Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
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.
Claims 1, 2, 13, 15, 16, 18, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Kobayashi (WO 2021/086539), which shows all of the claimed limitations. Kobayashi shows:
1. A combustion apparatus (100), comprising: a housing (110) comprising a bottom wall 7 and a plurality of side walls 5, the bottom wall and side walls enclosing a combustion chamber 9 having an opening at the top (fig. 2A,2B); and injection members 21,23 arranged on two of the side walls opposite to each other among the plurality of side walls, wherein the injection members comprise at least one first injector 21 and at least one second injector 23, the at least one first injector being configured to supply, to the combustion chamber, a mixture comprising a combustible gas and a first-part oxidant (page 13, lines 23-27), a volume percentage of the combustible gas in the mixture being greater than an upper combustion limit of the combustible gas (page 14, lines 11-12; see claims 3,4, the at least one second injector being configured to supply a second-part oxidant to the combustion chamber (page 13, lines 14-19), and wherein a total amount of the first-part oxidant and the second-part oxidant supplied to the combustion chamber are in stoichiometric balance with the amount of the combustible gas supplied to the combustion chamber (claim 1 – inherent).
2. The combustion apparatus according to claim 1, wherein an angle between an axis of each of the injection members and the bottom wall is between -40° and 40° (fig. 2B).
13. The combustion apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the first injectors and the second injectors have differing diameter (fig. 2B).
15. A combustion system, wherein the combustion system comprises a distribution pipe system and a plurality of burners according to claim 1, wherein the distribution pipe system comprises a plurality of first distribution pipes respectively configured to supply the mixture to the plurality of burners (fig. 1).
16. A furnace, comprising a burner system, the burner system comprising the burner according to claim 1 (fig. 1,2A,2B; page 12, lines 5-17).
18. A combustion method applied to the combustion apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the combustion method comprises: mixing a combustible gas and a first-part oxidant with each other before entering a combustion chamber while preventing spontaneous ignition so as to obtain a mixture of the combustible gas and the first-part oxidant, with the volume percentage of the combustible gas in the mixture being greater than an upper combustion limit of the combustible gas; supplying the mixture to the combustion chamber using at least one first injector; and supplying a second-part oxidant to the combustion chamber using at least one second injector, wherein the total amount of the first-part oxidant and the second-part oxidant that are supplied to the combustion chamber reaches stoichiometric balance with the amount of the combustible gas supplied to the combustion chamber (capable of performing this function).
19. The combustion method according to claim 18, further comprising loading a furnace charge above the opening of the combustion apparatus (capable of performing this function).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 3-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kobayashi (WO 2021/086539), which discloses substantially all of the claimed limitations.
Kobayashi fails to specifically recite the claimed shape/size/location/orientation/detachability.
The claimed shape/size/location/orientation/detachability is an obvious modification based on design choice, and depends on spatial considerations such as availability of space and arrangement of other components as well as manufacturing considerations such as cost and consumer demands.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the claimed shape and detachability of components into the invention disclosed by Kobayashi, so as to provide for spatial and manufacturing considerations.
Claims 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kobayashi (WO 2021/086539), which discloses substantially all of the claimed limitations.
Kobayashi fails to specifically recite the claimed preheating, cooling, and thermal insulation.
Official Notice is given that providing preheating, cooling, and thermal insulation as recited in the claims is old and well known in the art.
Such arrangements have the clear and obvious benefit of providing for efficient function, durability, and lifespan.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the claimed preheating, cooling, and thermal insulation into the invention disclosed by Kobayashi, so as to provide for efficient function, durability, and lifespan.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-9, 17, 20, and 21 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.
REASONS FOR ALLOWANCE
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
As regards the invention recited in dependent claims 6-9, 17, 20, and 21, the limitations recited in these claims are novel and unobvious. Naturally the allowability of the limitation in and of itself is not at issue. Nevertheless, these claims would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. These references disclose devices with many of the claimed components. Nevertheless, in order to avoid overburdening the applicant with redundant rejections, these references were not applied.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALFRED BASICHAS whose telephone number is 571 272 4871. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday during regular business hours.
To contact the examiner’s supervisor please call MICHAEL HOANG whose telephone number is 571 272 6460.
Any inquiry of a general nature or relating to the status of this application or proceeding should be directed to the Tech Center telephone number is 571 272 3700.
July 1, 2026
/ALFRED BASICHAS/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3762
Prosecution Insights