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 1-4, 10-12, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Kikawa (US 2005/0172547), which shows all of the claimed limitations. Kikawa shows:
1. (Currently Amended) A catalytic burner for a hydrogen boiler comprising: at least one inlet port 34 for supplying air and hydrogen (fig. 1,3,6); an outlet port 6 for discharging combustion products (into combustion heat exchanger 101); at least one fan 3 for supplying air (para. 0034); and a catalytic section 101, comprising at least one self-priming catalyst that is configured to initiate and complete a combustion reaction of an air-hydrogen mixture (para. 0030); wherein the at least one fan is arranged in a fluid connection with the at least one inlet port and arranged one of subsequently and downstream of the at least one inlet port and wherein the at least one fan is configured to supply air and hydrogen and to simultaneously draw, mix and inject the air and the hydrogen towards the catalytic section (para. 0034).
2. (Currently Amended) The catalytic burner according to claim 1, wherein the at least one fan comprises a centrifugal machine with adjustable impeller rotation speed (para. 0038).
3. (Currently Amended) The catalytic burner according to claim 1, wherein the at least one fan comprises at least one of a blower machine and an axial fan capable of generating head and flow rate values (inherent).
4. (Currently Amended) The catalytic burner according to claim 1, wherein the at least one inlet port comprises a plurality of inlet ports that are configured to be separate inlets of flows of air and hydrogen (fig. 1,3,6).
10. (Currently Amended) The catalytic burner according to claim 1, wherein the at least one fan is configured for use with combustible substances and comprises at least one of spark-proof devices and explosion-proof devices (inherent in combustion chambers).
11. (Currently Amended) The catalytic burner according to claim 1, further comprising a diffuser element 6 arranged downstream of said the at least one fan and configured to convey the air-hydrogen mixture into the catalytic section (fig. 1,3,6).
12. (Currently Amended) The catalytic burner according to claim 1, wherein the catalytic section comprises at least one finishing catalyst (inherent – fig. 1,3,6).
15. (Currently Amended) A boiler plant comprising a catalytic burner, wherein the catalytic burner comprises at least one inlet port for supplying air and hydrogen, an outlet port for discharging combustion products, at least one fan for supplying air, and a catalytic section comprising at least one self-priming catalyst that is configured to initiate and complete a combustion reaction of an air-hydrogen mixture, wherein the at least one fan is arranged in a fluid connection with the at least one inlet port and arranged one of subsequently and downstream of the at least one inlet port, and wherein the at least one fan is configured to supply air and hydrogen and to simultaneously draw, mix and inject the air and the hydrogen towards the catalytic section, the boiler plant comprising: at least one heat exchanger arranged downstream of the catalytic burner through an outlet port and configured to exchange heat of the reaction products with a consumer circuit 102,103; an exhaust fumes discharge line connected at the outlet of the heat exchanger; at least one air inlet line connected to the at least one inlet port; a hydrogen inlet line connected to the at least one inlet port (see previous claims).
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.
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.
Claims 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kikawa (US 2005/0172547), which discloses substantially all of the claimed limitations.
Nevertheless, Kikawa fails to specifically recite the catalyst having a honeycomb geometry or the claimed range.
As regards the honeycomb geometry,
Official Notice is given that such a configuration is old and well known in the art.
Such an arrangement has the clear and obvious benefit of providing for efficient function, as well as providing for manufacturing considerations of availability, cost, and consumer preference.
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 a catalyst having a honeycomb geometry into the invention disclosed by Kikawa, so as to provide for efficient function and manufacturing considerations.
As regards the claimed cell density range,
it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Kikawa, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable values or ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233; In re Swain, 156 F.2d 239. See also Peterson, 315 F.3d at 1330, 65 USPQ2d at 1382 (“The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages.”).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kikawa (US 2005/0172547), which discloses substantially all of the claimed limitations.
Nevertheless, Kikawa fails to specifically recite providing a valve in the fuel inlet line.
Official Notice is given that a valve in the fuel inlet line is old and well known in the art.
Such an arrangement has the clear and obvious benefit of providing for efficient function and control of fuel flow.
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 a catalyst having a honeycomb geometry into the invention disclosed by Kikawa, so as to provide for efficient function and control of fuel flow.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-9 and 17-19 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.
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.
September 23, 2026
/ALFRED BASICHAS/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3762
