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 Interpretation
The term “extinction diameter” is being interpret as described in applicants’ specification on paragraph 10, the examiner notes that this is also known as the quenching diameter.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“combustion unit” in claim 1-3.
“member” in claim 1-3.
“refrigeration apparatus” in claim 1-3
“flow path forming member” in claim 2.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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) 1-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wilson (US 20180231260), hereinafter referred to as Wilson, in view of Holowczak et al. (US Pat No. 5,470,222), hereinafter referred to as Holowczak.
Re claim 1, Wilson teaches a combustion heater (e.g. 70) disposed adjacent to a refrigerant circuit (e.g. 62) filled with a combustible refrigerant (e.g. ¶ 35, “combustion of the refrigerant in the event the refrigerant leaks” … “The desired refrigerant being classified as numerically equal to or greater than the refrigerants A2L”) and configured to generate heat by means of flame (e.g. ¶ 28, “The furnace system 70 may include a burner assembly and heat exchanger, among other components, inside the indoor unit 56. Fuel is provided to the burner assembly of the furnace 70 where it is mixed with air and combusted to form combustion products. The combustion products may pass through tubes or piping in a heat exchanger, separate from heat exchanger 62, such that air directed by the blower 66 passes over the tubes or pipes and extracts heat from the combustion products”), the combustion heater comprising:
a combustion unit (e.g. 176) causing generation of flame; and
a implicit; ¶ 52, “burner 176 that burns gas, such as natural gas. The heated byproducts of the combustion process flow through tubes or piping in a heat exchanger 178, such that air directed by the blower 66 passes over the tubes or pipes and extracts heat from the combustion products”; the tubes and piping or the casing of the burner can both be considered as part of the body) covering the combustion unit or a periphery of the combustion unit, wherein
the implied by ¶ 44, “By shutting off the flow of electricity or gas, the furnace system 70 reduces the temperature of the components in the furnace system 70, and thus the possibility of combusting leaking refrigerant”; the examiner notes that leak refrigerant may reach the furnace system 70 and thus the body does cover the burner and or combustion unit etc),
Wilson does not teach the limitation of the body being a porous body provided with a plurality of holes, and the holes have a diameter equal to or less than an extinction diameter of the combustible refrigerant.
However, Holowczak teaches a combustion heater comprising a combustion unit (e.g. 4) and a porous body covering the combustion unit provided with a plurality of holes (implicit by porous), and the holes have a diameter (e.g. claim 5, “wherein the flame holder has a porosity of about 30% to about 50% and an average pore size of at least about 30 μm”).
Therefore, at the time the invention was filed it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Wilson and integrated the body being a porous body provided with a plurality of holes, and the holes have a diameter of 30 μm, as taught by Holowczak, in order to a more durable, low pressure drop flame holder that produces low pollutant emissions (see Holowczak C1-lns 45-50).
In light of the modification made by Holowczak to the system of Wilson, the limitation of “the diameter (Holowczak - 30 μm) equal to or less than an extinction diameter of the combustible refrigerant (Wilson - refrigerants A2L)” is an implicit disclosure because all A2L refrigerants have a higher quenching (extinction) diameter than 30 μm. A person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that A2L refrigerants have a higher quenching (extinction) diameter than 30 μm. Therefore, the limitation of “the diameter equal to or less than an extinction diameter of the combustible refrigerant” is an implicit disclosure in light of the modification.
Re claim 2, Wilson, as modified, teaches the combustion heater according to claim 1. Wilson further teaches the limitation of further comprising
a flow path forming member (e.g. ¶ 28, “The combustion products may pass through tubes or piping in a heat exchanger, separate from heat exchanger 62, such that air directed by the blower 66 passes over the tubes or pipes and extracts heat from the combustion products”) forming a flow path for gas having passed through the combustion unit, wherein
gas flow speed in the periphery of the combustion unit is higher than combustion speed of the combustible refrigerant (e.g. ¶ 39, “If the airflow through the furnace system 70 drops below a threshold level or set point, the temperature of components in the furnace system 70, or portions thereof, may increase above a threshold temperature or set point. In other words, insufficient airflow through the furnace system 70 reduces heat transfer from components of the furnace system 70, which may enable them to increase in temperature above a threshold temperature or set point. Accordingly, monitoring the airflow through the furnace system 70 enables the HVAC control system 124 to shut down the furnace system 70”).
Re claim 3, Wilson, as modified, teaches an air conditioning system comprising: a refrigeration apparatus (e.g. 62) including the refrigerant circuit filled with the combustible refrigerant; and the combustion heater according to claim 1, the combustion heater being disposed adjacent to the refrigeration apparatus (Fig 3).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. (see PTO-892).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NELSON NIEVES whose telephone number is (571)270-0392. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 9am to 5pm.
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, Frantz Jules can be reached at 571-272-6681. 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.
/NELSON J NIEVES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763 01/07/2026
/FRANTZ F JULES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3763