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
Election/Restrictions
After claim amendments, detailed examination, and further consideration, the restriction/election requirement mailed 4/23/26 has been withdrawn.
Claim Objections
Claims 11, 12, and 14 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 11, 1st line, the term “0” should be changed to --2--.
In claim 12, 1st line, the term “0” should be changed to --11--.
In claim 14, 1st line, the term “0” should be changed to --13--.
In claim 19 (2nd occurrence), 1st line, the term “0” should be changed to --19--.
Appropriate correction is required.
The numbering of claims is not in accordance with 37 CFR 1.126 which requires the original numbering of the claims to be preserved throughout the prosecution. When claims are canceled, the remaining claims must not be renumbered. When new claims are presented, they must be numbered consecutively beginning with the number next
following the highest numbered claims previously presented (whether entered or not).
Misnumbered claim 19 (2nd occurrence) has been renumbered 20.
Misnumbered claim 20 has been renumbered 21.
Misnumbered claim 21 has been renumbered 22.
Misnumbered claim 22 has been renumbered 23.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 21 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Putaansuu (US 2021/02470771), which shows all of the claimed limitations. Putaansuu shows:
21 (New). A solid fuel-burning appliance comprising: a combustion chamber 902; an exhaust duct 102,206 in fluid communication with the combustion chamber for conveying smoke from the combustion chamber (fig. 9); and a sensor apparatus 402 positioned in alignment with a viewing port 408 defined in the exhaust duct 206 for monitoring a concentration of smoke particles in the smoke flowing through a duct, the sensor apparatus comprising: an instrument housing 402 having a duct mounting face superposable against the exhaust duct 206 with an optical aperture 408 extending therethrough (fig. 4); an optical sensor 404 located inside the instrument housing and being in light communication with the optical aperture (fig. 4); a light source configured to emit a light signal 406 along a light path extending to the optical aperture (fig. 4); and a processor 410 in data communication with the optical sensor and configured to determine the concentration of smoke particles using at least one of a reflected portion and a diffracted portion of the light signal emitted by the light source (para. 0018 – inherent).
22 (New). The solid fuel-burning appliance of claim 22, further comprising a temperature sensor 502 operatively connected to the processor (para. 0030), wherein the processor is configured to at least one of: compensate for a variation in sensitivity of the optical sensor as a function of temperature when determining the concentration of smoke particles; adjust a supply of electrical current to the light source to compensate for a variation in output illuminance of the light source as a function of temperature; and compare a measured temperature to a predetermined maximum temperature and, if the measured temperature exceeds the predetermined maximum temperature, trigger at least one of a shut down of the sensor apparatus and a transmission of an alert signal (para. 0030,0032,0038,0039,0040,0042).
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 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 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Putaansuu (US 2021/02470771), which discloses substantially all of the claimed limitations.
Putaansuu discloses:
20 (New). A solid fuel burning appliance comprising: a combustion apparatus 902 having a combustion chamber defined therein (inherent); an exhaust duct 102,206 extending from the combustion apparatus and in fluid communication with the combustion chamber, the exhaust duct having a viewing port 408 extending therethrough (fig. 4,9); and a combustion particle sensor apparatus 402 for monitoring a concentration of smoke particles in an exhaust gas stream flowing through the exhaust duct (para. 0018) 402 having a duct mounting face superposable against the exhaust duct 206 with an optical aperture 408 extending therethrough; an optical sensor 404 located inside the instrument housing and being in light communication with the optical aperture (fig. 4); a first light source configured to emit a first light signal 406 along a first light path extending to the optical aperture (fig. 4); and a processor 410 in data communication with the optical sensor and configured to determine the concentration of smoke particles using at least one of a reflected portion and a diffracted portion of the first light signal emitted by the first light source (para. 0018 - inherent).
Nevertheless, Putaansuu fails to specifically recite the specific position along the length of the exhaust duct as recited in the claims
The claimed shape/size/location/orientation is an obvious modification based on design choice, and depends on spatial considerations such as availability of space and arrangement of other components.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the claimed location into the invention disclosed by Putaansuu, so as to provide for spatial considerations.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-14 and 17-20 are allowed.
Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. These references disclose devices with many of the claimed components. Nevertheless, in order to avoid overburdening the applicant with redundant rejections, these references were not applied.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALFRED BASICHAS whose telephone number is 571 272 4871. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday during regular business hours.
To contact the examiner’s supervisor please call MICHAEL HOANG whose telephone number is 571 272 6460.
Any inquiry of a general nature or relating to the status of this application or proceeding should be directed to the Tech Center telephone number is 571 272 3700.
June 4, 2026
/ALFRED BASICHAS/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3762
Prosecution Insights