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 .
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 (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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DE 3926699 A1 (hereinafter “BOHMANN”) in view of EP 0157432 A2 (hereinafter “MCCAUSLAND”).
PNG
media_image1.png
638
1006
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 1, BOHMANN discloses a hydrogen combustion burner utilizing hydrogen gas as a fuel gas, comprising, a burner body (see Fig. 1) with an air-fuel mixture chamber (10) into which an air-fuel mixture of the hydrogen gas (12; see also the provided English translation: “The gas burner shown as the first exemplary embodiment in FIG. 1 consists of a mixing chamber 10 into which a first line 11 for supplying air (L) or another oxygen-containing gas and a second line 12 for supplying a combustion gas (G) such as natural gas, propane , Butane, hydrogen or the like. flow into.”) and primary air (11) is supplied; and a combustion plate portion (see at least 17) covering an opening surface, which faces the air-fuel mixture chamber, of the burner body, wherein the air-fuel mixture ejects from the combustion plate portion and undergoes combustion, and wherein the combustion plate portion comprises a sintered sheet by sintering an aggregate of metallic fibers (see the provided English translation: “The mixing chamber 10 is connected on the output side via a narrower passage 13 to the actual burner area 14 , which initially widens conically from the passage 13 and then opens into a circular-cylindrical area 15 . In this circular cylindrical portion 15 is a circular disk-shaped flame is disposed on the input side holding layer 16, which is arranged parallel to the flame-retaining layer 16 and spaced from layer still also a circular disc-shaped afterburner 17 at the output. Both layers 16 , 17 must have a large number of small passages in order to allow the passage of the mixture on the input side and the passage of the exhaust gas on the output side. For this purpose, the layers are designed as porous layers, for example as ge foamed ceramic layers, or as a fine wire mesh, as a wire pressed body, as a sintered body or as layers provided with fine bores”).
BOHMANN is silent with regard to wherein the aggregate is not made by weaving or knitting the metallic fibers.
PNG
media_image2.png
703
1194
media_image2.png
Greyscale
MCCAUSLAND teaches a radiant surface-combustion burner comprising: a combustion plate portion (2) comprises a sintered sheet by sintering an aggregate of metallic fibers, wherein the aggregate is not made by weaving or knitting the metallic fibers (see Pg. 3, Lns. 1-3: “The radiant surface combustion burner according to the invention has a porous element comprising a sintered wall of non-woven steel fibres containing chromium and aluminium.”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify BOHMANN wherein the aggregate is not made by weaving or knitting the metallic fibers as taught and/or suggested by MCCAUSLAND, since MCCAUSLAND states, at Pg. 3, Lns. 9-11, that “The sintered panels or sheets have the additional advantage of being deformable, machineable and weldable.” In addition, since both references teach a combustion plate comprising sintered fibers, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to substitute one combustion plate comprising sintered fibers for the other to achieve the predictable result of providing a porous combustion surface.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over BOHMANN in view of MCCAUSLAND as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of EP 3434976 A1 (hereinafter “BENETTI”) and US 2005/0271995 A1 (hereinafter “PARK”).
Regarding Claim 2, BOHMANN in view of MCCAUSLAND does not explicitly disclose wherein the metallic fibers are composed of Fe (iron) and at least one element selected from the group consisting of Al (aluminum), Cr (chromium), Mn (manganese), and Si (silicon), or a carbide(s) thereof, and weight per unit area during sintering the sintered sheet is set within a range of 1,200g/m2 to 1,800g/m2.
MCCAUSLAND teaches a Fecralloy® but does not specifically disclose the stainless-steel alloy claimed.
BENETTI teaches a gas burner wherein the metallic fibers are composed of Fe (iron) and at least one element selected from the group consisting of Al (aluminum), Cr (chromium), Mn (manganese), and Si (silicon), or a carbide(s) thereof (see para. [0022]: “The metal fiber mesh element 34 may be constructed from several materials such as a high temperature steel alloy wire cloth or from material sold under the trade name/trademarks INCONEL and NICROFER. In the demonstrated embodiment, however, the metal fiber mesh element 34 is constructed from an iron-chromium-aluminum alloy (FeCrAI). In one embodiment, the composition of the fiber comprises 18-24 % by weight Cr, 4-8% by weight Al, and the balance Fe. In other embodiments, the fiber comprises 18-24 % by weight Cr, 4-8% by weight Al 0.40% by weight maximum C, 0.07% by weight maximum Ti, 0.40% by weight maximum Mn, 0.045% by weight maximum S, 0.045% by weight maximum P, 0.60% by weight maximum Si, and the balance Fe. In still another embodiment, the composition of the fiber comprises the fiber comprises 18-24 % by weight Cr, 4-8% by weight Al, 0.40% by weight maximum C, 0.07% by weight maximum Ti, 0.40% by weight maximum Mn, 0.045% by weight maximum S, 0.045% by weight maximum P, 0.60% by weight maximum Si, 0.001 to 0.10% by weight rare earth metal, and the balance Fe. In one exemplary embedment, the rare earth metal is Yttrium or Hafnium.”).
PARK teaches a metal fiber sintered body for combustion used for combustion media of gas burners wherein the weight per unit area during sintering the sintered sheet is set within a range of 1,200g/m2 to 1,800g/m2 (see at least the Abstract: “The sintered body has a metal fiber density in the range of 0.5 - 4 kg/m2”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to further modify BOHMANN in view of MCCAUSLAND wherein the metallic fibers are composed of Fe (iron) and at least one element selected from the group consisting of Al (aluminum), Cr (chromium), Mn (manganese), and Si (silicon), or a carbide(s) thereof, and weight per unit area during sintering the sintered sheet is set within a range of 1,200g/m2 to 1,800g/m2 as taught and/or suggested by the combined teachings of BENETTI and PARK, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over BOHMANN in view of MCCAUSLAND, BENETTI and PARK as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of JP 2855664 B2 (hereinafter “NAKAMURA”).
Regarding Claim 3, BOHMANN in view of MCCAUSLAND, BENETTI and PARK does not disclose wherein a diameter of each metallic fiber ranges from 50µm to 100µm.
NAKAMURA teaches a burner element composed of a long fiber sintered plate wherein a diameter of each metallic fiber ranges from 50µm to 100µm (see the provided English translation: “In the infrared heater of the present embodiment having the above-described configuration, the burner main body 2 was formed by sintering a long fiber made of a metal having a diameter of 10 to 50 μm and a length of 10 mm or more.”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to further modify BOHMANN in view of MCCAUSLAND, BENETTI and PARK wherein a diameter of each metallic fiber ranges from 50µm to 100µm as taught and/or suggested by NAKAMURA, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Claims 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over BOHMANN in view of MCCAUSLAND as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of NAKAMURA.
Regarding Claim 4, BOHMANN in view of MCCAUSLAND is silent with respect to wherein porosity of the sintered sheet ranges from 60% to 80%.
NAKAMURA further teaches wherein porosity of the sintered sheet ranges from 60% to 80% (see the provided English translation: “The gas is blown out through the burner main body 2 made of a sintered plate of a metal fiber having a porosity of 80 to 95%, which is disposed and fixed over the front opening of the shell 7.”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to further modify BOHMANN in view of MCCAUSLAND wherein porosity of the sintered sheet ranges from 60% to 80% as taught and/or suggested by NAKAMURA, since NAKAMURA further teaches (see the provided English translation) that such a fiber sintered plate allows the gas mixture supplied to be effectively rectified and uniformly jetted from the whole surface, reduces back pressure, makes it easy to increase the surface load, the radiation efficiency and the heat efficiency were improved, and the flame was attached to the surface of the burner element without melting the fiber. In addition, uniform heating of a large surface becomes possible, and running costs can be reduced. Furthermore, the burner element formed by fiber sintering has poor heat conduction in the thickness direction and does not lead to a decrease in the surface temperature even if it is made thicker.
Regarding Claim 5, BOHMANN in view of MCCAUSLAND does not disclose wherein the sintered sheet is formed into a convex bending shape towards a downstream side in a flow direction of the air-fuel mixture.
NAKAMURA, with reference to Fig. 5(c), further teaches wherein the sintered sheet (2) is formed into a convex bending shape towards a downstream side in a flow direction of the air-fuel mixture.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to further modify BOHMANN in view of MCCAUSLAND wherein the sintered sheet is formed into a convex bending shape towards a downstream side in a flow direction of the air-fuel mixture as taught and/or suggested by NAKAMURA, since NAKAMURA further teaches (see the provided English translation) that a burner element composed of a long fiber sintered plate using a long fiber made of a metal capable of adopting various forms such as shapes; and that such a fiber sintered plate allows the gas mixture supplied to be effectively rectified and uniformly jetted from the whole surface, reduces back pressure, makes it easy to increase the surface load, the radiation efficiency and the heat efficiency were improved, and the flame was attached to the surface of the burner element without melting the fiber. In addition, uniform heating of a large surface becomes possible, and running costs can be reduced. Furthermore, the burner element formed by fiber sintering has poor heat conduction in the thickness direction and does not lead to a decrease in the surface temperature even if it is made thicker.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure because the references are either in the same field of endeavor or are reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the applicant was concerned. Please see form PTO-892 (Notice of References Cited) attached to, or included with, this Office Action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JORGE A PEREIRO whose telephone number is (571)270-3932 and whose fax number is (571) 270-4932. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9:00 - 5:00 EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Helena Kosanovic can be reached at (571) 272-9059. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JORGE A PEREIRO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3799
