DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This Action is FINAL and is in response to the claims filed December 30, 2025. Claims 1, 3, 5-7, and 9-12 are currently pending, of which claims 1, 3, 5, and 7 are currently amended. Claims 2, 4, and 8 have been cancelled and claims 11 and 12 are newly presented.
Response to Arguments
Drawings
Applicant has amended Fig. 3 and this new black and white line drawing has been accepted and entered and the previous objection has therefore been withdrawn.
Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. §101
Applicant has amended the claims at issue to positively recite a physical adjustment to the burner of the lime kiln based on the processed data. This sufficiently integrates the previously-identified abstract ideas into a practical application.
Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. §112
Applicant has amended the claims at issue and the previous rejections have therefore been withdrawn. In light of the claim amendments, a new rejection has been introduced, as detailed below.
Prior Art Rejections
Applicant has amended the claims at issue and argues that the various claimed features are not taught by the previously cited art. Specifically, Applicant has introduced numerous potential quantities of interest to select to be measured and compared. See Remarks 10. These arguments are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Specifically, new reference Dugue discloses flame geometric parameters that would apply to the analysis of Li. See Dugue paras. [0143-147] and [0175-183].
It is for at least these reasons, and the reasons cited below, that the claims remain rejected in this Action.
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.
Claim 3 is 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.
Claim 3 is objected to because it recites “and the value of the selected on a user interface” and it is unclear what “the selected” refers to in this instance.
Examiner’s Note
The prior art rejections below cite particular paragraphs, columns, and/or line numbers in the references for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art.
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.
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) 1, 3, 5-7, and 9-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. (“Multisource Data Ensemble Modeling for Clinker Free Lime Content Estimate in Rotary Kiln Sintering Processes”; retrieved from IDS filed July 7, 2023; hereinafter “Li”), and further in view of Dugue et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2002/0051579; retrieved from IDS filed December 12, 2025; hereinafter “Dugue”) and McLellan (U.S. Publication No. 2007/0281260).
As per claim 1, Li further teaches a method for monitoring a flame of a burner of a lime kiln, comprising:
imaging [a video stream] showing the burner end of the lime kiln to generate an imaged video stream (See Li Figs. 1 and 3 and pp. 304 “extract the color and configuration features of flame image ROI to identify the burning state”);
extracting at least one image from the imaged video stream (See Li Figs. 1 and 3 and pp. 304 “extract the color and configuration features of flame image ROI to identify the burning state”);
determining, using a pretrained algorithm, from the at least one image at least one area of interest (See Li p. 306: “Training flame image ROI are preprocessed by a compact Gabor filter bank to distinguish ROI. Then, color feature fa, global configuration feature fb, and local configuration feature fc of the ROI are extracted”; III.A.1: “Motivated by the knowledge that discriminative ROI facilitate feature extraction and ROI with distinct texture attributes, the Gabor filter emerged as the most popular texture analysis method, and hence is employed to discriminate ROI”), wherein the at least one area of interest comprises a part of the at least one image showing an area comprising at least one characteristic portion of the flame and/or burner end (See Li p. 306, Fig. 4 and Section III.A.1: ROI associated with flame image and various texture attributes);
calculating an area, a location or a feature of the at least one characteristic portion based on pixels in the at least one area of interest (See Li Fig. 4 and p. 306 Section III.A.1: “two fixed windows, 25 × 25 pixels in size, are used to sample the ROI to represent their texture attributes as shown in Fig. 4; p. 307 III.B.1: “the area feature fa of the training and testing flame images can be calculated to feature the color of the ROI”);
determining a value for the selected quantity of interest based on the calculated area, the location or the feature of the at least one characteristic portion (See Li p. 311 Section V.B: “Following the procedure in Section III-B, via the fixed masking matrix M, the area feature f a of the flame images can be extracted to represent the color of the ROI, whilst according to (10), the number of selected eigen-flame images, i.e., the dimension of the extracted ROIs global configuration feature f b, can be chosen for each replica”).
However, while Li teaches multiple images, Li does not explicitly teach a video stream of the flame in the kiln.
Dugue teaches capturing flame images using video streams (See Dugue paras. [0005] and [0169]).
Furthermore, while Li selects and compares flame information and images, Li does not explicitly teach a variety of characteristic.
Dugue teaches selecting a quantity of interest from at least one of: a flame angle of a flame from the burner, a length of the flame, a tip angle of the flame, a width of the flame, a black flame area of the flame, a white flame area of the flame, a lime area, a flame pumping index, a dust index inside the lime kiln, or a lime black spill area (See Dugue paras. [0143-147] and [0175-183]: geometrical parameters, including flame length, area, perimeter, and other contour parameters are measured).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine, with a reasonable expectation of success, the images of the kiln of Li with the specific measurements of Dugue. One would have been motivated to combine these references because both references disclose capturing burner images to determine flame features. Dugue further enhances the image comparison and capturing of Li by expanding upon the amount of data that can be gathered, allowing users/operators to determine more about the flame ROI at issue and allow for more accurate potential adjustments.
Additionally, while Li teaches the calculated areas and quantity of interest, Li does not compare those to threshold values.
McLellan further teaches comparing the value of the selected quantity of interest to a threshold value (See McLellan paras. [0047] and [0050-53]: confidence level thresholding and comparing results to predetermined thresholds. This would be done using the calculations and determinations of Li).
Moreover, while Li compares images, and Dugue adjusts flow rates of fuel (See Dugue paras. [0149-13]), Li/Dugue does not adjust burner operations based on image comparisons.
McLellan teaches adjusting the operation of the burner based on the comparison of the value of the selected quantity of interest to the threshold value (See McLellan Fig. 6 and paras. [0038] and [0041]: tuning and controlling burner after calculating confidence level based on stored good image characteristics).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine, with a reasonable expectation of success, the images of the kiln of Li with the real-time captures of McLellan. One would have been motivated to combine these references because both references disclose capturing burner images, and McLellan enhances the imaging of Li/Dugue by allowing for explicit tuning of the burners while further improving the accuracy of the image comparisons, ensuring that system-wide efficiencies are in place to make the most confident predictions (See McLellan paras. [0005] and [0008]).
As per claim 3, Li/Dugue/McLellan teaches the method according to claim 1. However, Li does not display user interface elements.
McLellan further teaches displaying the selected quantity of interest and the value of the selected on a user interface element (See McLellan paras. [0036] and [0044]: display of graph of confidence levels as well as other aids in the software tool).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine Li/Dugue with the teachings of McLellan for at least the same reasons as discussed above in claim 1.
As per claim 5, Li/Dugue/McLellan teaches the method according to claim 1. Li further teaches wherein the pretrained algorithm is created by imaging the [video stream] showing the burner end of the lime kiln; extracting a plurality of training images from the imaged [video stream] and segmenting each image of the plurality of training images into areas of interest, wherein the area of interest for at least one image comprises the interior of the lime kiln; and training an algorithm to recognize the areas of interest from the segmented images (See Li p. 306 Section II.B: training using ROI that is captured from burner; III.A.1: “Motivated by the knowledge that discriminative ROI facilitate feature extraction and ROI with distinct texture attributes, the Gabor filter emerged as the most popular texture analysis method, and hence is employed to discriminate ROI”; p. 307 III.B.1: “as the burning state changes, the pixel locations in such a plot change significantly. This enables one to use masking to obtain more meaningful ROI to feature various clinkers. According to [24], a 256×256 binary masking matrix M with fixed graphics is constructed, also as shown in Fig. 5(b). Then, the area feature fa of the training and testing flame images can be calculated to feature the color of the ROI”).
However, while Li teaches multiple images, Li does not explicitly teach a video stream of the flame in the kiln.
Dugue teaches capturing flame images using video streams (See Dugue paras. [0005] and [0169]).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine Li with the teachings of Dugue for at least the same reasons as discussed above in claim 1.
As per claim 6, Li/Dugue/McLellan teaches the method according to claim 5. Li further teaches extracting a reference image from the imaged [video stream] (See Li Figs. 1 and 3 and pp. 304 “extract the color and configuration features of flame image ROI to identify the burning state”); and determining using known dimensions of the lime kiln visible in the reference image corresponding size in Si-units for a pixel of the reference image (See Li p. 306 Section III.A.1: “two fixed windows, 25 x 25 pixels in size, are used to sample the ROI to represent their texture attributes as shown in Fig. 4”; Section II.B: training using ROI processing and thus based on the pixel windows).
However, while Li teaches multiple images, Li does not explicitly teach a video stream of the flame in the kiln.
Dugue teaches capturing flame images using video streams (See Dugue paras. [0005] and [0169]).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine Li with the teachings of Dugue for at least the same reasons as discussed above in claim 1.
As per claim 11, Li/Dugue/McLellan further teaches the method according to claim 1. However, while McLellan tunes/adjusts the flame, McLellan does not teach specific adjustments to the flame as they relate to air distribution or fuel flow.
Dugue teaches wherein the adjusting the operation of the burner includes adjusting distribution of air entering the burner or adjusting an amount of fuel flowing into the burner (See Dugue paras. [0151-163]: increasing fuel flow or overall content of oxygen to adjust flames accordingly).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine Li with the teachings of Dugue for at least the same reasons as discussed above in claim 1.
As per claims 7 and 12, the claims are directed to a system that implements the method of claims 1 and 11, respectively, and are therefore rejected for at least the same reasons therein. Furthermore, McLellan teaches a processor configured to implement said method (See McLellan para. [0033]).
As per claim 9, the claim is directed to a computer program product that implements the method of claim 1 and is rejected for at least the same reasons therein. Furthermore, McLellan teaches a computer program product to implement said method (See McLellan para. [0032-33]).
As per claim 10, the claim is directed to a memory medium that implements the program product of claim 9 and is rejected for at least the same reasons therein. Furthermore, McLellan teaches a memory medium to implement said program product (See McLellan para. [0032-33]).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 Nicholas Klicos whose telephone number is (571)270-5889. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9:00 AM-5:00 PM.
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, Scott Baderman can be reached at (571) 272-3644. 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.
/NICHOLAS KLICOS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2118