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.
Claims 17, 18, 21-24, and 29-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 8221116 (Biagioli hereinafter) in view of US 9995482 (Cadima hereinafter).
Regarding claim 17, Biagioli teaches a gas burner and distribution system that discloses a distribution chamber defined by an outer wall (Annotated Figure 1 with wall “B”), a bottom wall (Wall below the distribution chamber “A”), and a separation wall (Wall “C”), wherein the outer wall is penetrated with a plurality of outlet ports associated with an outer crown (Outlets shown in the outer wall “C”), wherein the bottom wall is penetrated with a distribution inlet into the distribution chamber (Inlets 19 and 20 in Figure 2), said distribution inlet being at least one elongated passage following a shape of the outer wall (Evident from Figures 1, 2, and 6).
PNG
media_image1.png
757
746
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Biagoli is silent with respect that the separation wall is designed to fluidically separate the distribution chamber from a space within the separation wall associated with an inner crown.
However, Cadima teaches a gas burner and that a separation wall is designed to fluidically separate the distribution chamber from a space within the separation wall associated with an inner crown (Figures 5 and 6 show a fluidically isolated inner crown and outer crown that would apply this to the inner and outer crowns of Biagioli).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the fluid pathing of Biagioli with the fluidically separated sections of Cadima to allow for control of section of the burner.
Regarding claim 18, Biagioli’s modified teachings are described above in claim 17 where the combination of Biagioli would further disclose that the at least one elongated passage follows the shape of the outer wall where the plurality of outlet ports are located (Evident from Figure 2 of Biagioli with 19 and 20 being mirrored in the channel “A”).
Regarding claim 21, Biagioli’s modified teachings are described above in claim 17 where the combination of Biagioli would further disclose that the at least one elongated passage follows at least 75% of a length of an inner side of the outer wall where the plurality of outlet ports are located (Figure 2 of Cadima shows the area of the supply for the outer crown from 234 and this area would be open in the distribution chamber “A” of Biagioli).
Regarding claim 22, Biagioli’s modified teachings are described above in claim 17 where the combination of Biagioli would further disclose that a distance between an outer side of the at least one elongated passage and an inner side of the outer wall is not longer than a cross width of the at least one elongated passage and/or a thickness of the outer wall and/or a thickness of the bottom wall (Evident from Figure 2 of Biagioli).
Regarding claim 23, Biagioli’s modified teachings are described above in claim 17 where the combination of Biagioli would further disclose that an outer side of the at least one elongated passage is flush with a joint between the outer wall and the bottom wall and/or with an inner side of the outer wall (Evident from Figure 1 of Biagioli).
Regarding claim 24, Biagioli’s modified teachings are described above in claim 17 where the combination of Biagioli would further disclose that at least one elongated passage is oriented parallel to and/or inclined towards an inner side of the outer wall (Figures 1-3 of Biagioli).
Regarding claim 29, Biagioli’s modified teachings are described above in claim 17 where the combination of Biagioli would further disclose a mixing chamber located below the bottom wall of the distribution chamber (Mixing chamber of either of 18 and 18 of Biagioli), wherein the bottom wall of the distribution chamber separates the distribution chamber and the mixing chamber (Evident from Figures 1 and 2 of Biagioli), and wherein the distribution inlet into the distribution chamber fluidically connects the distribution chamber and the mixing chamber (Figures 1 and 2 of Biagioli).
Regarding claim 30, Biagioli’s modified teachings are described above in claim 29 where the combination of Biagioli would further disclose that the distribution chamber and the mixing chamber are formed integrally (Evident from Figures 1 and 2 with parts 17 and 18 of Biagioli).
Regarding claim 31, Biagioli’s modified teachings are described above in claim 17 where the combination of Biagioli would further disclose that the bottom wall of the distribution chamber is an insert part formed separately (Figure 1 of Biagioli) .
Regarding claim 32, Biagioli’s modified teachings are described above in claim 17 where the combination of Biagioli would further disclose that the bottom wall of the distribution chamber is formed integrally with the outer wall and the separation wall (Evident form Figure 1 of Biagioli).
Regarding claim 33, Biagioli’s modified teachings are described above in claim 17 where the combination of Biagioli would further disclose an inner bottom wall and an inner wall which are designed to define together with the separation wall an inner distribution chamber (Inner crown at 6 of Biagioli in Figure 1), with the distribution chamber being an outer distribution chamber that at least partially encircles the inner distribution chamber (Evident form Figure 1 of Biagioli and Figures 5 and 6 of Cadima), wherein the inner bottom wall is penetrated with a distribution inlet into the inner distribution chamber (Figure 2 of Biagioli with 12), and wherein the inner wall is penetrated with a plurality of outlet ports associated with the inner crown (Evident from Figure 1 of Biagioli).
Regarding claim 34, Biagioli teaches a gas burner and distribution system that discloses a distribution chamber defined by an outer wall (Annotated Figure 1 with wall “B”), a bottom wall (Wall below the distribution chamber “A”), and a separation wall (Wall “C”), wherein the outer wall is penetrated with a plurality of outlet ports associated with an outer crown (Outlets shown in the outer wall “C”), wherein the bottom wall is penetrated with a distribution inlet into the distribution chamber (Inlets 19 and 20 in Figure 2), said distribution inlet being at least one elongated passage following a shape of the outer wall (Evident from Figures 1, 2, and 6).
Biagioli is silent with respect that the separation wall is designed to fluidically separate the distribution chamber from a space within the separation wall associated with an inner crown.
However, Cadima teaches a gas burner and that a separation wall is designed to fluidically separate the distribution chamber from a space within the separation wall associated with an inner crown (Figures 5 and 6 show a fluidically isolated inner crown and outer crown that would apply this to the inner and outer crowns of Biagioli).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the fluid pathing of Biagioli with the fluidically separated sections of Cadima to allow for control of section of the burner.
Claim 19, 20, 27, and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 8221116 (Biagioli) in view of US 9995482 (Cadima) and further in view of 7628609 (Pryor hereinafter).
Regarding claim 19, Biagioli’s modified teachings are described above in claim 17 but are silent with respect that the outer wall has a polygonal shape.
However, Pryor teaches a gas burner with a polygonal shaped burner (Figure 1 shows a star shaped burner).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the circular burner with the shape of the burner taught by Pryor to heat the entire range of the container placed above the burner.
Regarding claim 20, Biagioli’s modified teachings are described above in claim 17 but are silent with respect that the outer wall has a star shape.
However, Pryor teaches a gas burner with a star shaped burner (Figure 1 shows a star shaped burner).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the circular burner with the shape of the burner taught by Pryor to heat the entire range of the container placed above the burner.
Regarding claim 27, Biagioli’s modified teachings are described above in claim 17 but are silent with respect that at least one of the plurality of outlet ports has an outlet axis which is rotated from a thickness direction of a section of the outer wall towards or to a radial direction of the distribution part.
However, Pryor teaches a gas burner with a star shaped burner (Figure 1 shows a star shaped burner) that features at least one of the plurality of outlet ports has an outlet axis which is rotated from a thickness direction of a section of the outer wall towards or to a radial direction of the distribution part (Figure 4 shows the angled outlets).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the circular burner with the shape of the burner taught by Pryor to heat the entire range of the container placed above the burner.
Regarding claim 28, Biagioli’s modified teachings are described above in claim 17 but are silent with respect that each of the plurality of outlet ports has an outlet axis which is rotated from a thickness direction of a section of the outer wall towards or to a radial direction of the distribution part.
However, Pryor teaches a gas burner with a star shaped burner (Figure 1 shows a star shaped burner) that features each of the plurality of outlet ports has an outlet axis which is rotated from a thickness direction of a section of the outer wall towards or to a radial direction of the distribution part (Figure 4 shows the angled outlets).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the circular burner with the shape of the burner taught by Pryor to heat the entire range of the container placed above the burner.
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 8221116 (Biagioli) in view of US 9995482 (Cadima) and further in view of 6325619 (Dane hereinafter).
Regarding claim 25, Biagioli’s modified teachings are described above in claim 17 but are silent with respect that the plurality of outlet ports reach down from a top side of the outer wall at least 50% of a distance from the top side of the outer wall to a top side of the bottom wall.
However, Dane teaches a gas burner that discloses a plurality of outlet ports reach down from a top side of the outer wall at least 50% of a distance from the top side of the outer wall to a top side of the bottom wall (Figure 1 with outlets at 5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the height of the outlets in the burner of Biagioli with the increased height of Dane to increase the flow rate of the gas from the burner to be ignited.
Claim 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 8221116 (Biagioli) in view of US 9995482 (Cadima) and further in view of 6132205 (Harneit hereinafter).
Regarding claim 26, Biagioli’s modified teachings are described above in claim 17 but are silent with respect that the plurality of outlet ports have bottom surfaces which are inclined with their lower edge at an inner side and their upper edge at an outer side of the outer wall.
However, Harneit teaches a gas burner that discloses a plurality of outlet ports have bottom surfaces which are inclined with their lower edge at an inner side and their upper edge at an outer side of the outer wall (Figure 3 with angled outlets at 93)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the shape of the outlets of Biagioli with the angled outlets of Harneit to direct the flames affecting the container to be heated.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CONNOR J. TREMARCHE whose telephone number is (571)272-2175. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 0700-1700 Eastern.
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.
/CONNOR J TREMARCHE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3762
