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 § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claim 9 puts forth that each of the perforations include a vector and that the vectors are parallel with one another. However, the perforations on the bottom include a vector that extends perpendicular to the vectors of the perforations on the side wall. As such, each of the perforations do not include parallel vectors.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 2, 9 and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the burning air/fuel mixture" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the portions" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "perforations" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Does the limitation refer back to previously recited perforations, or put forth additional perforations?
Claim 12 is rejected due to dependency from claim 11.
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) 1-6, 8-9, 11-12 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Fowler (US 2008/0308182).
Regarding claim 1, Fowler discloses a flame mitigation device comprising:
a rigid hollow body (1) extending along a center axis thereof (Examiner’s Annotated Figure 1) and having a plurality of perforations (6, 8, 10a-10e) configured to provide fluid communication therethrough (The body openings allow for communication of fluid therethrough), the body having a split end comprising at least two prongs that have interior facing prong sidewalls diverging at an angle (Examiner’s Annotated Figure 1).
PNG
media_image1.png
630
634
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Examiner’s Annotated Figure 1
Regarding claim 2, Fowler discloses the flame mitigation device according to claim 1, wherein the flame mitigation device is configured to absorb enough heat to drop the burning air/fuel mixture below its autoignition temperature at a flame speed between 4-6 meters per second (The device includes the structure of claim 1, and is therefore capable of performing the claimed function).
Regarding claim 3, Fowler discloses the flame mitigation device according to claim 1, further comprising at least one perforation-less body portion (2) defining an area along a length of the flame mitigation device (Figure 1).
Regarding claim 4, Fowler discloses the flame mitigation device according to claim 1, further comprising one or more cantilevered retention members (4b) extending from an exterior sidewall of the body (Figure 2) configured to prevent removal of the flame mitigation device from a portable fuel container (The member is capable of performing the claimed function).
Regarding claim 5, Fowler discloses the flame mitigation device according to claim 1, wherein the perforations comprise perforations of a first size (6) and perforations of a second size (8) (Figure 2).
Regarding claim 6, Fowler discloses the flame mitigation device according to claim 1, further comprising a planar bottom end of each of the at least two prongs (Examiner’s Annotated Figure 1).
Regarding claim 8, Fowler discloses the flame mitigation device according to claim 1, wherein an open area of each perforation has a normal vector that is substantially parallel to a radius extending from the center axis of the body.
Regarding claim 9, Fowler discloses the flame mitigation device according to claim 1, wherein an open area of each perforation has a normal vector that, and the normal vectors associated with each of the portions are parallel to each other (As best understood, the perforations include the claimed structure (Figure 2).
Regarding claim 11, Fowler discloses the flame mitigation device according to claim 1, wherein perforations have a variable diameter through a thickness of the body (Figure 2, The bottom surface of the perforations 10a-10e slopes down through a thickness of the body, which changes the diameter of the perforations through the thickness of the body).
Regarding claim 12, Fowler discloses the flame mitigation device according to claim 11, wherein the variable diameter of the perforations decrease from an outer surface of the body to an interior surface of the body (Figure 2, The bottom surface of the perforations 10a-10e slopes upward through a thickness of the body toward the interior, which decreases the diameter of the perforation through the thickness of the body).
Pertaining to Claim 16
Regarding claim 1, Fowler discloses a flame mitigation device comprising:
a rigid hollow body (1) extending along a center axis thereof (Examiner’s Annotated Figure 1) and having a plurality of perforations (6, 8, 10a-10e, 14) configured to provide fluid communication therethrough (The body openings allow for communication of fluid therethrough), the body having a split end comprising at least two prongs that have interior facing prong sidewalls diverging at an angle (Examiner’s Annotated Figure 1).
Regarding claim 16, Fowler discloses the flame mitigation device according to claim 1, wherein the body includes a sidewalls (22) and a distal wall (9) at one end of the body (Figure 2), and the plurality of perforations comprises distal openings (14) formed in the distal wall of the body (9), the distal opening having different draft than the other ones of the plurality of openings formed through the sidewalls (Figure 2, The elongated openings 8 have a different draft than the openings 14).
Claim(s) 1 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Fowler II (WO 2017/013433).
Regarding claim 1, Fowler II discloses a flame mitigation device comprising:
a rigid hollow body (1) extending along a center axis thereof (Bolt 50 defines the central axis) and having a plurality of perforations (14 and 9) configured to provide fluid communication therethrough (Paragraph 91), the body having a split end comprising at least two prongs that have interior facing prong sidewalls diverging at an angle (Figure 1, the bottom end has two prongs, aligning with the structure of Fowler).
Regarding claim 13, Fowler II discloses the flame mitigation device according to claim 1, wherein an interior surface of the FMD includes a surface texture (The interior surface includes a mesh member, which has a surface texture).
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.
Claim(s) 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fowler in view of Whiter (US 4,650,087).
Regarding claim 7, Fowler discloses the flame mitigation device according to claim 6, comprising one or more bottom perforations (14), the one or more bottom perforations configured to provide fluid communication from an interior of the flame mitigation device to an exterior thereof (Paragraph 88), but fails to disclose the one or more bottom perforations located on the planar bottom end of each of the at least two prongs.
Whiter discloses a device that includes bottom apertures located on a planar bottom of a device (Column 2, lines 24-28).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Fowler with the disclosures of White, providing the apertures located on a planar bottom of the device, in order to provide for a known configuration for allowing fuel to pass through the device. Examiner further notes that it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to arrange the perforations on the planar bottom end since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Claim(s) 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fowler in view of Hanke (US 2,373,470).
Regarding claim 10, Fowler discloses the flame mitigation device according to claim 1, but fails to disclose the device further comprising a prong rib extending between the interior facing prong sidewalls.
The device of Fowler only includes upper ribs (4a-4c). Hanke discloses an analogous device that includes in addition to an upper rib (20), a lower rib (15) that extends between inner facing prong sidewalls (Figure 1, the inner sidewalls of prongs 26).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Fowler with the disclosures of Hanke, providing the device of Fowler to further include a prong rib (Hanke, 15) that extends between the interior facing prong sidewalls of Fowler, in order to provide for alignment of the upper ribs with the openings into which they project, as disclosed by Hanke (Column 2, lines 2-5).
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fowler in view of Keller (US 4,630,748).
Regarding claim 15, Fowler discloses the flame mitigation device according to claim 1, but fails to disclose the device further comprising a pair of tabs extending from an outer surface of the body at the at least two prongs, the pair of tabs including a first tab extending form the outer surface of a first prong of the at least two prongs and a second tab extending form the outer surface of a second prong of the at least two prongs.
Keller discloses a device that includes a pair of tabs (34, 34) extending from an outer surface of the body at the at least two prongs, the pair of tabs including a first tab (34) extending form the outer surface of a first prong (27) of the at least two prongs (27, 27) and a second tab (34) extending form the outer surface of a second prong (27) of the at least two prongs (27).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Fowler with the disclosures of Keller, providing a pair of tabs (Keller, 34, 34) extending from an outer surface of the body at the at least two prongs, the pair of tabs including a first tab (Keller, 34) extending form the outer surface of a first prong of the at least two prongs (Examiner’s Annotated Figure 1) and a second tab (34) extending form the outer surface of a second prong of the at least two prongs (Examiner’s Annotated Figure 1), in order to provide for protection against passage of siphon tubes through the openings, as disclosed by Keller (Column 3, lines 36-41).
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fowler II (WO 2017/013433).
Regarding claim 14, Fowler II discloses the flame mitigation device according to claim 13, but fails to disclose wherein the surface texture is about 200 to about 500 microinches average roughness.
Roughness is a byproduct of the sieve size. Fowler II discloses that the sieve size may be adjusted (Paragraph 67), which would change the surface texture.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the size of the sieves, and therefore the average roughness, since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984). In the instant case, the device of Fowler II would not operate differently with the adjusted size and since the sieve size is configured to be adjusted, the device would function appropriately having the claimed size, and therefore roughness. Further, it appears that applicant places no criticality on the claimed roughness.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER R. DANDRIDGE whose telephone number is (571)270-1505. The examiner can normally be reached M-T 9am-7pm.
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, Arthur O. Hall can be reached at (571)270-1814. 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.
CHRISTOPHER R. DANDRIDGE
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3752
/CHRISTOPHER R DANDRIDGE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3752
Prosecution Insights