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 .
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.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in China on 6/27/2023. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the CN 202310769771.6 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lewis et al [20060034748].
With respect to claim 1, Lewis discloses: A gas distribution component for a burner (76) [paragraph 0038], characterized in that the gas distribution component (20) comprises: an oxidant inlet (72), for introducing an oxidant flow into the burner [paragraph 0073]; an oxidant inlet channel (20), in fluid connection with the oxidant inlet [see FIG 7 reproduced below]; a diffusion/buffering chamber (10), providing a space for diffusion of the oxidant after the oxidant flows out of the oxidant inlet channel, and connected to oxidant delivery components (34) [see FIG 4, paragraph 0044, 0042] wherein multiple through-holes (42) are provided in a wall (40) of the oxidant inlet channel that is adjacent to the diffusion/buffering chamber [paragraph 0076].
PNG
media_image1.png
623
735
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Lewis further shows:
{cl. 8} The gas distribution component of Claim 1, wherein the diffusion/buffering chamber has a detachably connected outside wall [paragraph 0045].
{cl. 9} The gas distribution component of Claim 1, wherein the gas distribution component is provided with a fuel inlet (78), whereby the oxidant inlet (72) is not in communication with the fuel inlet [see FIG 7, paragraph 0070].
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.
Claim(s) 5-7, 10 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lewis et al [20060034748], further in view of Feese et al [20050053877].
With respect to claims 5-7, 10, 11, Lewis discloses the invention as substantially claimed, however does not show limitations further limiting the through-holes or the baffle as claimed.
Feese makes up for these deficiencies by teaching:
{cl. 5} The gas distribution component of Claim 1, wherein a baffle (126) is provided at a junction of the diffusion/buffering chamber and each oxidant delivery component, the baffle partially blocking an oxidant inlet into the oxidant delivery component [see FIG 2, paragraph 0045].
{cl. 6} A gas distribution component of Claim 1, wherein the diameters of the multiple through-holes are distributed non-uniformly [see FIG 3].
{cl. 7} The gas distribution component of Claim 6, wherein the multiple through-holes (168, 178, 190) are configured such that middle through-holes are of smaller diameter while peripheral through-holes are of larger diameter [see FIG 3].
{cl. 10} The gas distribution component of Claim 8, wherein the oxidant delivery components comprise a primary oxidant fuel delivery component (168), a secondary oxidant delivery component (178) and a tertiary oxidant delivery component (190); the secondary oxidant delivery component and the tertiary oxidant delivery component are arranged on the same side of the primary oxidant fuel delivery component, and the secondary oxidant delivery component is located between the tertiary oxidant delivery component and the primary oxidant fuel delivery component [see FIG 1, paragraph 0048-0050].
{cl. 11} A multi-stage burner comprising a gas distribution component of Claim 1 [see abstract].
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention of Lewis with the teachings of Feese because Feese provides a known arrangement that allows for proper oxidant control and desired flow for complete combustion of fuel.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-4 and 12-15 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AVINASH A SAVANI whose telephone number is (571)270-3762. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday 8am-4pm.
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 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.
/AVINASH A SAVANI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3762
9/15/2026
Prosecution Insights