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 STATUS
Claims 1-10 were originally filed.
Claim 4 is currently amended.
Claims 1-10 are currently pending and have been examined herein.
INITIAL REMARKS
Applicant is reminded that in order to be entitled to reconsideration or further examination, the Applicant or patent owner must reply to the Office action. The reply by the Applicant or patent owner must be reduced to a writing which distinctly and specifically points out the supposed errors in the examiner' s action and must reply to every ground of objection and rejection in the prior Office action. The reply must present arguments pointing out the specific distinctions believed to render the claims, including any newly presented claims, patentable over any applied references. If the reply is with respect to an application, a request may be made that objections or requirements as to form not necessary to further consideration of the claims, be held in abeyance until allowable subject matter is indicated. The Applicant's or patent owner's reply must appear throughout to be a bona fide attempt to advance the application or the reexamination proceeding to final action. A general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references does not comply with the requirements of this section.
Should the Applicant believe that a telephone conference would expedite the prosecution of the instant application, Applicant is invited to call the Examiner.
CLAIM REJECTIONS - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a), first paragraph, for failing to be fully enabled by the Applicant’s Specification.
Re claim 1, because the Specification, while being enabling for the following limitations:
A method for calculating carbon emission of a boiler, comprising:
determining a test boundary of a boiler system and carbon emission sources in the test boundary;
dividing the carbon emission sources in the test boundary into direct carbon emission sources and indirect carbon emission sources;
combined with a boiler thermal performance test, testing a carbon emission of the direct carbon emission sources and a carbon emission of the indirect carbon emission sources per hour in a test period;
it does not reasonably provide enablement for the full scope of these limitations:
calculating a total carbon emission of the boiler per hour in the test period according to the carbon emission of the direct carbon emission sources and the carbon emission of the indirect carbon emission sources per hour in the test period; and
determining a carbon emission intensity of the boiler per unit output heat according to the total carbon emission of the boiler per hour in the test period.
In other words, the Specification does not enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the invention commensurate in scope with these claims. More specifically, the following factors1 were considered by the Examiner and support the determination that Applicant’s claimed invention is not fully enabled:
MPEP 2164.01(a) – Undue Experimentation Factors
(A) The breadth of the claims – due to the mathematical nature of the claim features, the general “calculating” and “determining” steps are interpreted to encompass a nearly infinite scope. Thus, it is imperative that Applicant limit such features to the particular algorithm envisioned as the novel portion of the method. Such algorithm appears to be covered by the features described in claims 4-8 and the Examiner strongly suggests amending claim 1 to reflect these features.
(B) The nature of the invention – the claimed invention involves highly complicated boiler systems and proposed novel mathematical derivations to reflect their performance with respect to carbon emissions, thus the level of detail required to satisfy §112(a) is relatively high, thereby further supporting the rejection above.
(C) The state of the prior art – while boiler systems in general are well-known, more recent performance measurement systems using complex mathematics and sensor technology is relatively new, based on the relative scarcity of prior art in the field. Thus, the level of detail required to satisfy §112(a) is relatively high, thereby further supporting the rejection.
(D) The level of one of ordinary skill – in light of B/C above, the level of skill in the art required is relatively high, as one would be required to understand the intricacies of boiler systems as well as high-level mathematics, thereby further supporting the rejection above.
(E) The level of predictability in the art – in light of B/C/D above, the level of predictability is relatively low, thereby further supporting the rejection above.
(F) The amount of direction provided by the inventor – while the disclosure and claims 4-8 noted above provide sufficient direction, the sheer scope of claim 1 is not given adequate direction from the inventor, thereby further supporting the rejection above.
(G) The existence of working examples – there are limited working examples in the prior art, thereby further supporting the rejection above.
(H) The quantity of experimentation needed to make or use the invention based on the content of the disclosure – n/a (i.e., this is a matter of a lack of a fully enabled scope, not necessarily possession of the concept in general).
Re claims 2-10, Applicant fails to fully cure the deficiencies outlined above with any of these dependent claims, thus they are rejected for at least the same reasons outlined above. However, as stated in ‘A’ of the Wands Factors
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 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al., CN114596072A (“CHEN”) in view of Bonja et al., PL233008B1 (“BONJA”).
Re claim 1, CHEN discloses a method for calculating carbon emission of a boiler, comprising:
determining a test boundary of a boiler system and carbon emission sources in the test boundary [p.3, “step 1”];
dividing the carbon emission sources in the test boundary into direct carbon emission sources and indirect carbon emission sources [p.3, “step 3”];
combined with a boiler thermal performance test, testing a carbon emission of the direct carbon emission sources and a carbon emission of the indirect carbon emission sources per hour in a test period [p.7/¶.8], [p.8/¶¶.8-9];
calculating a total carbon emission of the boiler in the test period according to the carbon emission of the direct carbon emission sources and the carbon emission of the indirect carbon emission sources in the test period [p.3/¶14 – p.4/¶1]
CHEN fails to explicitly disclose calculating a total carbon emission of the boiler per hour in the test period according to the carbon emission of the direct carbon emission sources and the carbon emission of the indirect carbon emission sources per hour in the test period; and determining a carbon emission intensity of the boiler per unit output heat according to the total carbon emission of the boiler per hour in the test period
However, BONJA, in the same or similar field of endeavor, teaches a method comprising: determining a test boundary of a boiler system and carbon emission sources in the test boundary [p.2/¶.5]; calculating a total carbon emission of the boiler per hour in a test period according to a carbon emission of direct carbon emission sources and a carbon emission of indirect carbon emission sources per hour in a test period [p.7/¶.4; and determining a carbon emission intensity of the boiler per unit output heat according to the total carbon emission of the boiler per hour in the test period [p.2/¶.5]
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant invention, to modify CHEN to include the particular per hour carbon emission calculation techniques of BONJA. One would have been motivated to do so in order to ensure automation and a high level of accuracy of concentration measurement of gaseous components such as carbon emissions (see BONJA at [p.2/¶.4]). Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provided that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, BONJA merely teaches that it is well-known to calculate carbon emissions per hour for a boiler system. Since both CHEN and BONJA disclose similar methods for calculating carbon emissions on a boiler system, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results.
Claims 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over CHEN/BONJA in view of OFFICIAL NOTICE (“ON”).
Re claim 2, CHEN/BONJA renders obvious the method of claim 1, as shown above.
CHEN fails to explicitly disclose wherein the test boundary is a boiler heat balance system boundary or a boiler system boundary; the boiler heat balance system boundary comprises a boiler proper, a steam water system circulating pump, a direct-fired pulverizing system coal mill, a denitration device, a flue gas recirculation fan and a slag cooler; the boiler proper is an integrity comprising a boiler barrel, a vapor liquid separator and a water storage tank, a heating surface, a header, a connecting pipeline, a furnace, a combustion device, an air preheater, a furnace wall, a flue and a framework; and the boiler system boundary comprises the boiler proper and a plurality of auxiliary devices, wherein a working medium side boundary uses a heat balance boundary; the plurality of auxiliary devices comprise fans, pumps, fuel preparation devices, fuel supply devices, ash and slag removal devices, flue gas purification devices and control devices
However, the Examiner takes ON that the particular boundaries claimed above are old and well-known in the art.
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant invention, to modify CHEN/BONJA to include the particular boundaries that are well-known in the art of boiler systems. One would have been motivated to do so in order to ensure automation and a high level of accuracy of concentration measurement of gaseous components such as carbon emissions (see BONJA at [p.2/¶.4]). Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provided that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, the Examiner’s assertion merely teaches that it is well-known to set boundaries for a carbon emission calculation system for a boiler. Since both CHEN/BONJA and the Examiner’s assertion are all disclosed in similar endeavors for calculating carbon emissions on a boiler system, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results.
Re claim 3, CHEN/BONJA/ON renders obvious the method of claim 2, as shown above.
CHEN fails to explicitly disclose wherein when the test boundary is the boiler heat balance system boundary, the carbon emission of the direct carbon emission sources comprises direct carbon emission generated by combusting and performing desulfurization and denitrification on fuel without biomass in the boiler heat balance system boundary; the carbon emission of the indirect carbon emission sources comprises indirect carbon emission generated by power consumption of an electric heating device and an auxiliary device in the boiler heat balance system and corresponding indirect carbon emission generated by power consumption of an auxiliary device outside a system required to overcome a flue wind resistance and a steam water resistance in the boiler heat balance system; and when the test boundary is the boiler system boundary, the carbon emission of the direct carbon emission source comprises direct carbon emission generated by combusting and performing desulfurization and denitrification on the fuel without biomass in the boiler system boundary; the carbon emission of the indirect carbon emission sources comprise indirect carbon emission generated by power consumption of all related electric heating devices and auxiliary devices
However, the Examiner takes OFFICIAL NOTICE that the particular boundaries and the direct and indirect sources of carbon emissions claimed above are old and well-known in the art.
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant invention, to modify CHEN/BONJA to include the particular boundaries and direct/indirect sources of carbon emissions that are well-known in the art of boiler systems. One would have been motivated to do so in order to ensure automation and a high level of accuracy of concentration measurement of gaseous components such as carbon emissions (see BONJA at [p.2/¶.4]). Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provided that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, the Examiner’s assertion merely teaches that it is well-known to set boundaries for a carbon emission calculation system for a boiler with well-known direct/indirect carbon emission sources. Since both CHEN/BONJA and the Examiner’s assertion are all disclosed in similar endeavors for calculating carbon emissions on a boiler system, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results.
ALLOWABLE SUBJECT MATTER
Claims 4-10 appear to disclose features not disclosed, taught, or otherwise rendered obvious by the prior art. More specifically, the algorithm disclosed in the combination of claims 4-8 for calculating a total carbon emission of a boiler, does not appear to be disclosed, taught, or otherwise rendered obvious by the prior art.
Should Applicant amend claim 1 to include such features, claim 1 would overcome all rejections outlined herein.
CONCLUSION
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THOMAS M HAMMOND III whose telephone number is 571-272-2215. The Examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 0800-1700.
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, Peter Macchiarolo can be reached on 571-272-2375. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000. For more information about the PAIR system, see: https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair.
Respectfully,
/Thomas M Hammond III/Primary Examiner, GAU 2855
1 In re Wands, 858 F.2d 731, 737, 8 USPQ2d 1400, 1404 (Fed. Cir. 1988)