DETAILED ACTION
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 § 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.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cray (US 2018/0221693) in view of Cockerham et al. (US 2018/0056100).
In re claim 1: Cray discloses a flame mitigation device comprising: a rigid body 50 comprising a side wall 54 having a first perforation 72 of a first size and a second perforation 72 of a second size, wherein the rigid body 50 is hollow, wherein the first perforation 72 and the second perforation 72 provide fluid communication through the side wall 54 (see figure 7 of Cray)
Cray discloses the claimed invention as discussed above with the exception of the following claimed limitation that is taught by Cockerham et al.:
Cockerham et al. teaches the provision of incorporating different size and shaped peroration holes, wherein a first size perforation that can be greater than a second size in order to achieve the desired result. With this in mind it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to modify some of the perforations of Cray with the different sizes of perforations as taught by Cockerham et al. for the reason discussed above.
Cray in view of Cockerham et al. teach the claimed invention as discussed above without specifically including the following limitation:
wherein the flame mitigation device is configured to absorb enough heat to drop a burning air/fuel mixture below its auto-ignition temperature at a flame speed between 4 and 6 meters per second.
Cray in view of Cockerham et al. teach the general conditions of the claimed invention except for the express disclosure of a flame speed between 4 and 6 meters per second. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to include a flame speed between 4 and 6 meters per second, since the claimed values are merely an optimum or workable range. 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. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
In re claim 2: the first perforation 72 defines a first hole 72 in the side wall 54, and wherein the second perforation 72 defines a second hole 72 in the side wall 54, wherein an area of the first hole is greater than an area of the second hole
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to modify Cray in view of Cockerham et al. for the reason discussed above in claim 1.
In re claim 3: a flange 52 that defines a hole 62 at a first end (top) of the rigid body 50, and wherein the side wall 54 extends from the flange 52 to a second end (bottom) of the rigid body 50 along a length of the rigid body 50 (see figure 7 of Cray).
In re claim 4: the first perforation 72 is from a plurality of first perforations 72 having the first size, and wherein the second perforation 72 is from a plurality of second perforations 72 having the second size (see figure 7 of Cray).
In re claim 5: the plurality of first perforations 72 are comprised within a first region (upper region) of the rigid body 50 that extends along a circumference of the rigid body 50 and first portion of a length of the rigid body 50, and wherein the plurality of second perforations 72 are comprised within a second region (lower region) of the rigid body 50 that extends along the circumference of the rigid body 50 and a second portion of the length (see figure 7 of Cray).
In re claim 6: the plurality of first perforations 72 and the plurality of second perforations 72 are positioned in an alternating pattern along a length of the rigid body 50 depending on the selected plurality of perforations rows (see figure 7 of Cray).
In re claim 7: the first perforation 72 and the second perforation 72 have substantially the same shape (see figure 7 of Cray).
In re claim 8: the first perforation 72 has a different shape than the second perforation 72.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to modify Cray in view of Cockerham et al. for the reason discussed above in claim 1.
In re claim 9: Cray discloses a flame mitigation device, comprising: a rigid body 50 configured to be seated within a nozzle 22 of a fuel container 10; a first perforation 72 that defines a first hole 72 extending through a side wall 54 of the rigid body 50; and a second perforation 72 that defines a second hole 72 extending through the side wall 54 (see figure 7 of Cray).
Cray discloses the claimed invention as discussed above with the exception of the following claimed limitation that is taught by Cockerham et al.:
Cockerham et al. teaches the provision of incorporating different size and shaped peroration holes, wherein a first size perforation that can be greater than a second size in order to achieve the desired result. With this in mind it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to modify some of the perforations of Cray with the different sizes of perforations as taught by Cockerham et al. for the reason discussed above.
In re claim 10: a flange 52 that defines a third hole 62 positioned at an end of the rigid body 50, wherein the flange 52 has an outer diameter greater than an outer diameter of the rigid body 50, and wherein the flange 52 is configured to engage an inside surface of the nozzle 22 (see figure 12 of Cray).
In re claim 11: the side wall 54 extends from the flange 52 to a second end of the rigid body 50 along a length of the rigid body 50 (see figure 7 of Cray).
In re claim 12: the first perforation 72 is of a plurality of first perforations 72 of the side wall 54, wherein the second perforation 72 is of a plurality of second perforations 72 of the side wall 54, and wherein the plurality of first perforations 72 and the plurality of second perforations 72 are positioned adjacent to each other and in an alternating pattern on the side wall 54 depending on the selected plurality of perforations rows (see figure 7 of Cray).
In re claim 13: the first perforation 72 and the second perforation are of a plurality of perforations 72 of the side wall 54, and wherein a size of the plurality of perforations decreases along the length of the rigid body 50.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to modify Cray in view of Cockerham et al. for the reason discussed above in claim 1.
In re claim 14: the size of the plurality of perforations 72 increases in proximity to the second end of the rigid body 50.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to modify Cray in view of Cockerham et al. for the reason discussed above in claim 1.
In re claim 15: Cray discloses a flame mitigation device, comprising: a hollow rigid body 50 comprising an opening 24 and a side wall 54, wherein the opening 24 is positioned at a first end (top) of the hollow rigid body 50, wherein the side wall 54 extends from the opening 24 to a second end of the hollow rigid body 50; a first perforation 72 in the side wall 54; and a second perforation 72 in the side wall 54 (see figure 7 of Cray)
Cray discloses the claimed invention as discussed above with the exception of the following claimed limitation that is taught by Cockerham et al.:
Cockerham et al. teaches the provision of incorporating different size and shaped peroration holes, wherein a first size perforation that can be greater than a second size in order to achieve the desired result. With this in mind it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to modify some of the perforations of Cray with the different sizes of perforations as taught by Cockerham et al. for the reason discussed above.
In re claim 15: the first perforation 72 and the second perforation 72 extend through the side wall 54 in a direction that is perpendicular to a longitudinal length of the hollow rigid body 50 (see figure 7 of Cray).
In re claim 17: the first perforation 72 can be circular shape, and wherein the second perforation 72 can be a polygonal shape.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to modify Cray in view of Cockerham et al. for the reason discussed above in claim 1.
In re claim 18: the first perforation 72 is of a plurality of first perforations 72, wherein the second perforation 72 is of a plurality of second perforations 52 (see figure 7 of Cray).
In re claim 19: the plurality of first perforations 72 and the plurality of second perforations 72 are arranged in an alternating pattern (see figure 7 of Cray).
In re claim 20: the plurality of first perforations 72 are positioned in a first region (upper region) of the side wall 54, wherein the plurality of second perforations 72 are positioned in a second region of the side wall 54, and wherein the second region is closer to the opening 24 than the first region (see figure 7 of Cray).
It should be noted that it was notoriously well-known in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed that a plurality of different size and shape holes were notoriously well-known in the art and used in such devices (for evidence, see Fowler US 2008/0308182).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See the attached PTO-892 for prior art the teaches or suggest structural limitations of the claimed and disclosed invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERNESTO A GRANO whose telephone number is (571)270-3927. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:00-3:30 EST.
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, Anthony Stashick can be reached at (571)272-4561. 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.
/ERNESTO A GRANO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3735
Prosecution Insights