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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/11/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the applicant’s argument that Takatsuka does not derive fuel data, the examiner disagrees. Takatsuka states “The actual fuel flow rate is measured by a fuel flow rate detector (7) and sent to a multiplier (9). When the fuel is constant, the calorie correction signal (output of (8)) is constant, so the multiplier (9) multiplies it by a coefficient of 1, i.e., the measured value is sent as is to a comparator (00), which compares it with the signal from the adder (6) to find the deviation. This deviation correction signal is sent to the fuel flow control valve (121) as a fuel flow command, and the opening of the fuel flow control valve (121) is controlled until the deviation from the comparator (00) becomes zero.” Therefore, Takatsuka derives at least a deviation which is fuel data.
Regarding the applicant’s argument that Pisoni and Takatsuka are directed to very different systems, the examiner points out that both references are classified in F23N1/022 (Regulating fuel supply conjointly with air supply using electronic means).
Regarding the applicant’s argument that the motivation to combine is official notice, the examiner disagrees. Takatsuka states “The present invention relates to a device for correcting calorie fluctuations due to changes in fuel. In fuel control of a plant, since calorie fluctuations due to changes in fuel are large, calorie correction is necessary to ensure that the plant can produce stable capacity” (page 1). Regarding the applicant’s statement that “in a boiler, measured flow is strongly influenced by load demand, valve position, fan/air settings, and transients, for example” the examiner points out "A person of ordinary skill in the art is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton." KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1397 (2007). "[I]n many cases a person of ordinary skill will be able to fit the teachings of multiple patents together like pieces of a puzzle." Id. at 420, 82 USPQ2d 1397. Office personnel may also take into account "the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ." Id. at 418, 82 USPQ2d at 1396. In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). In this case, the examiner has only relied upon knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made (i.e. the cited references).
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.
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.
Claims 1-7, 9, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pisoni (WO 2022258479 A1), hereinafter Pisoni, in view of Takatsuka (JP 58062423 A), hereinafter Takatsuka.
Regarding claim 1, Pisoni discloses a method for controlling a fuel-oxidizer mixture in a premix gas burner (“The combustion gas comprises air and fuel gas, in particular hydrocarbons. The combustion gas can be premixed before it is supplied to the burner” page 7, line 15) comprising the following steps performed by a processor:
receiving a flame signal, representing the presence of a flame deriving from the combustion of a fuel belonging to a first predetermined type or a second predetermined type inside a combustion cell of the burner (“At step S101, the presence of a flame for the combustion of a fuel gas in a gas mixture is detected using the flame sensor 3. Accordingly, a corresponding flame detection signal is acquired. At step S102, a ionization current is measured using the ionization electrode 4. Accordingly, a corresponding ionization detection signal is acquired” page 14, line 28 and “the control unit can determine from the flame detection signal, in particular the measured flame detection value or values, the hydrogen concentration of the combustion gas. The control unit can determine from the ionization detection signal whether a ionization current is measured and thus, whether the combustion gas comprises carbons, in particular hydrocarbons. Additionally, the control unit can determine from the ionization detection signal the hydrogen concentration of the combustion gas” page 15, line 2)
accessing fuel data, representing the fact that the gas fuel belongs to the first type or the second type (“if only a flame is present and no ionization current is detected, the fuel gas in the combustion gas comprises hydrogen with a concentration that corresponds to 95 mol% or is higher than 95 mol%. In said case the control unit 5 sets a first operating mode at step S104” page 15, line 10 and “If both the flame is present and an ionization current is detected, the fuel gas in the combustion gas comprises hydrocarbons and hydrogen. The control unit determines on the basis of the flame detection signal and/or the ionization detection signal the hydrogen concentration and sets the second operating mode when the hydrogen concentration is higher than 20 mol% and lower than 95 mol%. If the control unit determines on the basis of the flame detection signal and/or the ionization detection signal that the hydrogen concentration corresponds to 20 mol % or is lower than 20 mol% or lower, a third operating mode is set at step S106” page 15, line 34);
generating drive signals, to control a gas flow regulating valve that supplies gas to the burner and to control a rotation speed of a fan configured to take in oxidative air (“the control unit is configured to adjust combustion settings of the boiler based on the ionization detection signal. In fact, based on the information derived from the ionization detection signal, i.e. the fuel gas composition, the value of the air excess factor and/or the concentration of carbon containing compounds, in particular hydrocarbons, for example using internal setting curves, it is possible to adapt particular settings of the boiler, such as for example the fan speed, the fuel gas flow, etc” page 11, line 14); and
sending the drive signals to the gas flow regulating valve and to a motor connected to the fan (“the control unit is configured to adjust combustion settings of the boiler based on the ionization detection signal. In fact, based on the information derived from the ionization detection signal, i.e. the fuel gas composition, the value of the air excess factor and/or the concentration of carbon containing compounds, in particular hydrocarbons, for example using internal setting curves, it is possible to adapt particular settings of the boiler, such as for example the fan speed, the fuel gas flow, etc” page 11, line 14);
wherein the processor has access to a memory unit containing first regulation data and second regulation data different from the first regulation data and is programmed to generate the drive signals based on the first regulation data or, alternatively, on the second regulation data depending on the fuel data (“The control unit is an electric control unit. Additionally, the control unit is adapted to receive electric sensor signals and to output electric control signals. The control unit can comprise at least one processor and/or a printed circuit board” page 7, line 31).
Pisoni does not disclose receiving a flow rate signal identifying a gas flow rate detected by a gas flow or pressure sensor and wherein the processor derives the fuel data also on the basis of the flow rate signal.
However, Takatsuka teaches receiving a flow rate signal identifying a gas flow rate detected by a gas flow or pressure sensor and wherein the processor derives the fuel data also on the basis of the flow rate signal (“The actual fuel flow rate is measured by a fuel flow rate detector (7) and sent to a multiplier (9). When the fuel is constant, the calorie correction signal (output of (8)) is constant, so the multiplier (9) multiplies it by a coefficient of 1, i.e., the measured value is sent as is to a comparator (00), which compares it with the signal from the adder (6) to find the deviation. This deviation correction signal is sent to the fuel flow control valve (121) as a fuel flow command, and the opening of the fuel flow control valve (121) is controlled until the deviation from the comparator (00) becomes zero” page 3. All citations provided from machine translation appended to the foreign reference).
In view of Takatsuka’s teachings, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include receiving a flow rate signal identifying a gas flow rate detected by a gas flow or pressure sensor and wherein the processor derives the fuel data also on the basis of the flow rate signal as is taught in Takatsuka, in the method disclosed by Pisoni because Takatsuka states “The present invention relates to a device for correcting calorie fluctuations due to changes in fuel. In fuel control of a plant, since calorie fluctuations due to changes in fuel are large, calorie correction is necessary to ensure that the plant can produce stable capacity” (page 1). Therefore, including the teachings of Takatsuka will improve stability in the method of Pisoni.
Regarding claim 2, Pisoni, as modified by Takatsuka, discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein the step of receiving the flame signal comprises the following steps:
receiving a first flame signal, representing the presence of a flame deriving from the combustion of a fuel of the first type (“At step S101, the presence of a flame for the combustion of a fuel gas in a gas mixture is detected using the flame sensor 3” page 14, line 28); and
receiving a second flame signal, representing the presence of a flame deriving from the combustion of a fuel of the second type (“At step S102, a ionization current is measured using the ionization electrode 4” page 14, line 30);
wherein the processor generates the drive signals based on the first flame signal and/or on the second flame signal (“The control unit can determine from the ionization detection signal whether a ionization current is measured and thus, whether the combustion gas comprises carbons, in particular hydrocarbons. Additionally, the control unit can determine from the ionization detection signal the hydrogen concentration of the combustion gas” page 15, line 4).
Regarding claim 3, Pisoni, as modified by Takatsuka, discloses the method according to claim 2, further comprising a step of processing the first flame signal and the second flame signal to derive the fuel data representing a presence of fuel of the first type and/or a presence of fuel of the second type (“if only a flame is present and no ionization current is detected, the fuel gas in the combustion gas comprises hydrogen with a concentration that corresponds to 95 mol% or is higher than 95 mol%. In said case the control unit 5 sets a first operating mode at step S104” page 15, line 10 and “If both the flame is present and an ionization current is detected, the fuel gas in the combustion gas comprises hydrocarbons and hydrogen. The control unit determines on the basis of the flame detection signal and/or the ionization detection signal the hydrogen concentration and sets the second operating mode when the hydrogen concentration is higher than 20 mol% and lower than 95 mol%. If the control unit determines on the basis of the flame detection signal and/or the ionization detection signal that the hydrogen concentration corresponds to 20 mol % or is lower than 20 mol% or lower, a third operating mode is set at step S106” page 15, line 34).
Regarding claim 4, Pisoni, as modified by Takatsuka, discloses the method according to claim 3, wherein the fuel data represent a quantity of fuel of the first type and/or a quantity of fuel of the second type (“if only a flame is present and no ionization current is detected, the fuel gas in the combustion gas comprises hydrogen with a concentration that corresponds to 95 mol% or is higher than 95 mol%. In said case the control unit 5 sets a first operating mode at step S104” page 15, line 10 and “If both the flame is present and an ionization current is detected, the fuel gas in the combustion gas comprises hydrocarbons and hydrogen. The control unit determines on the basis of the flame detection signal and/or the ionization detection signal the hydrogen concentration and sets the second operating mode when the hydrogen concentration is higher than 20 mol% and lower than 95 mol%. If the control unit determines on the basis of the flame detection signal and/or the ionization detection signal that the hydrogen concentration corresponds to 20 mol % or is lower than 20 mol% or lower, a third operating mode is set at step S106” page 15, line 34).
Regarding claim 5, Pisoni, as modified by Takatsuka, discloses the method according to claim 4, wherein, if the quantity of the first fuel is greater than a first value, the processor performs the following steps:
deriving a quantitative ratio between the fuel and the oxidizer based on the first flame signal (“if only a flame is present and no ionization current is detected, the fuel gas in the combustion gas comprises hydrogen with a concentration that corresponds to 95 mol% or is higher than 95 mol%. In said case the control unit 5 sets a first operating mode at step S104” page 15, line 10); and
comparing the derived quantitative ratio with an ideal quantitative ratio, and wherein the processor generates the drive signals based on the comparison between the derived quantitative ratio and the ideal quantitative ratio (“the control unit is configured to adjust combustion settings of the boiler based on the ionization detection signal. In fact, based on the information derived from the ionization detection signal, i.e. the fuel gas composition, the value of the air excess factor and/or the concentration of carbon containing compounds, in particular hydrocarbons, for example using internal setting curves, it is possible to adapt particular settings of the boiler, such as for example the fan speed, the fuel gas flow, etc” page 11, line 14).
Regarding claim 6, Pisoni, as modified by Takatsuka, discloses the method according to claim 5, comprising a step of receiving at least one temperature signal representing a temperature inside a combustion cell of the burner and wherein the processor derives the quantitative ratio between the fuel and the oxidizer based also on the temperature signal (“the flame detection signal is obtainable from a UV sensor and/or a temperature sensor” claim 7 and “the flame detector can be a temperature sensor, such as a thermocouple. A flame is present if the temperature sensor measures a temperature above a predetermined temperature” page 8, line 21).
Regarding claim 7, Pisoni, as modified by Takatsuka, discloses the method according to claim 2, wherein the processor calculates, for the first and/or the second flame signal a first and/or a second value of signal intensity, and wherein the processor compares the first and/or the second intensity value with reference data that represent:
an association between the first intensity value and the quantity of fuel of the first type; and/or
an association between the second intensity value and the quantity of fuel of the second type (“If both the flame is present and an ionization current is detected, the fuel gas in the combustion gas comprises hydrocarbons and hydrogen. The control unit determines on the basis of the flame detection signal and/or the ionization detection signal the hydrogen concentration and sets the second operating mode when the hydrogen concentration is higher than 20 mol% and lower than 95 mol%. If the control unit determines on the basis of the flame detection signal and/or the ionization detection signal that the hydrogen concentration corresponds to 20 mol % or is lower than 20 mol% or lower, a third operating mode is set at step S106” page 15, line 34).
Regarding claim 9, Pisoni, as modified by Takatsuka, discloses the method according to claim 2, wherein the fuel of the first type comprises hydrogen (“if only a flame is present and no ionization current is detected, the fuel gas in the combustion gas comprises hydrogen” page 15, line 10) and wherein the first flame signal represents:
an electromagnetic wave in the ultraviolet field or at least one temperature in the combustion cell (“a UV flame sensor 3” page 13, line 13); and
wherein the fuel of the second type comprises methane and/or LPG (“The second operating mode corresponds to a mode for operating a boiler using a mixed fuel gas, for example hydrogen and natural gas. If the fuel gas in the combustion gas is natural gas, i.e. the hydrogen concentration is lower than the second predetermined value, the control unit sets the third operation mode” page 10, line 2) and the second flame signal representative of a direct current due to ionization of an electrode or of the flame impedance (“an ionization electrode 4” page 13, line 13).
Regarding claim 11, Pisoni, as modified by Takatsuka, discloses the method according to claim 1, comprising a step of receiving at least one temperature signal representing a temperature inside a combustion cell of the burner and wherein the processor is able to confirm that the burner is on based on the flame signal and on the temperature signal (“the flame detection signal is obtainable from a UV sensor and/or a temperature sensor” claim 7 and “the flame detector can be a temperature sensor, such as a thermocouple. A flame is present if the temperature sensor measures a temperature above a predetermined temperature” page 8, line 21).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pisoni, in view of Takatsuka, and further in view of Hensley (US 20200217504 A1), hereinafter Hensley.
Regarding claim 12, Pisoni, as modified by Takatsuka, discloses the method according to claim 1.
Pisoni, as modified by Takatsuka, does not disclose wherein the fuel data are received by the processor through manual entry by a user from a user interface.
However, Hensley teaches wherein the fuel data are received by the processor through manual entry by a user from a user interface (“Controller 166 is a “processing device” or “controller” and may be embodied as described herein. Controller 166 may include a memory and one or more microprocessors, microcontrollers, application-specific integrated circuits (ASICS), CPUs or the like, such as general or special purpose microprocessors operable to execute programming instructions or micro-control code associated with operation of oven appliance 100, and controller 166 is not restricted necessarily to a single element. The memory may represent random access memory such as DRAM, or read only memory such as ROM, electrically erasable, programmable read only memory (EEPROM), or FLASH. In one embodiment, the processor executes programming instructions stored in memory. The memory may be a separate component from the processor or may be included onboard within the processor” paragraph [0025] and “the fuel type may be input via user interface panel 160 which is operably coupled with controller 166. Thus, controller 166 may adjust the control algorithm for operating fuel supply system 180 to compensate for the differences in fuel type. According still other embodiments, the fuel type may be determined by measuring a pressure of the flow of fuel. In this regard, each particular fuel type may have a particular supply pressure for proper combustion or burning. By determining the supply pressure using a pressure sensor, the fuel type may be determined and appropriate compensations may be implemented” paragraph [0031]).
In view of Hensley’s teachings, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include wherein the fuel data are received by the processor through manual entry by a user from a user interface as is taught in Hensley, in the method disclosed by Pisoni because including user input provides greater diversity in controlling the gas burner of Pisoni.
Claims 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pisoni, in view of Bertelli (US 20190285275 A1), hereinafter Bertelli, and further in view of Takatsuka.
Regarding claim 15, Pisoni discloses a device for controlling a fuel-oxidizer mixture for a premix gas burner (“The combustion gas comprises air and fuel gas, in particular hydrocarbons. The combustion gas can be premixed before it is supplied to the burner” page 7, line 15), comprising:
a burner (“burner 8” page 13, line 20);
a gas regulating valve (“it is possible to adapt particular settings of the boiler, such as for example the fan speed, the fuel gas flow, etc” page 11, line 18 emphasis added);
a fan configured and adapted to rotate at a variable rotation speed to generate therein a flow of oxidizer (“it is possible to adapt particular settings of the boiler, such as for example the fan speed, the fuel gas flow, etc” page 11, line 18 emphasis added);
a first flame sensor configured to detect a first flame signal representing the presence of a flame deriving from the combustion of a fuel of a first type inside a combustion cell of the burner (“a UV flame sensor 3” page 13, line 13);
a control unit including a processor programmed to receive a flame signal and to generate drive signals representing a position of the gas regulating valve and the rotation speed of the suction fan based on the flame signal (“the control unit is configured to adjust combustion settings of the boiler based on the ionization detection signal. In fact, based on the information derived from the ionization detection signal, i.e. the fuel gas composition, the value of the air excess factor and/or the concentration of carbon containing compounds, in particular hydrocarbons, for example using internal setting curves, it is possible to adapt particular settings of the boiler, such as for example the fan speed, the fuel gas flow, etc” page 11, line 14 and “if only a flame is present and no ionization current is detected, the fuel gas in the combustion gas comprises hydrogen” page 15, line 10); and
a second flame sensor configured to detect a second flame signal representing the presence of a flame deriving from the combustion of a fuel of a second type inside a combustion cell of the burner (“an ionization electrode 4” page 13, line 13);
wherein the processor is programmed to receive fuel data representing the fact that the fuel is of the first type or of the second type (“The control unit is an electric control unit. Additionally, the control unit is adapted to receive electric sensor signals and to output electric control signals. The control unit can comprise at least one processor and/or a printed circuit board” page 7, line 31); and
wherein the flame signal is defined by the signal of the first flame sensor and/or of the second flame sensor depending on the fuel data (“if only a flame is present and no ionization current is detected, the fuel gas in the combustion gas comprises hydrogen with a concentration that corresponds to 95 mol% or is higher than 95 mol%. In said case the control unit 5 sets a first operating mode at step S104” page 15, line 10 and “If both the flame is present and an ionization current is detected, the fuel gas in the combustion gas comprises hydrocarbons and hydrogen. The control unit determines on the basis of the flame detection signal and/or the ionization detection signal the hydrogen concentration and sets the second operating mode when the hydrogen concentration is higher than 20 mol% and lower than 95 mol%. If the control unit determines on the basis of the flame detection signal and/or the ionization detection signal that the hydrogen concentration corresponds to 20 mol % or is lower than 20 mol% or lower, a third operating mode is set at step S106” page 15, line 34).
PNG
media_image1.png
496
592
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Pisoni does not explicitly disclose:
an intake duct which defines a section for the admission of a fluid into the duct and includes an inlet for receiving the oxidizer, a mixing zone for receiving the fuel and allowing it to be mixed with the oxidizer, and an outlet for delivering the mixture to the burner;
an injection duct connected to the intake duct in the mixing zone to supply the fuel;
the gas regulating valve located along the injection duct;
the fan located in the intake duct to generate therein a flow of oxidizer in a direction of inflow oriented from the inlet to the delivery outlet;
a gas flow or pressure sensor configured to detect a flow rate signal identifying a gas flow rate, wherein the processor is programmed to derive the fuel data on a basis of the flow rate signal.
However, Bertelli teaches:
an intake duct which defines a section for the admission of a fluid into the duct and includes an inlet for receiving the oxidizer, a mixing zone for receiving the fuel and allowing it to be mixed with the oxidizer, and an outlet for delivering the mixture to the burner (“The device 1 comprises an intake duct 2. The intake duct 2 comprises an inlet 201. The intake duct 2 comprises an outlet 203. The intake duct 2 comprises a mixing zone 202” paragraph [0121]);
an injection duct connected to the intake duct in the mixing zone to supply the fuel (“The injection duct 3 is connected with the intake duct 2. In particular, the injection duct 3 is connected with the intake duct 2 at the mixing zone 202” paragraph [0127]);
the gas regulating valve located along the injection duct (“The first regulator 7 is positioned on the injection duct 3” paragraph [0134]);
the fan located in the intake duct to generate therein a flow of oxidizer in a direction of inflow oriented from the inlet to the delivery outlet (“The fan 8 is positioned in the intake duct 2” paragraph [0143]).
PNG
media_image2.png
462
644
media_image2.png
Greyscale
In view of Bertelli's teachings it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include ductwork of Bertelli because the court has held combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results supports a conclusion of obviousness Anderson’s-Black Rock, Inc. v. Pavement Salvage Co., 396 U.S. 57, 163 USPQ 673 (1969). In this case, Pisoni discloses a premix type burner, but is silent on the ductwork for the fuel and combustion air. Bertelli teaches the claimed fuel and combustion air ductwork. The combination of these references results, predictably, in no more or less than the sum of the constituent parts. The court has also held that “the convenience of putting… together… elements in one machine, though perhaps a matter of great convenience does not produce a new or different function.” Id. at 60, 163 USPQ at 674.
Pisoni, as modified by Bertelli, does not disclose a gas flow or pressure sensor configured to detect a flow rate signal identifying a gas flow rate, wherein the processor is programmed to derive the fuel data on a basis of the flow rate signal.
However, Takatsuka teaches a gas flow or pressure sensor configured to detect a flow rate signal identifying a gas flow rate, wherein the processor is programmed to derive the fuel data on a basis of the flow rate signal (“The actual fuel flow rate is measured by a fuel flow rate detector (7) and sent to a multiplier (9). When the fuel is constant, the calorie correction signal (output of (8)) is constant, so the multiplier (9) multiplies it by a coefficient of 1, i.e., the measured value is sent as is to a comparator (00), which compares it with the signal from the adder (6) to find the deviation. This deviation correction signal is sent to the fuel flow control valve (121) as a fuel flow command, and the opening of the fuel flow control valve (121) is controlled until the deviation from the comparator (00) becomes zero” page 3. All citations provided from machine translation appended to the foreign reference).
In view of Takatsuka’s teachings, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include a gas flow or pressure sensor configured to detect a flow rate signal identifying a gas flow rate, wherein the processor is programmed to derive the fuel data on a basis of the flow rate signal as is taught in Takatsuka, in the method disclosed by Pisoni because Takatsuka states “The present invention relates to a device for correcting calorie fluctuations due to changes in fuel. In fuel control of a plant, since calorie fluctuations due to changes in fuel are large, calorie correction is necessary to ensure that the plant can produce stable capacity” (page 1). Therefore, including the teachings of Takatsuka will improve stability in the method of Pisoni.
Regarding claim 16, Pisoni, as modified by Bertelli and Takatsuka, discloses the device according to claim 15, wherein the processor is configured to derive the fuel data, representing a quantity of fuel of the first type and/or a quantity of fuel of the second type, based on the first flame signal and on the second flame signal (“if only a flame is present and no ionization current is detected, the fuel gas in the combustion gas comprises hydrogen with a concentration that corresponds to 95 mol% or is higher than 95 mol%. In said case the control unit 5 sets a first operating mode at step S104” page 15, line 10 and “If both the flame is present and an ionization current is detected, the fuel gas in the combustion gas comprises hydrocarbons and hydrogen. The control unit determines on the basis of the flame detection signal and/or the ionization detection signal the hydrogen concentration and sets the second operating mode when the hydrogen concentration is higher than 20 mol% and lower than 95 mol%. If the control unit determines on the basis of the flame detection signal and/or the ionization detection signal that the hydrogen concentration corresponds to 20 mol % or is lower than 20 mol% or lower, a third operating mode is set at step S106” page 15, line 34).
Regarding claim 17, Pisoni, as modified by Bertelli and Takatsuka, discloses the device according to claim 16, wherein the processor is programmed for:
accessing a memory unit containing first regulation data and second regulation data, different from the first regulation data (“The control unit is an electric control unit. Additionally, the control unit is adapted to receive electric sensor signals and to output electric control signals. The control unit can comprise at least one processor and/or a printed circuit board” page 7, line 31);
selecting one between the first regulation data and the second regulation data, based on the fuel data; and
generating the drive signals based on the regulation data selected (“the control unit is configured to adjust combustion settings of the boiler based on the ionization detection signal. In fact, based on the information derived from the ionization detection signal, i.e. the fuel gas composition, the value of the air excess factor and/or the concentration of carbon containing compounds, in particular hydrocarbons, for example using internal setting curves, it is possible to adapt particular settings of the boiler, such as for example the fan speed, the fuel gas flow, etc” page 11, line 14).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pisoni, in view of Bertelli, in view of Takatsuka, and further in view of Hensley.
Regarding claim 18, Pisoni, as modified by Bertelli and Takatsuka, discloses the device according to claim 15.
Pisoni, as modified by Bertelli and Takatsuka, does not disclose a user interface connected to the control unit and configured to allow a user to enter the fuel data manually.
However, Hensley teaches a user interface connected to the control unit and configured to allow a user to enter the fuel data manually (“Controller 166 is a “processing device” or “controller” and may be embodied as described herein. Controller 166 may include a memory and one or more microprocessors, microcontrollers, application-specific integrated circuits (ASICS), CPUs or the like, such as general or special purpose microprocessors operable to execute programming instructions or micro-control code associated with operation of oven appliance 100, and controller 166 is not restricted necessarily to a single element. The memory may represent random access memory such as DRAM, or read only memory such as ROM, electrically erasable, programmable read only memory (EEPROM), or FLASH. In one embodiment, the processor executes programming instructions stored in memory. The memory may be a separate component from the processor or may be included onboard within the processor” paragraph [0025] and “the fuel type may be input via user interface panel 160 which is operably coupled with controller 166. Thus, controller 166 may adjust the control algorithm for operating fuel supply system 180 to compensate for the differences in fuel type. According still other embodiments, the fuel type may be determined by measuring a pressure of the flow of fuel. In this regard, each particular fuel type may have a particular supply pressure for proper combustion or burning. By determining the supply pressure using a pressure sensor, the fuel type may be determined and appropriate compensations may be implemented” paragraph [0031]).
In view of Hensley’s teachings, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include a user interface connected to the control unit and configured to allow a user to enter the fuel data manually as is taught in Hensley, in the device disclosed by Pisoni because including user input provides greater diversity in controlling the gas burner of Pisoni.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 8 is allowable.
Claim 8 recites the limitations “comparing the quantity of fuel of the first type and/or the quantity of fuel of the second type, calculated on the basis of the first and the second flame signal with the gas flow rate calculated on the basis of the flow rate signal; and performing a diagnostic test on the gas flow sensor based on the comparison.” No art has been found such that modification of Pisoni would have been obvious to arrive at these claim limitations. Therefore, these limitations, when combined with every other limitation of the claim, distinguishes the claim from the prior art.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Kagami (JP H08128631 A) “Furthermore, if the type of fuel gas can be discriminated as described above, the actual gas flow rate to the burner can be grasped based on the output characteristic of the flow rate sensor corresponding to the type of fuel gas. By controlling the gas flow rate control valve so that the actual gas flow rate matches the desired gas flow rate, it becomes possible to enhance the control accuracy of the gas flow rate”
PNG
media_image3.png
628
362
media_image3.png
Greyscale
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 LOGAN P JONES whose telephone number is (303)297-4309. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:30-5:00 EST.
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 at (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.
/LOGAN P JONES/Examiner, Art Unit 3762 /MICHAEL G HOANG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3762
Prosecution Insights