Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, and 5-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nagayama (JP 2000074327 A).
Regarding claim 1, Nagayama teaches a gas-air mixing structure (the assembly of FIG. 11), comprising an external supporting structure (FIG. 11, furnace 2) arranged in a housing (FIG. 11, the housing of the furnace 2) and a gas array pipe (FIG. 11, the gas injection assembly, further detailed in FIG. 7) connected thereto, wherein an air inlet (FIG. 11, the air inlet on the left side of the assembly) is connected to one end of the housing (FIG. 11, the left end of the housing of the furnace 2), a gas mixing channel (FIG. 11, the area of the furnace 2 surrounding the gas injection assembly) is arranged between the gas array pipe and a mixed gas outlet (FIG. 11, the point at which the mixed gas enters the pre-mix burner 5), the gas array pipe comprises a plurality of gas pipes (FIG. 7, gas pipes 11) arranged in an array manner (FIG. 7, the gas pipes 11 are arranged as an array), each of the plurality of gas pipes is provided with gas inlets (FIG. 7, the points where the gas header 19 contacts and leads to the gas pipes 11) and a plurality of gas output holes (FIG. 7, gas injection ports 14), and the plurality of gas output holes are provided on the leeward surface of each of the plurality of gas pipes (FIG. 11, the gas exits the gas pipes 11 in a leeward direction).
Regarding claim 2, Nagayama teaches that the plurality of gas output holes are provided on the leeward surface of each of the plurality of gas pipes (see above), and each of the plurality of gas output holes is circular hole or slit (FIG. 7, the ports 14 are circular).
Regarding claim 5, Nagayama teaches that at least one row of gas pipes arranged in an array manner is arranged (FIG. 7, the gas pipes 11 are arranged in a row).
Regarding claim 6, Nagayama teaches a gas-air mixing structure (the assembly of FIG. 11), comprising an external supporting structure (FIG. 11, furnace 2) arranged in a housing (FIG. 11, the housing of the furnace 2) and a gas array pipe (FIG. 11, the gas injection assembly, further detailed in FIG. 1) connected thereto, wherein an air inlet (FIG. 11, the air inlet on the left side of the assembly) is connected to one end of the housing (FIG. 11, the left end of the housing of the furnace 2), a gas mixing channel (FIG. 11, the area of the furnace 2 surrounding the gas injection assembly) is arranged between the gas array pipe and a mixed gas outlet (FIG. 11, the point at which the mixed gas enters the pre-mix burner 5), the gas array pipe comprises a plurality of gas pipes (FIG. 1, gas pipes 11) arranged in an array manner (FIG. 1, the gas pipes 11 are arranged as an array), each of the plurality of gas pipes is provided with gas inlets (FIG. 1, the points where the points where gas enters the gas pipes 11) and a plurality of gas output holes (FIG. 1, gas injection ports 13), and the plurality of gas output holes are provided on the leeward surface of each of the plurality of gas pipes (FIG. 11, the gas exits the gas pipes 11 in a leeward direction), that at least one row of gas pipes arranged in an array manner is arranged (FIG. 1, the gas pipes 11 are arranged in a row), and that the gas pipes are in multiple rows (FIG. 1, the row of the gas pipes 11 and the row of pipes 12), two adjacent rows are arranged in a staggered manner (FIG. 1).
Regarding claim 7, Nagayama teaches that the external supporting structure and the housing form a gas distribution cavity (FIG. 11, the portion of the volume of furnace 2 downstream of the gas injectors), the housing of the gas distribution cavity is provided with a gas intake mains (FIG. 11, the vertical portion downstream of the gas inlet), one end of each gas pipe is connected to the gas distribution cavity (FIG. 7, the gas pipes 11 are each attached to the horizontal portion at the bottom), or both ends of each gas pipe are connected to the gas distribution cavity.
Regarding claim 8, Nagayama teaches that the gas distribution cavity has a gas intake structure of annular type, C-shaped type, hollow square type, and single-side type (FIG. 7, the horizontal pipe at the bottom is an intake that has a single interior surface (i.e., a single side)).
Regarding claim 9, Nagayama teaches a Burner (FIG. 11, the premix burner 5), comprising the gas air mixing structure according to claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 3 and 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nagayama.
Regarding claim 3, Nagayama fails to teach that the sectional area of each of the plurality of gas output holes is 1/20 to 1/2 of the sectional area of the gas pipe.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to make the sectional area of each of the plurality of gas output holes 1/20 to 1/2 of the sectional area of the gas pipe, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art (the holes 13 in FIG. 7 are smaller by some proportion than the cross section of the gas pipes 11), discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves (MPEP 2144.05 II. A) only routine skill in the art.
In addition, it is observed that the size of outlet holes is a result effective variable because it affects the flow rate of the gas. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to make the sectional area of each of the plurality of gas output holes 1/20 to 1/2 of the sectional area of the gas pipe, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)).
Regarding claim 4, Nagayama teaches that several circular holes are evenly distributed at the center of the leeward surface of each of the bas pipes (FIG. 7).
Nagayama fails to teach that the arrangement manner of the plurality of gas output holes is that several circular holes with a sectional area of 1/10 of the sectional area of the gas pipe are evenly distributed at the center of the leeward surface of each of the gas pipe with a spacing of 5 times the diameter of the circular hole.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to make the arrangement manner of the plurality of gas output holes is that several circular holes with a sectional area of 1/10 of the sectional area of the gas pipe evenly distributed at the center of the leeward surface of each of the gas pipe with a spacing of 5 times the diameter of the circular hole, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art (the holes 13 in FIG. 7 are smaller by some proportion than the cross section of the gas pipes 11), discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves (MPEP 2144.05 II. A) only routine skill in the art.
In addition, it is observed that the size and spacing of outlet holes is a result effective variable because it affects the flow rate of the gas. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to make the arrangement manner of the plurality of gas output holes is that several circular holes with a sectional area of 1/10 of the sectional area of the gas pipe evenly distributed at the center of the leeward surface of each of the gas pipe with a spacing of 5 times the diameter of the circular hole, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM C. WEINERT whose telephone number is (571)272-6988. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00-5:00 ET.
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.
/WILLIAM C WEINERT/Examiner, Art Unit 3762
/Allen R. B. Schult/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3762
Prosecution Insights