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:
Claim 1
a gas termination control logic operably coupled to the gas detector logic and comprising: a power receive input configured to receive power from a potential gas producing device; a power supply output configured to supply power to a controller of the potential gas producing device
a detection logic operable to receive the gas detection output signal from the gas detector logic and provide a gas termination output signal based on the received gas detection output signal
a relay logic operable to receive power from the power receive input and determine whether to provide power received from the power receive input to the power supply output based on the gas termination output signal from the detection logic
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. The corresponding structures found in the specification are as follows (see US publication for citations):
Claim 1
gas termination control logic [Wingdings font/0xE0] a circuit (para. 26)
detection logic [Wingdings font/0xE0] a detection circuit (para. 26)
relay logic [Wingdings font/0xE0] relay circuit (para. 26)
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 § 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.
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.
Claims 1-3, 5-7, 9-11, 13-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Martino (US 20070229293 A1) in view of Sid (US 20080182215 A1) and Jaeschke (US 20040043345 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Martino discloses an apparatus for the cessation of gas production comprising:
gas detector logic (infrared beam transmitting unit and/or the infrared beam receiving unit) operable to detect a threshold concentration of a gas (smoke) and provide a gas detection output signal (signal to control module) based on the detected concentration of the gas (abstract, para. 39), the gas detector logic comprising a gas sensor (601+618; see Fig. 7 and paras. 63, 76) operative to be installed within a duct (104) operatively coupled to a potential gas producing device (furnace plus its power source 234/634/1634); and
gas termination control logic operably coupled to the gas detector logic and comprising:
a power receive input (236, 1314, 1432, 1632; see Figs. 2, 13, 14, 16) configured to receive power from a potential gas producing device (power source 234/634/1634 of the furnace);
a power supply output (electrical connection, e.g., line 636, that receives a signal from the control module and sends it to the controller/electrical ignition mechanism) configured to supply power to a controller (controller that turns the burner 110 On/Off, e.g., an electrical ignition mechanism that controls the ignition sequence) (see paras. 39, 49, 70) of the potential gas producing device;
detection logic (portion of the control module 230/630/1630 that is not the relay switch; see paras. 36, 40) operable to receive the gas detection output signal from the gas detector logic, determine whether the detected concentration of the gas is above a threshold concentration of the gas, and provide a gas termination output signal when the detected concentration of the gas is above the threshold concentration of the gas (paras. 9, 11, 71, 72, 100, 101);
and relay logic (portion of the control module 230/630/1630 that is the relay switch including the time delay circuit; see para. 39, 70, 99) operable to receive power from the power receive input and determine whether to provide power received from the power receive input to the power supply output based on the gas termination output signal from the detection logic,
wherein providing power on the power supply output to supply power to the controller of the potential gas producing device enables the controller of the potential gas producing device to provide power (power = energy/time, e.g., electrical energy/time) to the potential gas producing device (the controller supplies electrical power to the burner to ignite the burner, and to turn it on and off; see paras. 31).
Martino fails to disclose:
where the detection logic detects non-particulate gas; and
wherein the controller of the potential gas producing device is an electronic fuel valve of the potential gas producing device, wherein the electronic fuel valve is operable to pass a fuel to the potential gas producing device and wherein the electronic fuel valve is closed when the detection logic provides the gas termination output.
Sid teaches a carbon monoxide (CO) detection and system for a furnace, comprising:
gas detector logic (CO sensor; para. 43) operable to detect a threshold concentration of a gas and provide a gas detection output signal based on the detected concentration of the gas (paras. 44), the gas detector logic comprising a gas sensor (CO sensor) operative to be installed within a duct operatively coupled to a potential gas producing device (para. 65).
It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art at the time of effective filing of the application to modify Martino where the detection logic also detects non-particulate CO gas, as an added safety measure to prevent carbon monoxide poisoning (see paras. 2, 3 of Sid). Also, if CO rises, then that would indicate incomplete combustion (Sid, para. 2), which means that there could be a problem with the furnace/burner. The modification would stop the burner if excess CO is produced so that a technician can diagnose the problem.
Martino discloses turning off the burner when the detection logic provides the gas termination output (para. 39). Jaeschke teaches a potential gas producing device wherein the controller of the potential gas producing device is an electronic fuel valve of the potential gas producing device, wherein the electronic fuel valve is operable to pass fuel to the potential gas producing device (para. 4).
It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art at the time of effective filing of the application to modify Martino wherein the controller of the potential gas producing device is an electronic fuel valve of the potential gas producing device, wherein the electronic fuel valve is operable to pass a fuel to the potential gas producing device and wherein the electronic fuel valve is closed when the detection logic provides the gas termination output. The motivation to combine is so that the gas flow to the burner can be automatically shut off if the smoke levels exceed a threshold level, resulting in improved safety.
Regarding claim 2, Martino discloses wherein the detection logic is operable to provide a first voltage level on the gas termination output signal [zero voltage or no “power source output”, see para. 39; note: 0 volts is an example output signal in the present application; alternative interpretation: a voltage at a first instance in time, e.g., a first time that initiates the time delay sequence 1106 (see paras. 98-100)] or a second voltage level (“power source output”; alternative interpretation: a voltage at a second later instance of time, e.g., a second time after the end of the time delay sequence in step 1106) on the gas termination output signal based on the received gas detection output signal.
Regarding claim 3, Martino discloses wherein the relay logic is operable to select between a first output signal (relay switch is closed and therefore outputs a voltage to the ignition mechanism) and a second output signal (relay switch is open and outputs zero voltage; note: 0 volts is an example output signal disclosed in the present application), wherein the relay logic is operable to provide power received from the power receive input to the first output signal or the second output signal based on the gas termination output signal from the detection logic (para. 39).
Regarding claim 5, Martino discloses wherein the gas detector logic provides a first voltage level (e.g., 0 volts; note: 0 volts is an example output voltage level in the present application) on the gas detection output signal when the gas detector logic detects a level of gas below the threshold level of gas, and provides a second voltage level (e.g., “power source output”, see para. 39) on the gas detection output signal when the gas detector logic detects a level of gas at or above the threshold level of gas.
Regarding claim 6, Martino fails to disclose wherein the controller of the potential gas producing device is a control board of the potential gas producing device, wherein the control board is operable to provide power to the potential gas producing device. Martino does not disclose the specifics of the controller (electrical ignition mechanism). However, Official Notice is taken that it is well-known and common knowledge for a controller to comprise a control board (e.g., a board with electrical connections and electrical/electronic components) (note: Applicant did not traverse the Official Notice; therefore, it has been taken to be admitted prior art). For example, an electronic ignition module is a type of ignition controller that uses a control board.
It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art at the time of effective filing of the application to modify Martino wherein the controller of the potential gas producing device is a control board of the potential gas producing device, wherein the control board is operable to provide power to the potential gas producing device. The modification provides a suitable electronic ignition controller that can be used with the system of Martino. Moreover, a control board is compact and can be easily integrated with other electrical devices.
Regarding claim 7, modified Martino discloses wherein the potential gas producing device consumes the fuel when provided with fuel from the electronic fuel valve (Jaeschke, para. 4).
Regarding claim 9, Martino discloses (see rejection of claim 1 for citations unless otherwise noted) a system for the cessation of gas production comprising: a potential gas producing device comprising: a gas production termination device comprising: gas detector logic operable to detect a concentration of a gas and provide a gas detection output signal based on the detected concentration of the gas, the gas detector logic comprising a gas sensor operative to be installed within a duct operatively coupled to the potential gas producing device; and gas termination control logic operably coupled to the gas detector logic and comprising: a power receive input configured to receive power from the potential gas producing device; a power supply output configured to supply power to a controller attached to the potential gas producing device; detection logic operable to receive the gas detection output signal from the gas detector logic which detects non-particulate gas, determine whether the detected concentration of the gas is above a threshold concentration of the gas, and provide a gas termination output signal when the detected concentration of the gas is above the threshold concentration of the gas; and relay logic operable to receive power from the power receive input and determine whether to provide power received from the power receive input to the power supply output based on the gas termination output signal from the detection logic, wherein providing power on the power supply output to supply power to the controller of the potential gas producing device enables the controller of the potential gas producing device to provide power to the potential gas producing device, wherein the controller of the potential gas producing device is an electronic fuel valve of the potential gas producing device, wherein the electronic fuel valve is operable to pass a fuel to the potential gas producing device and wherein the electronic fuel valve is closed when the detection logic provides the gas termination output
EXCEPT a transformer operative to transform high voltage to low voltage; and a control board operatively coupled to the transformer, wherein the control board is operative to receive the low voltage from the transformer and provide the low voltage to power the potential gas producing device.
Sid teaches an apparatus for the cessation of gas production wherein the gas detector logic (para. 21) receives power from a transformer (700, Fig. 7) that is operative to transform high voltage to low voltage; a control board (any one of the components of the “electronics”, see Fig. 7, such as the voltage regulator circuit U2, see Fig. 11) operatively coupled to the transformer (700), wherein the control board is operative to receive the low voltage from the transformer and provide the low voltage to power the electronics of the potential gas producing device
It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art at the time of effective filing of the application to modify Martino to include a transformer operative to transform high voltage to low voltage; and a control board operatively coupled to the transformer, wherein the control board is operative to receive the low voltage from the transformer and provide the low voltage to power the potential gas producing device. The motivation to combine is so that a steady supply of DC power can be delivered to the time delay circuit, the control module, and other electronic components of the potential gas producing device. The result is improved reliability.
Regarding claim 10, Martino discloses wherein the detection logic is operable to provide a first voltage level on the gas termination output signal or a second voltage level on the gas termination output signal based on the received gas detection output signal (see rejection of claim 2).
Regarding claim 11, Martino discloses wherein the relay logic is operable to select between a first output signal and a second output signal, wherein the relay logic is operable to provide power received from the power receive input to the first output signal or the second output signal based on the gas termination output signal from the detection logic (see rejection of claim 3).
Regarding claim 13, modified Martino discloses wherein the gas detector logic provides a first voltage level on the gas detection output signal when the gas detector logic detects a level of gas below the threshold level of gas, and provides a second voltage level on the gas detection output signal when the gas detector logic detects a level of gas at or above the threshold level of gas (see rejection of claim 5).
Regarding claim 14, modified Martino discloses wherein the controller attached to the potential gas producing device is a control board of the potential gas producing device, wherein the control board is operable to provide power to the potential gas producing device (see rejection of claim 6).
Regarding claim 15, modified Martino discloses wherein the potential gas producing device consumes the fuel when provided with fuel from the electronic fuel valve (Jaeschke, para. 4).
Claim 4, 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Martino (US 20070229293 A1) in view of Sid (US 20080182215 A1) and Jaeschke (US 20040043345 A1), as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Lyons (US 5739504 A).
Regarding claim 4, Martino fails to disclose wherein the relay logic provides power received from the power receive input to the first output signal when the detection logic provides the first voltage level on the gas termination output signal, and wherein the relay logic provides power received from the power receive input to the second output signal when the detection logic provides the second voltage level on the gas termination output signal.
However, Lyons teaches a control system for a boiler, wherein the relay logic (7) provides power received from the power receive input (VCC) to the first output signal (signal “to close the burner circuit” and activate the burner, see col. 4, lines 53-59) when the detection logic provides the first voltage level (signal level corresponding to the “first state”) on the gas termination output signal (col. 4, lines 42-59), and wherein the relay logic provides power received from the power receive input to the second output signal (signal to open the burner circuit and deactivate the burner) when the detection logic provides the second voltage level (signal level corresponding to the “second state”) on the gas termination output signal (col. 4, lines 42-59).
It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art at the time of effective filing of the application to modify Martino wherein the relay logic provides power received from the power receive input to the first output signal when the detection logic provides the first voltage level on the gas termination output signal, and wherein the relay logic provides power received from the power receive input to the second output signal when the detection logic provides the second voltage level on the gas termination output signal. The motivation to combine is so that the relay has additional functionality. Martino discloses a relay that can only deactivate a burner when the relay is activated. However, Lyons teaches a relay logic that can, not only deactivate the burner, but also activate an alarm or a water feeder of the boiler (col. 5, lines 22-44). With the modification, the first output signal could, for example, activate the burner, the water feeder, and other control systems. The second output signal could, for example, deactivate the burner, activate an alarm, shut off the gas valves, or shutdown parts of the system.
Regarding claim 12, modified Martino discloses wherein the relay logic provides power received from the power receive input to the first output signal when the detection logic provides the first voltage level on the gas termination output signal, and wherein the relay logic provides power received from the power receive input to the second output signal when the detection logic provides the second voltage level on the gas termination output signal (see rejection of claim 4).
Claim 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Martino (US 20070229293 A1) in view of Sid (US 20080182215 A1) and Jaeschke (US 20040043345 A1), as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Murphy (US 5576739).
Regarding claim 8, Martino fails to disclose wherein the controller of the potential gas producing device is a thermostat operatively coupled to the potential gas producing device, wherein the thermostat is operable to provide power to the potential gas producing device, wherein the potential gas producing device consumes fuel when provided with power from the thermostat.
However, Murphy teaches a carbon monoxide safety system wherein the controller of the potential gas producing device is a thermostat operatively coupled to the potential gas producing device, wherein the thermostat is operable to provide power to the potential gas producing device, wherein the potential gas producing device consumes fuel when provided with power from the thermostat (col. 4, lines 7-17).
It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art at the time of effective filing of the application to modify Martino wherein the controller of the potential gas producing device is a thermostat operatively coupled to the potential gas producing device, wherein the thermostat is operable to provide power to the potential gas producing device, wherein the potential gas producing device consumes fuel when provided with power from the thermostat. The motivation to combine is so that the entire system can be shut down when a dangerous CO level is detected. This modification provides an extra level of safety in case power to the burner is not interrupted. Moreover, having a thermostat is a common and convenient method of regulating the heat output based on the desired user setting.
Claim 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Martino (US 20070229293 A1) in view of Jaeschke (US 20040043345 A1) and Sid (US 20080182215 A1), as applied to claim 9, and further in view of Murphy (US 5576739).
Regarding claim 16, modified Martino discloses wherein the controller of the potential gas producing device is a thermostat operatively coupled to the potential gas producing device, wherein the thermostat is operable to provide power to the potential gas producing device, wherein the potential gas producing device consumes fuel when provided with power from the thermostat (see rejection of claim 8).
Response to Arguments
Regarding the arguments directed at the amended claim language, i.e., non-particulate gas language, please see the reference Sid in the rejection of claim 1.
Applicant asserts the following on pages 12 and 13 of the Remarks:
PNG
media_image1.png
266
698
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Examiner’s response:
A duct is examined to mean an enclosed structure having an inlet and outlet for transferring a gas. Therefore, the cited flue 104 qualifies as a duct.
Applicant asserts the following on page 14 of the Remarks:
PNG
media_image2.png
514
694
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Examiner’s response:
The electrical power source is examined to be part of the furnace since it supplies power to the furnace. The claim does not require the power source to be inside the furnace housing.
Fig. 7 does not show that the 24VAC must come from a furnace, but if it did come from a furnace, it does not show the 24VAC to be positioned within the furnace housing. The 24VAC could be a power source of the furnace that is located outside the furnace housing.
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 JASON LAU whose telephone number is (571)270-7644. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9:00-6:00.
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 on 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.
/JASON LAU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3762