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, 2, 4, and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Kennedy (EP 4265963), which shows all of the claimed limitations. Kennedy shows:
1. A burner 1310 for burning gaseous fuel, characterized by: comprising a gas intake port 1330, several horizontal portions 1314 (left and right portions of the intake), and several inclined portions 1322,1324, one end of each of the horizontal portions being connected, and one end of each inclined portion located at a lower position being connected and fixed to the other end of a horizontal portion (fig. 14); the horizontal portions and the inclined portions each have an internally hollow structure and communicate with each other (inherent); the inclined portions are inclined upwardly at an angle /a with respect to the horizontal portions (fig. 14); the gas intake port is provided on bottom surfaces of the horizontal portions and communicates with the interior of the horizontal portions (fig. 14); and the horizontal portions are provided with a plurality of first flame holes 1316, and the inclined portions are provided with a plurality of second flame holes 1326.
2. The burner for burning gaseous fuel according to claim 1, wherein: the upwardly inclined angle /a of each of the inclined portions may be the same or different, where /a is 20 degrees to 80 degrees (fig. 14)
4. The burner for burning gaseous fuel according to claim 1, wherein: the burner further comprises several simulated solid fuels fastened to the inclined portions (fig. 5A-5C).
5. The burner for burning gaseous fuel according to claim 4, wherein: the inclined portions are provided with supporting surfaces which may be used to support the simulated solid fuels (fig. 14).
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.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kennedy (EP 4265963), which discloses substantially all of the claimed limitations.
Nevertheless, Kennedy fails to explicitly recite the claimed range of the angel of the horizontal portion.
The claimed angle is an obvious modification based on design choice, and depends on spatial considerations such as availability of space and arrangement of other components.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the claimed angle into the invention disclosed by Kennedy, so as to provide for spatial considerations.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-8 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.
REASONS FOR ALLOWANCE
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
As regards the invention recited in dependent claim 6, the combination recited in the claim is novel and unobvious. Of particular interest is the structure and arrangement of the combustion chamber. Naturally the allowability of the limitation in and of itself is not at issue. Nevertheless, in combination with the remainder of the elements recited in the claim, the claimed subject matter is allowable.
While the prior art of record discloses many of the claimed limitations, the prior art of record fails to disclose or make obvious the invention as claimed.
Accordingly, it is clear that the prior art of record does not anticipate, nor make obvious, the claimed invention, alone or in combination therewith.
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.
June 25, 2026
/ALFRED BASICHAS/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3762
Prosecution Insights