element to facilitate its magnetic connection by being in the form of a magnetized material, or a magnet, so that poles of opposite sign with the first element face each other to therefore attract the second element to the first element, as opposed to any other magnetic configuration such as the second element being made at least in part by a ferrous material to attract the second element to the first element, is not critical to the invention and does not serve any advantage, particular purpose, or solve a stated problem since the specification discloses and claims an opposing configuration to what is claimed in Claim 9 that works equally as well wherein “said at least one second element (80) is made at least in part in ferromagnetic material” (see Claim 8). Furthermore, it is evident that that the prior art would have performed equally as well as the claimed invention since the prior art combination of Breccia, Frost and Wang teaches of a configuration wherein said at least one second element is made at least in part in ferromagnetic material (as is presented in the rejection for Claim 8 above) which performs the same function of magnetically connecting the first element to the second element (as is presented in the rejection for Claim 8 above) equally as well as a configuration wherein the second element is in the form of a magnetized material, or a magnet, to facilitate magnetic connection as claimed (as is evident from a secure magnetic connection being made between the first and second elements of the prior art - see the rejection for Claim 8 above).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to further modify the combined apparatus by configuring the existing at least one second element to, instead of being made at least in part in ferromagnetic material, to be made at least in part in magnetized material, or a magnet, such that said at least one first element and said at least one second element would be arranged to face each other with poles of opposite sign to thereby perform the same function of attracting each other, since such modification would have been considered a mere design consideration which fails to patentably distinguish over the prior art. Note that such modification would have necessarily resulted in the invention as claimed.
Regarding Claim 11, Breccia and Frost teach the gas burner according to Claim 10 (see the rejection for Claim 10), and Breccia also teaches that said at least one fastening member (60) passes through said at least one opening (54) of the flame spreader (4) and comes out from a bottom portion of the flame spreader (4) (as is shown in Fig. 4) (see at least [0044]-[0045] and Figs. 2, 4).
Breccia and Frost fail to teach that a second element of the magnetic connection means is defined at least in part by said at least one fastening member.
Wang discloses a relatable gas burner apparatus (Fig. 1) that comprises an injector holder (12) (see at least [0032], [0038] and Figs. 2-3, 5 and note that element (12) holds the injector comprising element (9) as shown in Fig. 5 and accordingly constitutes an injector holder as claimed), a flame spreader (flame spreader (1) that comprises element (3) as shown in Figs. 2-3) and a lid (4) (see at least [0030] and Figs. 1-3). Wang teaches of connection means (connection means comprising the upper “magnetic layer” disposed on top of injector holder (12) and the corresponding ferrous downward projecting flange element of flame spreader (1) that magnetically connects to element (12) as shown in Fig. 2) (see at least [0032] and Figs. 2-3) that comprise at least a first element (the upper “magnetic layer” disposed on top of injector holder (12)) (see at least [0032] and Figs. 2-3) and at least a corresponding second element (the downward projecting ferrous flange element of flame spreader (1) that interacts with element (12) to form the magnetic connection therebetween as shown in Figs. 2-3) which is mounted, or integrated, on the flame spreader (1) (as is shown in Fig. 2) (see at least [0032] and Figs. 2-3), and which forms a fastening member (as is shown in Figs. 2-3) that magnetically interacts with said at least one first element (the upper “magnetic layer” disposed on top of injector holder (12)) (see at least [0032] and Figs. 2-3). Wang teaches that the upper surface of the injector holder (12) comprises a perimeter plate structure (“plate structure” formed by element (14) as shown in fig. 2) (see at least [0032] and Figs. 2-3) in addition to the “magnetic layer” (see at least [0032] and Figs. 2-3) and that such arrangement enables the injector holder (12) to “effectively” collect “debris and grease” (see [0032] and Figs. 2-3) wherein the first element in the form of the upper “magnetic layer” disposed on top of injector holder (12) that magnetically interacts with the second element (the downward projecting ferrous flange element of flame spreader (1) that interacts with element (12) as shown in Figs. 2-3) in turn makes it “easy to disassemble and clean when cleaning is required” (see [0032] and Figs. 2-3).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have further modified the combined apparatus by configuring the existing downward extending fastening member (60) taught by Breccia to define a second ferrous element of the magnetic connection means based on the teachings of Wang and to have configured the existing injector holder to comprise a perimeter plate structure in addition to a first element in the form of an upper magnetic layer that is configured to interact with the second element to thereby establish a magnetic connection therebetween as is also taught by Wang. Doing so would have provided means for effectively collecting debris and grease in addition to easily disassembling the same when cleaning is required. Note that such modification would have necessarily resulted in a second element of the magnetic connection means being defined at least in part by said at least one fastening member. Thus, such modification would have necessarily resulted in the invention as claimed.
Claims 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Breccia and Frost further in view of Bettinzolia (WO 2013113497 A2) (see attached original document for reference).
Regarding Claim 15, Breccia and Frost teach the gas burner according to Claim 1 (see the rejection for Claim 1) but fail to explicitly teach that said flame spreader is made at least in part, at a bottom portion thereof, or entirely in ferromagnetic material.
Bettinzolia discloses a relatable burner apparatus (Fig. 2) that comprises a flame spreader (flame spreader comprising elements (2) and (3)) (see at least pg. 4 lines 17-22 and Figs. 1-2). Bettinzolia teaches that the entire flame spreader is made of “steel or iron or iron-alloy” (see at least pg. 2 lines 28-29 and Figs. 1-2) and that such a material is “more resistant to scratches” (see at least pg. 2 lines 15-17 than other materials such as brass (see at least pg. 2, lines 1-3, and Figs. 1-2).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have further modified the combined apparatus by configuring the existing flame spreader to be made out of ferromagnetic material in the form of steel or iron or iron-alloy as is taught by Bettinzolia. Doing so would have made the flame spreader more resistant to scratches. Note that such modification would have necessarily resulted in the invention as claimed.
Allowable Subject Matter
6. Dependent Claim 12 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim (i.e., Claim 10), but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims (i.e., Claim 10 in addition to Claim 1) and in a way that obviates all claim objections raised in this Office Action.
Regarding dependent Claim 12: The combination of limitations claimed in Claim 12 is neither anticipated nor rendered obvious by any known prior art including that of Breccia, Frost and Wang. Claim 12 specifies that a “second element (80) of the magnetic connection means comprises a nut (81), which engages on a portion of said at least one fastening member (59) which comes out from the bottom portion of the flame spreader (4)”. In the burner taught by Breccia, the at least one fastening member (60) does come out from a bottom portion of the flame spreader (4) as shown in Figs. 2-4, but the second element of the magnetic connection means taught by Frost in the combination of Breccia and Frost (see the rejection for Claim 1 above) would be disposed in a different location than the at least one fastening member (as is taught by Frost - see at least Fig. 1 of Frost and the rejection for Claim 1 above) and Frost fails to teach that the second element of the magnetic connection means comprises “a nut” as claimed let alone a nut of a second magnetic connection means that specifically “engages on a portion of said at least one fastening member (59) which comes out from the bottom portion of the flame spreader”. This specific arrangement, in combination with the other limitations of the claim, is not demonstrated by any known prior art. Thus, neither Breccia, Frost nor Wang (nor any other known prior art) anticipate Claim 12 and no motivation would have existed to have completely reconfigured and complicated the working arrangement already taught by Breccia, Frost and/or Wang (or that of any other known prior art) in a way that would have included the specific combination of structural elements claimed in the arrangement as claimed in Claim 12. Therefore, the subject matter of Claim 12 is considered to be allowable over the known prior art. However, Claim 12 is objected to (as is presented above) and is consequently not in condition for allowance at this time.
Conclusion
7. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The following prior art is considered relevant to this application in terms of structure and use:
Perrino (US 6,255,628 B1)
Schlosser et al. (US 6,067,978)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BENJAMIN W JOHNSON whose telephone number is (571)272-8523. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 7:30-5:00 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, 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 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.
/BENJAMIN W JOHNSON/Examiner, Art Unit 3762 6/26/2026
/HELENA KOSANOVIC/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3762
Prosecution Insights