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 § 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 1-13 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 claim 1. The claim recites, “… at least one heat exchanger comprising a liquid inlet and a liquid outlet in fluid communication with the tank compartment …” It is unclear if only the liquid outlet or if both of the liquid inlet and outlet are required to be in fluid communication with the tank compartment. From Applicant’s fig. 5, the inlet 14 is in communication with the tank compartment via internal duct 48 and circulation opening and the outlet 16 is also in communication with the tank compartment via external duct 52 and hot liquid opening 50, see fig. 5 copied below.
Therefore, the claim is being interpreted as requiring both of the inlet and outlet to each be in fluid communication with the tank compartment. E.g. prior art in which the inlet is connected to a cold water supply pipe instead of the tank would not read on the claim. If this was the Applicant’s intent, it is kindly requested that claim 1 be amended to read, “… a liquid inlet and a liquid outlet each in fluid communication with the tank compartment …”, or similar. For the purpose of substantive examination, Examiner will consider the claim as if amended in this way.
PNG
media_image1.png
749
474
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 5. The claim recites the limitations:
The burner axis
The first deviating element
The second deviating element
Said combustion gases
The exchanger compartment
There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. For the purpose of substantive examination, Examiner will consider claim 5 as if dependent upon claim 4, which ultimately introduces all of the elements listed above.
Regarding claim 6. The claim recites, “said radial passages”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. For the purpose of substantive examination, Examiner will consider claim 6 as if dependent upon claim 3, which properly introduces radial passages.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1 and 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by US 4875465 A to Kramer.
Regarding claim 1. Kramer teaches a boiler (fig. 1) comprising:
(i) a tank unit (tank 2), which extends along a prevailing development axis (vertical axis) and which delimits a tank compartment configured to store a volume of liquid up to a predefined level (col. 2 ll. 53-56, “a generally cylindrical steel tank 2, which is enclosed at its upper end by an upper head 3 and at its lower end by a lower head 4.” Where water is understood to substantially fill the tank);
wherein the tank unit comprises a neck delimiting an access opening to the tank compartment (reinforcing ring 10, which connects the mounting plate 12);
(ii) a heating unit at least partially inserted in the tank compartment through the access opening (heating unit 9, having mounting plate 12);
wherein said heating unit comprises at least one heat exchange wall made of thermally conductive material (tubular member 14, which is understood to conduct heat), at least one heat exchanger (conduit 28) comprising a liquid inlet and a liquid outlet each in fluid communication with the tank compartment (col. 3 ll. 66-67, “The inlet 30 and outlet 32 of conduit 28 communicate with the interior of the tank”), and at least one burner for heating the liquid inside the heat exchanger (burner 19, described in col. 3 ll. 28-39);
wherein the heat exchange wall is arranged mainly or completely below the predefined level (the heating unit 9 with tubular member 14 is located towards the bottom of the tank, much lower than the water level), circumscribes a heat exchange compartment (combustion chamber 15) separate from the tank compartment (as seen in fig. 1 and described in col. 3 ll. 66-68 with reference to the inlet and outlets, “The inlet 30 and outlet 32 of conduit 28 communicate with the interior of the tank and are out of communication with the combustion chamber 15”) and delimits a gas outlet (opening of the combustion chamber 15 into deflector 18);
wherein said burner and said heat exchanger are housed in the heat exchange compartment (fig. 1, the burner 19 and conduit 28 are within combustion chamber 15).
PNG
media_image2.png
641
730
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 9. Kramer teaches the boiler according to claim 1, wherein the heat exchange wall comprises at least one immersed portion (the entirety is immersed) which is generally or substantially bowl-shaped (including the deflector 18 as part of the heat exchange wall reads on this limitation).
Regarding claim 10. Kramer teaches a method comprising heating drinking water or industrial water, or water for a domestic or commercial heating plant using the boiler according to claim 1 (col. 2 ll. 65-68, the heated water could be used for a number of uses, including drinking, industrial use, and/or domestic/commercial heating).
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) 2-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kramer as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 20120312513 A1 to Le Mer.
Regarding claim 2. Kramer teaches the boiler according to claim 1, wherein the burner extends along a burner axis (left-right direction in fig. 1).
But fails to teach wherein the heat exchanger extends in cylindrical coils around the burner axis, said cylindrical coils delimiting an exchanger compartment wherein the burner is at least partially housed.
It is known in the art from Le Mer to arrange a water heating pipe in cylindrical coils around the burner axis (fig. 1, tubular bundle 2, described in paras. 52-53), said cylindrical coils delimiting an exchanger compartment (combustion chamber 71) wherein the burner is at least partially housed (burner 4, para. 127, “Inside the winding of tubes, the space containing the burner 4 will be designated subsequently in the description as "combustion chamber 71"”).
PNG
media_image3.png
614
589
media_image3.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 Kramer by configuring the water heating conduit 28 as a cylindrically coiled water heating tube, as taught by Le Mer. This would provide the predictable result and benefit of providing efficient heat exchange in a known way, as suggested by Le Mer in paras. 6-8.
Regarding claim 3. Modified Kramer teaches the boiler according to claim 2, wherein pairs of adjacent cylindrical coils delimit between them radial passages for the combustion of said burner (Le Mer para. 57, “Bosses (not shown) provided on the large faces of these tubes play the role of spacers, giving the possibility of delimiting between each turn, an interstice with a calibrated, substantially constant value.”), said radial passages being in fluid communication with the gas outlet (see arrows in fig. 1 of Le Mer).
Regarding claim 4. Modified Kramer teaches the boiler according to claim 2, wherein the heating unit comprises at least one first deviating element (Le Mer fig. 1, deflector plate 61) and at least one second deviating element (Le Mer fig. 1, discoidal deflector ring 63) spaced along the heat exchanger (Le Mer fig. 1) so as to deviate combustion gases of said burner along a winding path through radial passages delimited between pairs of cylindrical coils adjacent to each other (see arrows indicating the flow of combustion gas in Le Mer fig. 1).
Regarding claim 5. Modified Kramer teaches the boiler according to claim 4, wherein the heat exchanger comprises—axially adjacent with respect to the burner axis—first cylindrical coils between the burner and the first deviating element (as labeled in annotated fig. 1 of Le Mer, below) and second cylindrical coils between the first deviating element and the gas outlet (as labeled in annotated fig. 1 of Le Mer, below), and wherein:
PNG
media_image4.png
695
655
media_image4.png
Greyscale
the first deviating element is configured to deviate said combustion gases from the exchanger compartment towards an interspace delimited between the heat exchanger and the heat exchange wall (Le Mer fig. 1, combustion gas flow from combustion chamber 71 to ring shaped area 72); and
the second deviating element is configured to deviate said combustion gases from the interspace towards the exchanger compartment in a position fluidically downstream to the first deviating element (Le Mer fig. 1, combustion gas flow from ring shaped area 72 to intermediate chamber 73, see in particular arrow i2).
Claim(s) 6 and 11-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kramer in view of Le Mer as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of US 7523721 B2 to Hamada.
Regarding claim 6. Modified Kramer teaches the boiler according to claim 3, comprising one or more separation elements at least partially inserted in said radial passages for maintaining a separation between said cylindrical coils parallel to the burner axis (bosses described in para. 57 of Le Mer).
But fails to explicitly teach said separation being comprised from 0.1 mm to 3.00 mm.
Hamada teaches separation elements (spacers 18, e.g. 18A in fig. 5) having a separation being comprised from 0.1 mm to 3.00 mm (distance L3, col. 9 l. 50, “the dimension L3 of the clearances 61 is about 0.8 to 2.0 mm, for example”).
PNG
media_image5.png
548
671
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 arrange the spacing of modified Kramer’s suitable heating tube of Le Mer to be within the claimed range, as taught by Hamada, 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 11. Modified Kramer teaches the boiler according to claim 6, said separation being comprised from 0.2 to 2.0 mm (Hamada teaches a spacing of 0.8 to 2.0 mm).
Regarding claim 12. Modified Kramer teaches the boiler according to claim 6, said separation being comprised from 0.3 mm to 1.7 mm (Hamada teaches a spacing of 0.8 to 2.0 mm, see MPEP 2144.05 I. which states, “In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists.”).
Regarding claim 13. Modified Kramer teaches the boiler according to claim 6, said separation being comprised from 0.4 mm to 1.2 mm (Hamada teaches a spacing of 0.8 to 2.0 mm, see MPEP 2144.05 I. which states, “In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists.”).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kramer as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of the attached NPL to One Monroe, What is a Flange Gasket?, published 1/6/21.
Regarding claim 7. Kramer teaches the boiler according to claim 1, wherein said neck comprises a fixing flange (reinforcing ring 10), wherein said heating unit comprises a fixing counter-flange (mounting plate 12) mechanically fixed to the fixing flange (col. 3 ll. 7-10, “Heating unit 9 includes a mounting plate 12 which is secured to the reinforcing ring 10 through a series of circumferentially spaced bolts, not shown,”).
But fails to teach wherein said boiler comprises at least one sealing element at least partially inserted between, and keeping spaced, said fixing flange and said fixing counter-flange.
It is known in the art from One Monroe to provide a gasket between flanges (“They are known as “flange gaskets,” however, because they are intended for use on a flanged surface.” And “Flange gaskets are designed to seal the space between two sections of pipe.”) .
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 Kramer to implement a suitable flange at the interface between the mounting plate 12 and reinforcing ring 10, as taught by One Monroe. This would provide the predictable result and benefit of preventing leaks, as suggested by One Monroe in How Flange Gaskets Work, “Flange gaskets work in the same way as most other gaskets. When installed, they create a sealed mating surface so that water or other liquids won’t leak out.”
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 8 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 8. Kramer, applied to claim 1, represents the closest prior art of record to the claimed invention.
Kramer teaches the boiler according to claim 1, wherein the tank unit comprises a tank wall which circumscribes at least partly the tank compartment (fig. 1, wall of tank 2),
wherein a thickness of said tank unit is crossed by a circulation opening in fluid communication with the liquid inlet of the heat exchanger by means of an internal duct at least partially housed inside the tank compartment (cold water inlet 7, which could be considered as an internal duct partially housed inside the tank, extending through a circulation opening, is in fluid communication with the liquid inlet of the conduit 28, see col. 2 ll. 65-66, “Cold water to be heated is introduced into the lower portion of the tank through an inlet 7”).
The prior art fails to teach, “wherein a thickness of said tank unit is crossed … a hot liquid inlet opening connected to the liquid outlet of the heat exchanger by means of an external duct to the tank compartment.”, in addition to the rest of the claim.
Instead, Kramer teaches the thickness of the tank being crossed by an outlet 8 which is connected to the liquid outlet 32 of the conduit 28 by virtue of the tank’s interior volume, not an external duct. Furthermore, it would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to arrange an external duct between the conduit outlet 32 and the outlet 8, as claimed.
PNG
media_image2.png
641
730
media_image2.png
Greyscale
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