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.
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) 1-5, 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cadima [20180306448], further in view of Duffy et al [20200333012].
With respect to claim 1, Cadima discloses: Gas burner (160) for a hob (140), for heating elongated pans or cooking utensils [see FIG 2, paragraph 0020], the gas burner comprising: an injector holder (230), a base (210) that can be positioned on said injector holder (230), a lid (222) that can be positioned on the base, wherein said lid, said base and said injector holder are superposed along a direction Z [see FIG 4, with reference to the V direction], said base and said lid have a substantially elongated shape along an X direction [see FIG 4, with reference to the T direction], the extension along the X direction being greater than the extension along a Y direction where the X and Y directions are perpendicular both to each other and to the Z-direction [see FIG 4], said burner further comprises first doors (outer wall 244) obtained, for at least a portion, in correspondence with an external wall of the base and/or an external edge of the lid, said burner further comprises second doors (intermediate wall 252) formed, for at least a portion, in correspondence with an internal wall of the base and/or an internal edge of the lid, said internal wall of the base and said internal edge surrounding at least partially an internal opening which is defined within the overall dimensions in plan of the base and of the lid [paragraph 0028-0029], said base and said lid are configured in such a way as to delimit at least one chamber for mixing and/or distributing a mixture of air and gas [paragraph 0034], thus supplying: a first external group of flames configured to emerge from said first doors towards the outside of the burner, at least one second internal group of flames which emerge from said second doors towards the inside of said at least one internal opening [see abstract, FIG 5, paragraph 0027, 0029-0031].
Cadima however does not show the injector.
Duffy makes up for these deficiencies by teaching:
{cl. 1, cont’d} said injector holder (26) comprises: at least one injector (104), arranged so as to be aligned substantially along the Z direction, at least one concave support body (28) which internally delimits a cavity in which a corresponding injector is mounted, a single gas inlet which is in fluid communication with said at least one injector [see FIG 2, paragraph 0028-0029].
Duffy further teaches:
{cl. 3} The burner according to claim 1, wherein said base comprises a single chamber which is fluidically connected to a cavity of the injector holder [see FIG 2].
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 apparatus of Cadima with the teachings of Duffy because Duffy provides a known arrangement that allows for effective mixing and proper air/fuel distribution to provide even heat over a longer surface area.
Cadima further shows:
{cl. 2} The burner according to claim 1, wherein the outer wall of the base and/or the outer edge of the lid define in plan view a substantially elliptical shape with an extension along the direction X which is greater than the extension along the Y direction, or a polygonal shape which can be inscribed in an ellipse having an extension along the X direction which is greater than the extension along the Y direction [see FIG 4].
{cl. 4} The burner according to claim 1, wherein: said base comprises two chambers, said injector holder comprises two cavities, in each of which a corresponding injector is mounted, each chamber is fluidically connected to one of said two cavities of the injector holder [see FIG 4].
{cl. 5} The burner according to claim 1, wherein said injector holder is configured to be applied in correspondence with a through opening of a cooking hob and is configured to aspirate primary air from below the hob and/or from above the hob [see FIGs 2 and 6].
{cl. 18} The burner according to claim 1, wherein: said injector holder comprises two cavities (232), in each of which a corresponding injector is mounted, said two cavities of said injector holder being side by side, along the Y direction [see FIG 4].
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-17, 19 and 24 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. The prior art lacks the features of claims 6-17, 19 and 24, and impermissible hindsight reasoning is needed in order to arrive at the claims. For example, in claim 6, a channel is required, and adding or relocating the channel 272 would result in a different arrangement without reasoning as to why the modification can be made.
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
10/12/2026
