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 § 102
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) 13, 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Sako et al (WO 2007013143 A1).
Regarding claim 13, Sako, Fig. 1, 3a, 4, 5, discloses a gas-flow adjustment device 6 for a gas burner appliance C, comprising: a housing 4 providing an inlet 2 for a gas-flow and an outlet for the gas-flow, a throttle 6 being configured to adjust the amount of the gas-flow from the inlet to the outlet, wherein the throttle has a static element 8 and a moving element 9 that can move relative to static element in a linear direction, wherein the relative position of the moving element relative to the static element defines the amount of the gas-flow from the inlet to the outlet, an actuator 11,12 being configured to move the moving element relative to static element in a linear direction, wherein the moving element and the static element of the throttle define a flow opening confined by side walls (inner side walls of holes 10,20) of the same, the side walls 10, 20 of the moving element 8 and the static element 20 being arc shaped and being configured to provide a gas-flow between a minimum amount (no flow at misaligned holes) of the gas-flow and a maximum amount of the gas-flow.
As to claim 14, wherein the moving element of the throttle comprises a circular opening 10 configured to define the minimum amount of the gas-flow (zero flow at misaligned holes position).
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) 1, 8, 9, 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin et al (CN 103711924 A).
Regarding claim 1, Lin discloses a fluid adjustment device, comprising: a housing 2,1,9 providing an inlet (at top) for a fluid and an outlet for the fluid, a throttle 3,5 being configured to adjust the amount of the gas-flow from the inlet to the outlet, wherein the throttle has a static element 3 and a moving element 5, the moving element being configured to move relative to static element in a linear direction, wherein the relative position of the moving element relative to the static element defines the amount of the fluid from the inlet to the outlet, an actuator 8 having a motor 8-1 and a threaded spindle 8-5,8-6, wherein the motor is configured to rotate the threaded spindle, wherein the threaded spindle is configured to move the moving element 5 relative to static element 3 in a linear direction upon rotation of the threaded spindle by the motor, wherein: the moving element 5 of the throttle comprise at least one alignment feature (side edges received in slot guides shown in Fig 5 and also portion sandwiched between 3 and 6) being configured to provide an accurate relative position of the moving element 3 relative to the static element 3.
The recitation “adjustment device for a gas burner appliance” is considered to be a name given the claimed device relative to its intended use. From M.P.E.P. §2111.02 (II): If the body of a claim fully and intrinsically sets forth all of the limitations of the claimed invention, and the preamble merely states, for example, the purpose or intended use of the invention, rather than any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations, then the preamble is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction. Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 182 F.3d 1298, 1305, 51 USPQ2d 1161, 1165 (Fed. Cir.1999). If a prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use as recited in the preamble, then it meets the claim. See, e.g., In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431 (Fed.Cir. 1997). As evidenced by the explanation given above, the claimed structure finds their equivalents in the reference(s) applied. As such the device of Lin is readable as a “adjustment device for a gas burner appliance”.
Regarding the recitation of gas-flow, it is noted that “Expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof during an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim.” Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666, 667 (Bd. App. 1969). Furthermore, “[i]nclusion of material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims.” In re Young, 75 F.2d, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935) (as restated in In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963))
Lin fails to disclose moving element of throttle made from plastics. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have made moving element of throttle in the device disclosed by Lin using plastics since it has been held that selecting a particular known material is within the general skill of a worker in the art on the basis of its suitability for the intended as a material of obvious design choice use based upon particular application requirements. In re Leshin 125 USPQ 416.
As to claim 8, the moving element 5 of the throttle 3,5 comprises as alignment feature a rigid stop member (end surface of 5 at 9) providing an alignment of the moving element to the static element when the throttle is in a minimum opening position (at zero flow when 5 abuts 9)
As to claim 9, the moving element 5 and the rigid stop member (end surface of 5 at 9) are integrally formed providing one monolithic element.
As to claim 12, the housing comprises a top housing part (top most portion in Fig 2) providing the inlet and a bottom housing part (portion from 4 and below) providing the outlet, the static element 3 of the throttle is integrally formed with the bottom housing part.
Claim(s) 1, 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sako et al (WO 2007013143 A1) in view of Orino et al (20110083747).
Sako, Fig 1,4, discloses a gas burner appliance 2-C having a gas-flow adjustment device comprising: a housing 4 providing an inlet 2 for a gas-flow and an outlet for the gas-flow, a throttle 8,9 being configured to adjust the amount of the gas-flow from the inlet to the outlet, wherein the throttle has a static element 8 and a moving element 9, the moving element being configured to move relative to static element in a linear direction, wherein the relative position of the moving element relative to the static element defines the amount of the gas-flow from the inlet to the outlet, an actuator having a motor 11 configured to move the moving element 9 relative to static element 8 in a linear direction, the moving element 9 of the throttle comprise at least one alignment feature (side portions inside 14, see Fig 5) being configured to provide an accurate relative position of the moving element relative to the static element.
Sako fails to disclose motor having a threaded spindle gas-flow from the inlet to the outlet, an actuator having a motor 11 configured to move the moving element 9 relative to static element 8 in a linear direction. Orino teaches a motor (para 46) and a threaded spindle 70, wherein the motor is configured to rotate the threaded spindle, wherein the threaded spindle is configured to move the moving element 54 relative to static element (seat) in a linear direction upon rotation of the threaded spindle by the motor.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the system disclosed by Sako with a motor/screw/spindle linear actuator as taught by Orino in order to provide an automated actuation.
Sako fails to disclose moving element of throttle made from plastics. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have made moving element of throttle in the device disclosed by Sako using plastics since it has been held that selecting a particular known material is within the general skill of a worker in the art on the basis of its suitability for the intended as a material of obvious design choice use based upon particular application requirements. In re Leshin 125 USPQ 416.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) 2-7, 10, 11, 16-20 is/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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Atif Chaudry at phone number 571-270-3768. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday (9:30AM-6:00PM EST).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisors can be reached by phone. Kenneth Rinehart can be reached at 571-272-4881, or Craig Schneider can be reached at 571-272-3607. 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.
/ATIF H CHAUDRY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3753