DETAILED ACTION
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: “fuel feeder” and “fresh air feeder” in claims 14 and 27.
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.
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 § 102
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 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.
Claim(s) 14, 18 and 25-27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipate by US 20070000242 A1 to Harmon et al. (Harmon).
In reference to independent claim 14, Harmon discloses:
A burner for an exhaust-gas aftertreatment system (10), comprising:
a housing (30) forming a combustion chamber (18), the housing having an outlet connected or connectable to an exhaust-gas line (32) of the exhaust-gas aftertreatment system (10);
a fuel feeder (22) configured to feed fuel into the combustion chamber (18);
a fresh air feeder (28) configured to feed fresh air into the combustion chamber; and
an ignition unit (20) configured to ignite a fresh air-fuel mixture arranged in the combustion chamber;
wherein the ignition unit (20) has a glow plug (see [0019]), which is arranged in the combustion chamber in such a way that a longitudinal center axis of the glow plug is oriented obliquely to a cross-sectional plane of the combustion chamber (see Fig. 1).
In reference to dependent claim 18, Harmon further discloses: the glow plug (20) is oriented in such a way that the longitudinal center axis of the glow plug (20) and a longitudinal center axis of the combustion chamber (18) lie in a common imaginary plane (see Fig. 1 of Harmon is annotated below).
PNG
media_image1.png
708
868
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In reference to dependent claim 25, Harmon further discloses: the fuel feeder (22) and the fresh air feeder (28) together form a two-fluid nozzle (see Fig. 1; mounted on the combustor head 16).
In reference to dependent claim 26, Harmon further discloses: the fresh air feeder (28) has a sleeve-shaped fresh air feed chamber (16) (see Fig. 1 and [0017]), wherein the fresh air feed chamber (16) radially encloses the housing (30) (see Fig. 1), and wherein the ignition unit (20) protrudes radially through the fresh air feed chamber (see Fig. 1).
In reference to independent claim 27, Harmon further discloses: An exhaust-gas treatment system (10) comprising the burner as that recited above (see rejection of claim 14 above).
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.
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(s) 15-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harmon.
In reference to dependent claim 15-17, Harmon is silent regarding the glow plug (20) being a ceramic glow plug and the angle between the longitudinal center axis of the glow and the cross-sectional plane of the combustion chamber being between 20o and 80o or 50o and 80o.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected a ceramic glow plug for use in the system of Harmon as ceramic glow plugs are well-known to have the benefit of heating up more quickly and attaining higher operating temperatures.
The ignitor/glow plug (20) of Harmon is oriented at an angle with respect to the center line of the combustion chamber (see Fig. 1). It would have further been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have tried different angles based on suitability for the desired system and operation, absent criticality or unexpected results. See MPEP § 2143.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 19-24 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed August 27, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the interpretations of “fuel feed device” and “fresh air feed device” in claims 14 and 27 under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, Applicant alleged that this amounted to rejections. It is noted that the limitations “fuel feed device” and “fresh air feed device” in claims 14 and 27 were interpreted as “means-plus-function” limitations and were not rejected. Moreover, even though the limitations in question were amended as “fuel feeder” and “fresh air feeder”, they were still interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (see above) because “feeder” is still a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning. More specifically, “feeder” merely amounts to a device that feeds and is not associated with any specific structure in the art. As such, the limitations “fuel feeder” and “fresh air feeder” remain under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
With respect to the rejections of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103, Applicant stated that Harmon does not disclose or suggest the claimed features of “the ignition unit has a glow plug, which is arranged in the combustion chamber in such a way that a longitudinal center axis of the glow plug is oriented obliquely to a cross-sectional plane of the combustion chamber”. More specifically, Applicant alleged that Harmon does not disclose the recited orientation of the glow plug (see page 6 of the Remarks). However, given the rejections above, specifically with respect to Fig. 1 of Harmon, the igniter 20 is oriented obliquely, i.e. neither parallelly nor perpendicularly, with respect to a cross-sectional plane of the combustion chamber. It is noted that since the claims do not specify the direction or orientation of the cross-sectional plane, the plane is interpreted to be a plane along any cross section of the combustion chamber.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Ngoc T Nguyen whose telephone number is (571)272-7176. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 am - 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, Mark Laurenzi can be reached at (571) 270-7878. 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.
/NGOC T NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3799