DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Objections
1. The claims listed below are objected to because of the following informalities:
In Claim 1, change “A gasification device for a gasification combustion fireplace, said device being characterized by: comprising a gasification chamber” to -- A gasification device for a gasification combustion fireplace, comprising: a gasification chamber --
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1 establishes “electric heating elements” in lines 2-3 and proceeds to recite “several electric heating elements are provided” in lines 4-5. It is unclear if “several electric heating elements” as claimed in lines 4-5 are referring to the same “electric heating elements” established in lines 2-3 or to an additional distinct set of heating elements. Similarly, Claim 1 establishes “several cooling fins” in lines 7-8 and proceeds to recite “channels for liquid circulation are provided between a plurality of fins and between the fins and an inner wall of the gasification chamber” in lines 10-11. It is unclear if “the fins” of lines 10-11 are referring to the same “fins” established in lines 7-8 or to an additional distinct set of fins. Note that the specification fails to clarify these issues. The metes and bounds of the claim are consequently unclear.
Claims 2-10 are rejected due to their dependency on Claim 1.
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.
Claims 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hu et al. (CN 108087921 A) (hereinafter “Hu”) (see attached original document and translation for reference) in view of Gao (CN 104688014 A) (see attached original document and translation for reference).
Regarding Claim 1, to the extent that Claim 1 is understood in light of the 112(b) rejections set forth in this Office Action, Hu teaches of a gasification device (Fig. 2) for a gasification combustion fireplace (Note that the limitation “for a gasification combustion fireplace” constitutes an intended use of the claimed apparatus that a prior art apparatus must be merely capable of doing to fulfill. In the instant case, the gasification device of Fig. 2 produces “fuel” via outlet (32) (see at least the 5th paragraph from the bottom of pg. 3 and Figs. 1-3) that can be used with any device that burns fuel including a gasification combustion fireplace. Thus, the gasification device of Fig. 2 is accordingly capable of use with a gasification combustion fireplace and is accordingly “for a gasification combustion fireplace” as claimed.) comprising:
a gasification chamber (the gasification chamber formed between elements (2) and (3) as shown in Fig. 3) (see at least the top half of pg. 3 and Figs. 1-3), a gasification chamber lid (3), electric heating elements (1) (see at least the last full paragraph on pg. 2, the top half of pg. 3 and Figs. 1-3), a base (the bottom most base portion of element (2) as shown in Figs. 1-3), and a controller (“temperature control”) (see at least the last full paragraph on pg. 2, the top half of pg. 3 and Figs. 1-3), wherein the gasification chamber has a gasification chamber inner cavity (the inner cavity formed between elements (2) and (3) as shown in Fig. 3), and the base is provided below the gasification chamber (as is shown in Fig. 3) (see at least the top half of pg. 3 and Figs. 1-3);
wherein several electric heating elements (1) are provided (as is shown in Figs. 1-3, at least two of electric heating elements (1) are provided), and are completely enclosed between a lower surface of the gasification chamber and the base (as is shown in Figs. 1-3) (see at least the top half of pg. 3 and Figs. 1-3), and the electric heating elements are electrically connected to the controller (to thereby facilitate temperature control - see at least the last full paragraph on pg. 2, the top half of pg. 3 and Figs. 1-3);
a gasification chamber liquid inlet port (31) (see at least the top half of pg. 3 and Figs. 1-3);
wherein several cooling fins (fins that forms channels (21) as shown in Fig. 1) are further provided in the gasification chamber inner cavity (see at least the top half of pg. 3 and Figs. 1-3), and the cooling fins are connected to a lower surface of the gasification chamber inner cavity (as is shown in Figs. 1, 3) and are arranged close to the heating elements (Note that the limitation “arranged close to the heating elements” in this context is being interpreted as being arranged at a location close enough to receive heat from the heating elements. In the instant case, the cooling fins are arranged directly above the heating elements such that the fins and fluid in the channels receive heat therefrom (see at least the top half of pg. 3 and Figs. 1-3); the cooling fins are accordingly arranged close to the heating elements as claimed.);
channels (21) for liquid circulation are provided between a plurality of fins (fins that forms channels (21) as shown in Fig. 1) and between the fins and an inner wall of the gasification chamber (as is shown in Figs. 1, 3) (see at least the top half of pg. 3 and Figs. 1-3); and
the gasification chamber lid (3) is provided above the gasification chamber and seals the gasification chamber inner cavity so that the gasification chamber inner cavity becomes a closed space (as is shown in Figs. 2-3) (see at least the top half of pg. 3 and Figs. 1-3), and a gas outlet port (32) is provided on the gasification chamber lid (see at least the top half of pg. 3 and Figs. 1-3).
Hu fails to explicitly teach that the gasification chamber liquid inlet port is provided below the gasification chamber and that the gasification chamber lid is provided with several gas outlet ports.
Gao discloses a relatable gasification device (2) (see at least [0027] and Figs. 1-3) that comprises a gasification chamber (chamber between elements (21) and (23) as shown Figs. 2-5) with a lid (23) (see at least [0027]-[0028] and Figs. 1-3). Gao teaches that the gasification chamber comprises a liquid inlet port (221) provided below the gasification chamber (as is shown in Fig. 5) and that the gasification chamber lid is provided with several gas outlet ports (231) (see at least [0028] and Fig. 5). Gao teaches that the relative arrangement of the liquid inlet port and the several gas outlet ports enables fluid flowing therebetween to be heated “rapidly” while enabling “spraying” of the generated gas at multiple different outlet locations via the plurality of gas outlet ports (see at least [0028] and Fig. 5).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the device taught by Hu by configuring the existing liquid inlet port to be provided below the gasification chamber while configuring the existing lid to have several gas outlet ports as is taught by Gao. Doing so would have facilitated rapid heating and enabled spraying of the generated gas at multiple different outlet locations via the plurality of gas outlet ports. Note that such modification would have necessarily resulted in the invention as claimed.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hu and Gao further in view of Zhou (US 2014/0158111 A1).
Regarding Claim 8, Hu and Gao teach the gasification device for a gasification combustion fireplace according to Claim 1 (see the rejection for Claim 1) but fail to explicitly teach that the gasification device further comprises several temperature detecting devices which are electrically connected to the controller.
Zhou discloses a relatable fireplace of combusting gasified liquid fuel (Fig. 1) (see at least [0024] and Figs. 1-2) that comprises a gasification device (1’), a controller (6’) and at least one temperature detecting devices (11’) that is electrically connected to the controller (see at least [0037]-[0038] and Fig. 6). Zhou teaches that the temperature detecting device helps to, inter alia, “ensure the temperature in the gasification chamber 1' is at a normal status and thus prevent overheating of the gasification chamber 1'” (see [0037] and Fig. 6).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have further modified the combined device by configuring the existing gasification device to further comprise at least one temperature detecting device that is electrically connected to the existing controller based on the teachings of Zhou. Doing so would have helped to ensure that temperature in the gasification device is at a normal status and would have helped prevent overheating.
Zhou (in addition to Hu and Gao) fails to explicitly teach that the at least one temperature detecting device (11’) is “several temperature detecting devices”. However, it has been held that a mere duplication of parts that does not produce a new and unexpected result has “no patentable significance” (see below). Therefore, merely duplicating parts in the prior art in a way that that would not have produced a new and unexpected would have constituted an obvious modification.
In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) (Claims at issue were directed to a water-tight masonry structure wherein a water seal of flexible material fills the joints which form between adjacent pours of concrete. The claimed water seal has a "web" which lies in the joint, and a plurality of "ribs" projecting outwardly from each side of the web into one of the adjacent concrete slabs. The prior art disclosed a flexible water stop for preventing passage of water between masses of concrete in the shape of a plus sign (+). Although the reference did not disclose a plurality of ribs, the court held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced.).
In the instant case, adding an additional temperature detecting device such that “several temperature detecting devices” would be present as opposed to a single temperature detecting device would have produced the expected result of (at least) adding redundancy and thus increasing reliability of the device (see at least [0037] and Fig. 6 of Zhou). Furthermore, there is no disclosure or evidence otherwise that using several temperature detecting devices as opposed to a single temperature detecting device would have produced any new and unexpected result. Thus, it is evident that merely adding an additional temperature detecting device such that “several temperature detecting devices” would be present as opposed to a single temperature detecting device would not have produced a new and unexpected result.
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to modify the combined device by duplicating the existing temperature detecting device such that several temperature detecting devices would be present as opposed to a single temperature detecting device since such modification would have constituted an obvious duplication of parts which fails to patentably distinguish over the prior art. Note that such modification would have necessarily resulted in the invention as claimed.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hu and Gao further in view of Tian et al. (US 2020/0140769 A1) (hereinafter “Tian”).
Regarding Claim 10, Hu and Gao teach the gasification device for a gasification combustion fireplace according to Claim 1 (see the rejection for Claim 1) and Hu also teaches of a sealing gasket (sealing gasket formed by element (22) and/or element (4)) that is provided between the gasification chamber and the gasification chamber lid (as is shown in Figs. 1, 3) (see at least the last 3 paragraphs of pg. 3 and Figs. 1-3).
Hu and Gao fail to explicitly teach that the gasification chamber is made of aluminum or copper material having high thermal conductivity (Note that the limitation “aluminum or copper material having high thermal conductivity” is being interpreted as aluminum or copper material with standard thermal conductivity indicative of aluminum or copper).
Tian discloses a relatable gasification device (Fig. 1) that has a gasification chamber (6) (see at least [0061] and Fig. 1) wherein the gasification chamber is made of aluminum (“aluminum spinel material”) (see at least [0061] and Fig. 1) and teaches that such material forms a “refractory layer” that is resistant to the high heat encountered (see at least [0061] and Fig. 1).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have further modified the combined device by configuring the existing gasification chamber to be made of an aluminum spinel material as is taught by Tian. Doing so would have formed a refractory layer that would have been resistant to high heat. Note that such modification would have necessarily resulted in the invention as claimed.
Allowable Subject Matter
6. Dependent Claims 2-7 and 9 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding dependent Claim 2: To the extent that Claim 2 is understood in light of the 112(b) rejections set forth in this Office Action, no known prior art anticipates or renders obvious the combination of limitations claimed in Claim 2. Claim 2 specifies, inter alia, a liquid level detecting device that is “provided with a safety liquid level detecting probe, a low liquid level detecting probe, a middle liquid level detecting probe, and a high liquid level detecting probe in sequence from bottom to top, the safety liquid level detecting probe is higher than the lowest point of a lower surface of the gasification chamber inner cavity, the low liquid level detecting probe is higher than the electric heating elements, and the high liquid level detecting probe is lower than upper surfaces of the cooling fins”. Neither Hu nor Gao teaches of a liquid level detecting device that comprises four distinct probes as claimed, in the specific arrangement claimed relative to one another and to “upper surfaces of the cooling fins”. Thus, Claim 2 is not anticipated by any known prior art and no motivation would have existed to have further modified the prior art combination of Hu and Gao (or that of any other known prior art) in a way that would have resulted in the totality of Claim 2 since no known prior art demonstrates the complete arrangement claimed and because such modification would have required completely reconfiguring and unnecessarily complicating the functional arrangement(s) already taught by Hu and Gao. Therefore, the subject matter of Claim 2 is considered to be allowable over the known prior art. Note that Claims 3-7 and 9 depend on Claim 2 and are consequently also considered to have allowable subject matter for including Claim 2. However, Claim 2, in addition to Claims 3-7 and 9, stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) (as is presented above in this Office Action) and are consequently not in condition for allowance at this time.
Note that this indication of allowable subject matter is subject to change depending on any change in the scope of the claims that may result from amendment or otherwise.
Conclusion
7. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The following prior art is considered relevant to this application in terms of structure and use:
Lyu (US 2020/0263878 A1)
Hamilton et al. (US 3,163,509)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BENJAMIN W JOHNSON whose telephone number is (571)272-8523. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 7:30-5:00 PM.
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, Steve McAllister can be reached at 571-272-6785. 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.
/BENJAMIN W JOHNSON/Examiner, Art Unit 3762 7/11/2026
/GREGORY A WILSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3762
Prosecution Insights