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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Group I, Claims 1-7, in the reply filed on 03/24/2026 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Claims 8-13 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 03/24/2026.
Claim Interpretation
Regarding limitations recited in claims 1-7 which are directed to a manner of operating the disclosed composition analysis device and prime mover control device, it is noted that neither the manner of operating a disclosed device nor material or article worked upon further limit an apparatus claim. Said limitations do not differentiate apparatus claims from prior art. See MPEP § 2114 and 2115. A recitation directed to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be used does not distinguish the claimed apparatus from the prior art, if the prior art has the capability to so perform.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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) 1-2 and 6-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Szepek et al. (US 2009/0193788 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Szepek discloses a composition analysis device for fuel gas containing inert gas and flammable gas, comprising:
a heating value measurement device for measuring a heating value per unit amount of the fuel gas (Fig. 1, see: plurality of sensors 26; [0053], [0070], [0108], see: plurality of values indicative of the natural gas mixtures the prior art device is capable of calculating from the sensor inputs, including lower heating value (LHV));
a density measurement device for measuring a density of the fuel gas (Fig. 1, see: plurality of sensors 26; [0091], [0112], see: plurality of values indicative of the natural gas mixtures the prior art device is capable of calculating from the sensor inputs, including density of the gas mixture); and
a control device including a composition calculation unit for calculating a composition of the fuel gas using the heating value measured by the heating value measurement device and the density measured by the density measurement device (Fig. 1, see: Control System 18; [0009], see: processor programmed to receive a signal from at least one of the plurality of sensors indicative of a composition of the fuel).
Regarding claim 2, Szepek further discloses a function representing a relationship of a heating value LHV1 per unit amount of the flammable gas with respect to a density ρ1 of the flammable gas is previously defined in the control device, and wherein the composition calculation unit is configured to calculate the composition of the fuel gas using the heating value measured by the heating value measurement device, the density measured by the density measurement device, and the function ([0108], see: equation for the volumetric lower heating value of the fuel mixture calculated by the processor which is indicative of a composition of the fuel).
Regarding claim 6, Szepek further discloses a prime mover control device for controlling a prime mover provided with a combustor for burning the fuel gas, comprising:
the composition analysis device according to claim 1 (see: rejection of claim 1 above); and
a fuel ratio control unit for adjusting a fuel ratio which is a ratio of the fuel gas supplied to each of different first and second nozzles of the combustor (Fig. 1, see: actuator 32; [0017], see: valves (actuator 32) between the fuel supply and combustors that regulate the flow, fuel splits, and type of fuel flowing to the combustors),
wherein the control device further includes a fuel control unit (Fig. 1, see: Fuel Control 28), and
wherein the fuel control unit is configured to calculate a fuel control command for correcting the fuel ratio based on the composition of the fuel gas obtained by the composition analysis device, and output the fuel control command to the fuel ratio control unit (Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 7, Szepek further discloses the fuel ratio control unit is disposed inside the control device and configured to control the fuel ratio by a program in response to the fuel control command ([0017], see: control of fuel supply is provided by executing programs with the processors of the control system 18; Fig. 3).
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.
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) 3-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Szepek et al. (US 2009/0193788 A1), in view of Karpash et al. (New approach to natural gas quality determination).
Regarding claims 3-5, Szepek discloses an analogous control system configured to monitor the composition of fuel gas based on heating value measurements/calculations and density measurements/calculations, but fails to teach or suggest the analogous composition calculation unit being capable of calculating a concentration of inert gas in the fuel.
Karpash teaches an analogous natural gas heating value calculation method (pg. 134-135/2.1. Calculation method: based on natural gas composition determined with chromatographs) comprising separating and measuring inert non-hydrocarbon components (see: nitrogen and helium). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to utilize the chromatograph based method to determine the fuel composition in the device disclosed by Szepek, as taught by Karpash, for the advantages disclosed by Karpash (pg. 134-135/2.1. Calculation method: based on natural gas composition determined with chromatographs, see: high-precision determination of natural gas components, determine heating value and Wobbe index on the basis of gas composition).
Regarding the limitations in claims 3-5 directed towards the intended use of the composition analysis device (see: mathematical functions performed during calculations), a recitation directed to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be used does not distinguish the claimed apparatus from the prior art, if the prior art has the capability to so perform. In this particular instance, not only are the control processors disclosed in the cited prior art are fully capable of performing the instantly recited mathematical operations, one having ordinary skill in the art is fully capable of mentally performing the mathematical functions upon receipt of the sensor measurement values.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT J EOM whose telephone number is (571)270-7075. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday (9:00AM-5:00PM).
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, Lyle Alexander can be reached at 5712721254. 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.
/ROBERT J EOM/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1797
Prosecution Insights