DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim 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:
The “units” in claims 1-8. Corresponding structure for the “units” disclosed in at least Paragraph [0074] of the instant Specification.
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.
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 § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-6 and 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) the abstract idea of a mathematical algorithm for evaluating the state of a burner based on a measurement signal (for example, see the mathematical thresholding of instant Fig. 6).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because no improvement to the functioning of the underlying burner is realized through performance of the algorithm.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because acquiring the data needed for the algorithm amounts to mere routine and necessary data gathering. The recited units, program, and machine learning amount to the recitation of general-purpose computer elements for the implementation of the algorithm and do not serve to amount to significantly more than the recitation of the abstract idea itself (Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International, 573 U.S. 208 (2014)).
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) 1-3 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Maiello et al. (US 20070292810 A1)[hereinafter “Maiello”].
Regarding Claims 1 and 9, Maiello discloses a flame monitoring device (and corresponding method implemented through use of computer program instructions [Paragraph [0044]]) comprising:
an information acquisition unit configured to sequentially acquire a flame level indicating frequency of discharge of a flame detector caused by a flame of a burner [See Figs. 3 and 4 and Paragraph [0037] – “The system 100 includes feedback from the pilot assembly 108 and main burner assembly 106 related to, for example, ignition and presence of a flame. This feedback can be used as a check and balance system to confirm one or more steps and/or functions involved in igniting the main burner flame before proceeding to the next step. In some embodiments, the valve can be configured with sensors or other devices that provide feedback to the control system to ensure proper valve function such as, for example, position of various valve elements that relate to a gas flow provided by the valve.”Paragraph [0039] – “a pilot flame sensor 222, a main flame sensor 224”]; and
a flame level monitoring unit configured to monitor the flame level sequentially acquired by the information acquisition unit [See Figs. 3 and 4 and Paragraph [0047] – “The controller 202 can run according to a software code that is loaded into the controller memory 242 and operated with the CPU 240. The software code preferably provides for monitoring and control of various components of the system 200 such as, for example, the ignition source 222, pilot and main flame sensors 222, 224, thermistor 218, control panel 210, blower 230 and lights 234. The code preferably also provides for storage of performance information such as pilot flame and main burner flamer ignition history, hours of operation, flame sense signals, lock out history or other maintenance-related information.”See Figs. 7 and 8.];
wherein the flame level monitoring unit is further configured to detect a sign of a flame failure of the flame by detecting an occurrence of a specific period during which a state in which the flame level is less than a predetermined threshold value continues for a length of time [Paragraph [0058] – “FIG. 7 also illustrates what can be defined as "stabilization" of the pilot flame and/or the pilot flame sense signal. Referencing flame sense signal D, it is common for the flame (as represented by the flame sense signal) to at first overshoot desired stabilization level and then over time oscillate towards the desired stabilization level (e.g., close to zero oscillation at t.sub.3). Stabilization of the pilot flame is relevant for determining whether the pilot flame will maintain an intensity and quality sufficient to ignite the main burner flame when a flow of gas is provided to the main burner. The lower the stabilization level of the pilot flame (e.g., a LOW flame or below the ON/OFF threshold level) the greater the likelihood of ignition problems for the main burner flame (e.g., delayed ignition and/or aggressive ignition due to a delay). Further monitoring of the flame sense signal after time t.sub.3 may be desired in order to confirm that the pilot flame has stabilized at a constant rate is not either decreasing or increasing over time in an adverse manner.”Paragraph [0057] – “After still further use, a pilot flame signal F can be monitored, which indicates at the time t.sub.3 wherein the signal is stabilized the signal is below the ON/OFF threshold.”] more than or equal to a predetermined first period [Fig. 7, stabilizing in the period defined from 0 to t.sub.3] and less than a second period [Fig. 7, total operating period that can be seen to extend past t.sub.3 where flame failure is detected], and
the second period is a period having a length of time equal to [Fig. 7, shut off point based on detected flame failure] or less than a period from an occurrence of the flame failure of the flame to the detection of the flame failure in a combustion system that controls the burner when it is assumed that the flame failure occurs [Paragraph [0036] – “Further, a main flame can be confirmed at the main burner within a predetermined time from when a gas flow is supplied to the main burner. If the main flame is not detected, the gas flow can be stopped. In some instances of detected system problems (e.g., lack of main flame), the control system is shut down until maintenance can occur.”Paragraph [0059] – “Another way of determining whether or not a gas flow should be supplied to the main burner based on the pilot flame sense signal is to allow lapse of a predetermined amount of time regardless of the stabilization state of the pilot flame so long as the flame is above an ON/OFF threshold.”Claim 5 of Maiello – “the controller is configured to monitor a main burner flame sense signal generated by the main burner flame sensor and shut OFF the variable gas valve if the main burner flame is not detected within a predetermined time period from when the variable gas valve is activated to supply gas to the main burner.”Claim 8 of Maiello – “the controller is configured to shut OFF the supply of gas to the pilot flame burner if the pilot flame sensor indicates the pilot flame is not stabilized or is not present after a predetermined time period.”].
Regarding Claim 2, Maiello discloses that the flame level monitoring unit is further configured to execute a process of notifying [Paragraph [0061] – “The controller can also be configured to generate notices, reports, or other signals notifying a user or maintenance personnel of the need for maintenance and/or repair of certain aspects of the main burner, sensors, associated with the burner, etc.”] that the sign is detected when the occurrence of the specific period is detected [Paragraph [0036] – “Further, a main flame can be confirmed at the main burner within a predetermined time from when a gas flow is supplied to the main burner. If the main flame is not detected, the gas flow can be stopped. In some instances of detected system problems (e.g., lack of main flame), the control system is shut down until maintenance can occur.”Paragraph [0059] – “Another way of determining whether or not a gas flow should be supplied to the main burner based on the pilot flame sense signal is to allow lapse of a predetermined amount of time regardless of the stabilization state of the pilot flame so long as the flame is above an ON/OFF threshold.”Claim 5 of Maiello – “the controller is configured to monitor a main burner flame sense signal generated by the main burner flame sensor and shut OFF the variable gas valve if the main burner flame is not detected within a predetermined time period from when the variable gas valve is activated to supply gas to the main burner.”Claim 8 of Maiello – “the controller is configured to shut OFF the supply of gas to the pilot flame burner if the pilot flame sensor indicates the pilot flame is not stabilized or is not present after a predetermined time period.”].
Regarding Claim 3, Maiello discloses that the flame level monitoring unit is further configured to execute a process of notifying that the sign is detected when the number of occurrences of the specific period per certain period is larger than a predetermined number of times larger than or equal to two [See Fig. 7. Signal F is only identified as indicating the flame is off after crossing the ON/OFF threshold 3 times.].
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 4 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maiello et al. (US 20070292810 A1)[hereinafter “Maiello”] and Bachinsky et al. (US 20070068511 A1)[hereinafter “Bachinsky”].
Regarding Claims 4 and 8, Maiello fails to disclose that the information acquisition unit is further configured to sequentially acquire flow rates of fuel and air that are supplied to the burner, and the flame level monitoring unit is further configured to notify of the detection of the sign along with flow rate information indicating a relation between the flow rate of fuel and the flow rate of air in at least one of the specific periods and a certain period traced back from the specific period based on the flow rates of fuel and air that are sequentially acquired by the information acquisition unit.
However, Bachinsky discloses the use of a fuel flow sensor and an airflow sensor in the monitoring of the condition of a burner [See Paragraphs [0038], [0039] and [0041]]. It would have been obvious to monitor and track such flow rates in the monitoring of the burner in order to better assess the state of the burner while tracking potential conditions resulting in a particular state.
Claim(s) 5-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maiello et al. (US 20070292810 A1)[hereinafter “Maiello”] and FAHANDEZH SAADI et al. (US 20210089821 A1)[hereinafter “Saadi”].
Regarding Claim 5, Maiello discloses that the information acquisition unit is further configured to sequentially acquire combustion information including at least the flame level in the combustion system [See Figs. 7 and 8], but fails to disclose that the flame level monitoring unit is further configured to: learn a relation between presence or absence of the occurrence of the flame failure and the combustion information by using, as training data, a variation in combustion information in a period traced back by a predetermined time from the actually occurring flame failure and a variation in combustion information for the predetermined time when no flame failure occurs from the combustion information sequentially acquired by the information acquisition unit; and derive a possibility of the occurrence of the flame failure based on the variation in combustion information for the predetermined time from the combustion information sequentially acquired by the information acquisition unit and the learned relation, and execute a process based on the derived possibility.
However Saadi discloses the training and use of machine learning models to assess whether or not burner information represents the possibility of a burner malfunction [See Fig. 2 and associated text]. It would have been obvious to train and use machine learning models in assessing burner state and performing burner control in order to ensure continued safe operation of the burner.
Regarding Claim 6, Maiello fails to disclose that the flame level monitoring unit is further configured to learn the relation by using a variation in combustion information in a period traced back by the predetermined time from the specific period actually generated from the combustion information sequentially acquired by the information acquisition unit as the variation in combustion information in a period traced back by the predetermined time from the flame failure.
However Saadi discloses the training and use of machine learning models to assess whether or not burner information represents the possibility of a burner malfunction [See Fig. 2 and associated text]. It would have been obvious to train and use machine learning models to identify earlier periods in monitoring data that indicate burner malfunctions in order to better assess burner state and perform burner control in order to ensure continued safe operation of the burner
Regarding Claim 7, the combination would disclose that the process based on the derived possibility includes at least one of a process of notifying of the possibility [Paragraph [0045] of Saadi – “In various embodiments, the model training circuitry 320, such as by the processing circuitry 12, may provide the probability of one or more operating states.”], a process of notifying that the possibility is larger than a predetermined value [Paragraph [0045] of Saadi – “In some embodiments, based on the probability of one or more operating states determined, the apparatus 10, such as by the processing circuitry 12, may determine the operating state of the burner, or the most likely operating state of the burner.” It is inherent that this would involve an evaluation of the degree of probability.], and a process of stopping fuel supply to the burner when the possibility is larger than the predetermined value [Paragraph [0046] – “In some embodiments, the user input may indicate a change to the burner operation based on the operating state. For example, in an instance an error message is provided to the user, the apparatus 10 may receive an input to turn off the burner until the potential malfunction may be investigated.”].
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 20190219263 A1 – Burner With Monitoring
US 20210190316 A1 – SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR OPERATIONAL CONTROL OF A WATER HEATER APPARATUS WITH A COMBUSTIBLE GAS BURNER
US 20230258117 A1 – METHOD, COMPUTING UNIT, AND COMPUTER PROGRAM FOR DIAGNOSING THE FUNCTIONALITY OF A BURNER
US 5236328 A – Optical Flame Detector Performance Tester
US 4280184 A – Burner Flame Detection
US 5796342 A – Diagnosing Flame Characteristics In The Time Domain
US 20200018481 A1 – FFT FLAME MONITORING FOR LIMIT CONDITION
US 20060015298 A1 – Methods For Monitoring And Controlling Boiler Flames
US 20170219209 A1 – COMBUSTION SYSTEM
US 20220042682 A1 – DIAGNOSIS SUPPORT DEVICE AND DIAGNOSTIC METHOD
US 20110313637 A1 – COMBUSTION APPARATUS AND METHOD FOR COMBUSTION CONTROL
US 20110086319 A1 – FUEL GAS IGNITION SYSTEM FOR GAS BURNERS INCLUDING DEVICES AND METHODS RELATED THERETO
US 20050092851 A1 – Blocked Flue Detection Methods And Systems
US 20220099295 A1 – COOKING APPLIANCE GAS OVEN BURNER CONTROL DURING OVEN WARM-UP OPERATION
US 20160230984 A1 – BURNER SYSTEM EMPLOYING MULTIPLE PERFORATED FLAME HOLDERS, AND METHOD OF OPERATION
US 5035607 A – Fuel Burner Having An Intermittent Pilot With Pre-ignition Testing
US 5538416 A – Gas Burner Controller With Main Valve Delay After Pilot Flame Lightoff
US 4842510 A – Integrated Furnace Control Having Ignition And Pressure Switch Diagnostics
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KYLE ROBERT QUIGLEY whose telephone number is (313)446-4879. The examiner can normally be reached 11AM-9PM 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, Arleen Vazquez can be reached at (571) 272-2619. 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.
/KYLE R QUIGLEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857