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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: 30-1 (Fig. 2B) and 320 (Fig. 4). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
On pg. 2, line 9 of the disclosure, “the gas outlet hole gas valve body module” should read “the gas outlet hole of the gas valve body module.”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In line 7, “further comprising” should read “further comprises.”
In lines 8-9, “at least one of one end” should read “at least one end.”
In lines 12-13, “the gas outlet hole gas valve body module” should read “the gas outlet hole of the gas valve body module.”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
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: “heat exchange promotion module” in claim 1.
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.
With regards to the heat exchange promotion module, the structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function is a welded alloy rod, metal band, or metal clip used to bring the outer surface of the gas inlet pipe in contact with the outer surface of the gas outlet pipe. See para 0037 of the as-filed Specification on 7/19/2024 and Fig. 2A and 2B, characters 40 and 40-1.
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 § 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 1-3 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding Claim 1, the limitation “the other end of the bent gas pipe” in lines 12-13 has a lack of antecedent basis. “The other end of the bent gas pipe” should be amended to read “an opposite end of the bent gas pipe” to correct this issue.
Regarding Claim 1, the limitation “the other end connected to a gas outlet hole” in line 13 has a lack of antecedent basis. Moreover, it is unclear whether this is referring to an end of the gas outlet pipe or the bent gas pipe. “The other end connected to a gas outlet hole” should be amended to read “an end connected to a gas outlet hole” to correct this issue.
Regarding Claim 1, the limitation “the other side attached to the gas outlet pipe” in lines 15-16 has a lack of antecedent basis. “The other side attached to the gas outlet pipe” should be amended to read “another side attached to the gas outlet pipe” to correct this issue.
Regarding Claim 1, the limitation “the inside of the gas inlet pipe” in line 19 has a lack of antecedent basis. “The inside of the gas inlet pipe” should be amended to read “an inside of the gas inlet pipe” to correct this issue.
Regarding Claim 1, the limitation “the inside of the gas outlet pipe” in line 20 has a lack of antecedent basis. “The inside of the gas outlet pipe” should be amended to read “an inside of the gas outlet pipe” to correct this issue.
Regarding Claim 1, the limitation “the other end of the gas valve body module” in line 21-22 has a lack of antecedent basis. Moreover, “the other end” implies that there may be a different, separate end of the gas valve body module, from “the other end.” However, prior to the recitation of “the other end” of the gas valve body module, there is no clear or explicit introduction of a prior “end” related to the gas valve body module. Thus, it’s unclear if the scope of claim 1 should be required to have a different, separate end of the gas valve body module.
For the purpose of examination, “the other end of the gas valve body module” will be interpreted to mean the opposite end from the end of the gas valve body module that is connected to the adaptor module.
Regarding Claim 3, the limitation “the other end of the gas outlet pipe” in line 9 has a lack of antecedent basis. “The other end of the gas outlet pipe” should be amended to read “another end of the gas outlet pipe” to correct this issue.
Claim 2 is rejected by virtue of its 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.
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) 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Long (US20030211435) in view of Morehead et al. (US20170089576, hereinafter Morehead).
Regarding Claim 1, Long teaches a gas preheating torch (torch 20, Fig. 1) comprising:
a hollow adaptor module (dip tube 30 + restrictor orifice 25, Fig. 4; gas flows from fuel cartridge 22 through dip tube 30 to the restrictor orifice 25 into the regulator cavity 44; see para 0024 and para 0033) configured to be connected to a portable gas container (fuel cartridge 22, Fig. 1);
a gas valve body module (regulator body 24 + value body 26, Fig. 1; para 0023 - “A valve body 26 is attached to the regulator body 24.”) having a gas flow path therein to discharge gas introduced from the portable gas container (para 0022 – “regulator body 24 is attached to the fuel cartridge and extends beyond the end of the fuel cartridge.”);
a gas temperature change module comprising a gas inlet pipe (tube 62, Fig. 1; see para 0028) having one end connected to a gas inlet hole (see annotated figure below) of the gas valve body module (see Fig. 1), a bent gas pipe (coils 70, Fig. 1; see para 0028) having one end integrally connected to the gas inlet pipe (see Fig. 1), and a gas outlet pipe (return 72, Fig. 1; see para 0028) having one end integrally connected to the other end of the bent gas pipe (see Fig. 1) and the other end connected to a gas outlet hole (see annotated figure below) of the gas valve body module (see Fig. 1); and
a burner module (burner tube 28, Fig. 7) having one end connected to the other end of the gas valve body module (see Fig. 1; para 0022) and located behind the bent gas pipe of the gas temperature change module (see Fig. 2) to spray gas discharged from the gas valve body module, project a flame, and heat the bent gas pipe (para 0007 – “The tube preferably is shaped into a coil around the area of the flame so that the coil is heated by the flame.”, para 0010 – “Fuel vapor flows through each of these passages, and escapes the burner tube at a distal end. The outer flow of gas is slow, and does not aspirate air, causing the flame to remain attached to the burner and to burn yellow.”, and para 0034 - “This mixture of liquid and vapor fuel, at least initially, passes through the regulator cavity 44 into the tube 62 and through coils 70 and is eventually ignited (e.g., by a match) at the distal end of the burner tube.”).
PNG
media_image1.png
602
271
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Examiner note: Long does not provide element numbers for the location of the gas inlet hole and the gas outlet hole. However, it is the Examiner’s position that the opening where the gas inlet pipe (tube 62, Fig. 2) connects to the gas valve body module (regulator body 24 + valve body 26, Fig. 2) is the gas inlet hole and the opening where the gas outlet pipe (return 72, Fig. 2) connects to the gas valve body module (regulator body 24 + valve body 26, Fig. 2) is the gas outlet hole.
Long does not teach a heat exchange promotion module having one side attached to the gas inlet pipe or and the other side attached to the gas outlet pipe or to bring the gas inlet pipe and the gas outlet pipe in contact with each other and enable heat exchange between gas flowing through the inside of the gas inlet pipe and gas flowing through the inside of the gas outlet pipe.
Morehead discloses a gas preheating torch (torch 100 and torch ignition assembly 101, see Fig. 1 and Fig. 2A) comprising a heat exchange promotion module (clip 112, Fig. 2A and 2B) having one side attached to the gas inlet pipe (first gas tube 114, Fig. 2A, see para 0023) and the other side attached to the gas outlet pipe (second gas tube 116, Fig. 2A, see para 0023) to bring the gas inlet pipe and the gas outlet pipe in contact with each other and enable heat exchange between gas flowing through the inside of the gas inlet pipe and gas flowing through the inside of the gas outlet pipe (see Examiner’s note below).
It would have been obvious to a person of obvious skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Long by applying the teachings of Morehead, i.e. incorporating a heat exchange promotion module having one side attached to the gas inlet pipe and the other side attached to the gas outlet pipe to bring the gas inlet pipe and the gas outlet pipe in contact with each other (such as by placing the clip 112 from Morehead onto the portion of the tube 62 and return 72 that are in contact from Long, see the annotated figure below) and enable heat exchange between gas flowing through the inside of the gas inlet pipe and gas flowing through the inside of the gas outlet pipe, to provide a known means of keeping two pipes/tubes fastened together (as suggested in para. 0034 of Long – clip 12 is for fastening two tubes together), for the predictable result of keeping Long’s pipes 72 and 62 secured to one another, thereby maintaining effective heat transfer between the gas inlet pipe and the gas outlet pipe, as is intended by Long.
PNG
media_image2.png
602
241
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Examiner Note: It is the Examiner’s position that contact between the gas inlet pipe and gas outlet pipe is inherently indicative of heat exchange even though Long does not explicitly say so. However, Fig. 2 of Long shows a gas inlet pipe (tube 62) and a gas outlet pipe (return 72) in contact with each other and para 0038 discloses that the conduit for fuel flow (tube 62, coils 70, and return 72) can be made from copper, brass, or another heat conductive material to enhance heat transfer. Therefore, adding the clip from Morehead to the contacting gas inlet and outlet pipes as taught by Long, would further enhance heat transfer by ensuring the pipes are tightly affixed to each other.
Regarding Claim 2, Long as modified above discloses the gas preheating torch of claim 1, wherein the bent gas pipe is ring-shaped (coils 70, see Fig. 1), thereby allowing the flame projected from the burner module to pass therethrough (para. 0007 – “The tube preferably is shaped into a coil around the area of the flame so that the coil is heated by the flame.").
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Long (US20030211435) in view of Morehead et al. (US20170089576, hereinafter Morehead) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Baruah et al. (US20120210717, hereinafter Baruah).
Regarding Claim 3, Long as modified by Morehead above teaches the gas preheating torch of claim 1, wherein the gas temperature change module further comprises fixing clips (retainer plate 66 + screw 64 and retainer plate 74 + screw 76; Fig. 2) each having a gas pipe connection hole (see Fig. 2), to which at least one of one end of the gas inlet pipe and the other end of the gas outlet pipe is connected, wherein each of the fixing clips is detachably attached to the gas valve body module such that the gas pipe connection hole overlaps the gas inlet hole or the gas outlet hole gas valve body module (see Fig. 2), so that the gas is introduced from the gas valve body module to the gas inlet pipe and is discharged from the gas outlet pipe to the gas valve body module through the gas outlet hole (see para 0028).
Long does not explicitly teach fixing clips, but rather an alternative fastening method (retaining plate and screw) that performs the same function as the fixing clips disclosed in the claimed application.
Baruah teaches, in the same field of endeavor, an apparatus for injecting fluid into a combustion chamber, an equivalent gas inlet and gas outlet pipe (fluid conduits 102, Fig. 4) which can be secured to a plate using screws or clips (para 0038 - “the fluid conduits 102 may be welded between the nozzle plate 70 and splash plate 72 and/or attached to such plates 70, 72 using suitable mechanical fasteners (e.g., bolts, screws, pins, clips, brackets and the like)).”
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Long to include the teachings of Baruah, i.e. replacing the screws from Long used to secure the gas inlet and gas outlet pipes with clips, to provide the same predictable benefit of stable attachment of the gas inlet and gas outlet pipes to the gas valve body module.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANEISA SAVEENI JANGBAHADUR whose telephone number is (571)272-0813. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8 a.m.-5 p.m. ET.
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.
/ANEISA SAVEENI JANGBAHADUR/Examiner, Art Unit 3762 /MICHAEL G HOANG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3762
