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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 9 and 17 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species (note that on page 2 of the species election filed 9/12/2025 the Applicant specified that claims “1-8, 10-17, and 18-24” encompassed Species A. It appears that the Applicant meant claims 1-8, 10-16, and 18-24, since claim 17 includes similar subject matter to unelected claim 9), there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 09/12/2025.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 1-9 and 14-20 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. Claims 1, 14, and 16 use the term “about.” This language is indefinite. Appropriate correction is required. Based on their dependence from the rejected claims, claims 2-9, 15, and 17-20 are also rejected.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 5, 6, and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grabe (CN 112240564 A) in view of Nordberg (US 20060257805 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Grabe teaches a burner flame detection system (the assembly of FIG. 1) comprising: a conductive flame sensor (FIG. 1, flame monitoring device 11) comprising a conductive terminal (FIG. 1, ionization electrode 7) and positioned proximal to a burner (FIG. 1, heater 1) having a conductive body (FIG. 1, the body of the heater 1, including counter electrode 9), the burner having an ignited state (FIG. 1, the state where the flame region 2 has flames), and an unignited state (FIG. 1, the state where the flame region 2 has no flames), such that when the burner is in the ignited state, the burner and the conductive flame sensor are in electrical communication with one another (FIG. 2, “The AC voltage source 12 having a high output resistor 13 first supplies an AC voltage that is substantially free of DC voltage components to the ignition electrode 7 and the counter electrode 9 (ground). when a flame occurs between the two (as the equivalent circuit shown in FIG. 16), the voltage is only reduced in the half-wave due to the rectifying effect of the flame (shown as a diode in the equivalent circuit diagram)”); and a flame sensing circuit (FIG. 2, circuit diagram 16) comprising a flame detection signal output node (FIG. 2, the node connecting the circuit 16 to computing electronics 14), wherein the flame sensing circuit is configured to supply an alternating current to the conductive flame sensor conductive terminal (FIG. 2, an AC current is delivered to the sensor 7), and when the burner is in the ignited state and the alternating current is supplied to the conductive terminal, the flame sensing circuit generates a rectified current from the conductive flame sensor conductive terminal to the burner (“The AC voltage source 12 having a high output resistor 13 first supplies an AC voltage that is substantially free of DC voltage components to the ignition electrode 7 and the counter electrode 9 (ground). when a flame occurs between the two (as the equivalent circuit shown in FIG. 16), the voltage is only reduced in the half-wave due to the rectifying effect of the flame”).
Grabe fails to teach the alternating current having a frequency of from about 24kHz to about 300KHz.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to make the alternating current frequency have a range of 24 kHz to 300 kHz, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art (Nordeberg teches a 31 kHz frequency (paragraph 15)), discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves (MPEP 2144.05 II. A) only routine skill in the art.
In addition, it is observed that frequency is a result effective variable because it affects the speed at which the flame signal is received, among other things. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to make the alternating current frequency have a range of 24 kHz to 300 kHz, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Grabe and Nordberg teaches that the flame sensing circuit comprises an input node (Grabe, FIG. 2, the node providing input signal to circuit 16), a conductive flame sensor driver circuit (Grabe, FIG. 2, the circuit 16, which drives the flame detection operation), and a signal conditioning circuit having a signal conditioning circuit output node (Grabe, FIG. 2, the node providing output signal from circuit 16).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Grabe and Nordberg teaches that the alternating current has a square wave waveform (Nordberg, paragraph 15, the waveform is square).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Grabe and Nordberg teaches that the conductive flame sensor is a hot surface igniter (Grabe, FIG. 1, counter-electrode 9 is an igniter which heats surfaces).
Regarding claim 16, Grabe teaches a method of determining if a burner is ignited using a conductive flame sensor comprising a conductive terminal and positioned proximate the burner (the method performed by the assembly of FIG. 1), the method comprising: providing a flame sensing alternate current source burner (“The AC voltage source 12 having a high output resistor 13 first supplies an AC voltage that is substantially free of DC voltage components to the ignition electrode 7 and the counter electrode 9 (ground). when a flame occurs between the two (as the equivalent circuit shown in FIG. 16), the voltage is only reduced in the half-wave due to the rectifying effect of the flame”) operatively connected to the conductive terminal (FIG. 2, the AC source is connected to the whole circuit); and generating a rectified current from the conductive flame sensor to the burner when the flame sensing alternating current source supplies the alternating current to the conductive flame sensor conductive terminal, and the burner is in an ignited state (FIG. 2, “The AC voltage source 12 having a high output resistor 13 first supplies an AC voltage that is substantially free of DC voltage components to the ignition electrode 7 and the counter electrode 9 (ground). when a flame occurs between the two (as the equivalent circuit shown in FIG. 16), the voltage is only reduced in the half-wave due to the rectifying effect of the flame (shown as a diode in the equivalent circuit diagram)”).
Grabe fails to teach the alternating current having a frequency of from about 24kHz to about 300KHz.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to make the alternating current frequency have a range of 24 kHz to 300 kHz, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art (Nordeberg teches a 31 kHz frequency (paragraph 15)), discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves (MPEP 2144.05 II. A) only routine skill in the art.
In addition, it is observed that frequency is a result effective variable because it affects the speed at which the flame signal is received, among other things. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to make the alternating current frequency have a range of 24 kHz to 300 kHz, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)).
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grabe and Nordberg as applied to claims 1, 3, 5, 6, and 16 above, and further in view of Cowan (US 20220178538 A1).
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Grabe and Nordberg fails to teach a switch that is operable to operatively connect a source of the alternating current to the flame detection signal output node when the burner is in the ignited state.
However, Cowan teaches a switch that is operable to operatively connect a source of the alternating current to the flame detection signal output node when the burner is in the ignited state (FIG. 7, switch 266).
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the teachings of Grabe by making it so the flame detector may be powered on and off using a switch, as taught by Cowan, with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention. At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Grabe with these aforementioned teachings of Cowan with the motivation of allowing a user to fully power off the detector when they want to.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grabe and Nordberg as applied to claims 1, 3, 5, 6, and 16 above, and further in view of Chian (US 20090009344 A1).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Grabe and Nordberg teaches that the conductive flame sensor driver circuit comprises a flame sensor driver circuit input node (Grabe, FIG. 2, the node providing input signal to circuit 16), a flame sensor driver circuit flame sensor output node (Grabe, FIG. 2, the node providing output signal from circuit 16)and a flame sensor driver circuit flame detection output node (Grabe, FIG. 2, the node providing output signal from circuit 11).
The combination of Grabe and Nordberg fails to teach a capacitor, and a bipolar junction transistor (BJT) having a collector an emitter and a base, and the flame sensor driver circuit input node is connected to the BJT emitter and the capacitor.
However, Chian teaches a capacitor, and a bipolar junction transistor (BJT) having a collector an emitter and a base, and the flame sensor driver circuit input node is connected to the BJT emitter and the capacitor (FIG. 1, paragraph 19, the transistors 16 and 18 are BJTs attached to the rest of the circuitry/nodes).
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the teachings of Grabe by making it so the flame detector circuitry includes BJTs, as taught by Chian, with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention. At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Grabe with these aforementioned teachings of Chian with the motivation of operating as a switch and a transistor using only one component.
Claim(s) 7 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grabe and Nordberg as applied to claims 1, 3, 5, 6, and 16 above, and further in view of Shindle (US 20210054999 A1).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Grabe and Nordberg fails to teach that the hot surface igniter comprises first and second insulating tiles and a heating conductive pattern located between the first and second insulating tiles, and the heating conductive pattern is connected to the conductive terminal.
However, Shindle teaches that the hot surface igniter comprises first and second insulating tiles and a heating conductive pattern located between the first and second insulating tiles, and the heating conductive pattern is connected to the conductive terminal (FIG. 3A, paragraph 74, “Ceramic heater 64 is preferably a silicon nitride heater comprised of two insulating ceramic tiles with a conductive ink circuit printed on one surface of one of the tiles and sandwiched between the tiles.”).
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the teachings of Grabe by making it so the igniter is a multi-panel ink-printed circuit pattern, as taught by Shindle, with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention. At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Grabe with these aforementioned teachings of Shindle with the motivation of reducing cost and making the igniter easily replaceable.
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Grabe, Nordberg, and Shindle teaches that the hot surface igniter comprises a flame sensing conductive pattern (In the combination above, the pattern of the heater 65 of Shindle acts together with the flame detector of Grabe to detect a flame via a rectified current).
Regarding claim 18, the combination of Grabe and Nordberg fails to teach that the conductive flame sensor is a hot surface igniter having a conductive pattern connected to the conductive terminal.
However, Shindle teaches that the conductive flame sensor is a hot surface igniter having a conductive pattern connected to the conductive terminal (FIG. 3A, paragraph 74, “Ceramic heater 64 is preferably a silicon nitride heater comprised of two insulating ceramic tiles with a conductive ink circuit printed on one surface of one of the tiles and sandwiched between the tiles.”).
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the teachings of Grabe by making it so the igniter is a multi-panel ink-printed circuit pattern, as taught by Shindle, with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention. At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Grabe with these aforementioned teachings of Shindle with the motivation of reducing cost and making the igniter easily replaceable.
Regarding claim 19, the combination of Grabe, Nordberg, and Shingle teaches the step of selectively connecting the conductive terminal to a source of ignition alternating current (Grabe, FIG. 1, the circuitry is connected to an AC power source).
Regarding claim 20, the combination of Grabe, Nordberg, and Shingle teaches that the conductive pattern is a first conductive pattern, the hot surface igniter comprises a second conductive pattern, and the second conductive pattern is electrically isolated from the first conductive pattern and connected to a source of ignition alternating current (Shingle, paragraph 79, the igniter includes the electrical pattern as well as multiple metal (and therefore electrical) features separate from the ink).
Claim(s) 10, 11, 13, and 21-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grabe in view of Shindle.
Regarding claim 10, Grabe teaches a burner flame detection system (the assembly of FIG. 1), comprising: a hot surface igniter (Grabe, FIG. 1, counter-electrode 9 is an igniter which heats surfaces) connected to a conductive terminal (FIG. 2, the AC source is connected to the whole circuit) and positioned proximal to a burner (FIG. 1, heater 1) having a conductive body (FIG. 1, the body of the heater 1, including counter electrode 9), the burner having an ignited state (FIG. 1, the state where the flame region 2 has flames) and an unignited state (FIG. 1, the state where the flame region 2 has no flames), such that when the burner is in the ignited state, the conductive terminal and the burner conductive body are in electrical communication with one another(FIG. 2, “The AC voltage source 12 having a high output resistor 13 first supplies an AC voltage that is substantially free of DC voltage components to the ignition electrode 7 and the counter electrode 9 (ground). when a flame occurs between the two (as the equivalent circuit shown in FIG. 16), the voltage is only reduced in the half-wave due to the rectifying effect of the flame (shown as a diode in the equivalent circuit diagram)”).
Grabe fails to teach a hot surface igniter comprising a conductive pattern.
However, Shindle teaches a hot surface igniter comprising a conductive pattern (FIG. 3A, paragraph 74, “Ceramic heater 64 is preferably a silicon nitride heater comprised of two insulating ceramic tiles with a conductive ink circuit printed on one surface of one of the tiles and sandwiched between the tiles.”).
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the teachings of Grabe by making it so the igniter is a multi-panel ink-printed circuit pattern, as taught by Shindle, with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention. At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Grabe with these aforementioned teachings of Shindle with the motivation of reducing cost and making the igniter easily replaceable.
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Grable and Shindle teaches a flame sensing circuit (FIG. 2, circuit diagram 16) configured to supply a flame sensing alternating current to the hot surface igniter conductive terminal (FIG. 2, an AC current is delivered to the sensor 7), wherein when the burner is in the ignited state and the flame sensing alternating current is supplied to the hot surface igniter conductive terminal, the flame sensing circuit generates a rectified current from the hot surface igniter conductive terminal to the burner (“The AC voltage source 12 having a high output resistor 13 first supplies an AC voltage that is substantially free of DC voltage components to the ignition electrode 7 and the counter electrode 9 (ground). when a flame occurs between the two (as the equivalent circuit shown in FIG. 16), the voltage is only reduced in the half-wave due to the rectifying effect of the flame”).
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Grabe and Shindle teaches that the flame sensing circuit comprises an input node (Grabe, FIG. 2, the node providing input signal to circuit 16), a conductive flame sensor driver circuit (Grabe, FIG. 2, the circuit 16, which drives the flame detection operation), and a signal conditioning circuit having a signal conditioning circuit output node (Grabe, FIG. 2, the node providing output signal from circuit 16).
Regarding claim 21, Grabe teaches a method of determining if a burner having a conductive body is ignited (the method performed by the assembly of FIG. 1), the method comprising: providing a hot surface igniter (Grabe, FIG. 1, counter-electrode 9 is an igniter (FIG. 1, heater 1) which heats surfaces) positioned proximate the burner; providing a flame sensing alternate current source operatively connected to the conductive terminal (FIG. 2, the AC source is connected to the whole circuit); and generating a rectified current from the hot surface igniter to the burner when the flame sensing alternating current source supplies flame sensing alternating current to the hot surface igniter conductive terminal, and the burner is ignited (FIG. 2, the AC source is connected to the whole circuit).
Grabe fails to teach a conductive pattern connected to a conductive terminal.
However, Shindle teaches a conductive pattern connected to a conductive terminal (FIG. 3A, paragraph 74, “Ceramic heater 64 is preferably a silicon nitride heater comprised of two insulating ceramic tiles with a conductive ink circuit printed on one surface of one of the tiles and sandwiched between the tiles.”).
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the teachings of Grabe by making it so the igniter is a multi-panel ink-printed circuit pattern, as taught by Shindle, with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention. At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Grabe with these aforementioned teachings of Shindle with the motivation of reducing cost and making the igniter easily replaceable.
Regarding claim 22, the combination of Grabe and Shindle teaches that the conductive terminal is a first conductive terminal, and the conductive pattern is connected to a second conductive terminal, the method further comprising the step of selectively connecting the first conductive terminal to a source of ignition alternating current and the second conductive terminal to ground (Grabe, FIGS. 1 and 2, the various ends of the flame detecting circuitry are selectively connected to AC current and the ground during operation).
Regarding claim 23, the combination of Grabe and Shindle teaches selectively disconnecting the first conductive terminal from the source of ignition alternating current and selectively disconnecting the second conductive terminal from ground (Grabe, FIGS. 1 and 2, the various ends of the flame detecting circuitry are selectively connected to AC current and the ground during operation).
Regarding claim 24, the combination of Grabe and Shindle teaches that the conductive pattern is a first conductive pattern, the hot surface igniter comprises a second conductive pattern, and the second conductive pattern is electrically isolated from the first conductive pattern and connected to a source of ignition alternating current (Shingle, paragraph 79, the igniter includes the electrical pattern as well as multiple metal (and therefore electrical) features separate from the ink).
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grabe and Shindle as applied to claims 10, 11, 13, and 21-24 above, and further in view of Cowan.
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Grabe and Shindle fails to teach a flame detection signal output node and a switch that is operable to operatively connect a flame sensing alternate current source to the flame detection signal output node when the burner is in the ignited state.
However, Cowan teaches a flame detection signal output node and a switch that is operable to operatively connect a flame sensing alternate current source to the flame detection signal output node when the burner is in the ignited state (FIG. 7, switch 266 and the surrounding nodes).
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the teachings of Grabe by making it so the flame detector may be powered on and off using a switch, as taught by Cowan, with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention. At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Grabe with these aforementioned teachings of Cowan with the motivation of allowing a user to fully power off the detector when they want to.
Claim(s) 14 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grabe and Shindle as applied to claims 10, 11, 13, and 21-24 above, and further in view of Nordberg.
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Grabe and Shindle fails to teach a flame sensing alternating current source having a frequency of from about 24kHz to about 300KHz connected to the flame sensor driver circuit input node.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to make the alternating current frequency have a range of 24 kHz to 300 kHz, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art (Nordeberg teches a 31 kHz frequency (paragraph 15)), discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves (MPEP 2144.05 II. A) only routine skill in the art.
In addition, it is observed that frequency is a result effective variable because it affects the speed at which the flame signal is received, among other things. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to make the alternating current frequency have a range of 24 kHz to 300 kHz, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)).
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Grabe and Nordberg teaches that the alternating current has a square wave waveform (Nordberg, paragraph 15, the waveform is square).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM C. WEINERT whose telephone number is (571)272-6988. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00-5:00 ET.
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, Steve McAllister can be reached at (571) 272-6785. 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.
/WILLIAM C WEINERT/Examiner, Art Unit 3762
/Allen R. B. Schult/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3762