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: regulating apparatus in claim 18.
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 § 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.
Claims 17-36 are 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 17 recites “shared control device”. It’s not clear what a shared control device is or what structural limitation is required for the shared control device.
Claim 24 recites “3 or more burners”. It’s not clear as to if it includes “at least two burners” from claim 17. Examiner recommend applicant to amend claim 24 to (and for examining purpose, examiner interprets this limitation is) “…wherein the at least two burners includes 3 or more burners.”
Claim 26 recites “the air pipe of the burner unit is connected to a central air circulation pipe of a furnace”. This limitation positively recites connection between the air pipe and a central air circulation pipe of a furnace. However the preamble recites “the burner unit for a furnace” (from claim 17. Furnace is part of intended use and not positively recited to be part of the burner unit). Therefore it is unclear as to if the furnace (or a central air circulation pipe of the furnace) is part of the burner unit. Examiner recommend applicant to amend this limitation to (and for examining purpose, examiner interprets this limitation is) “the air pipe of the burner unit is configured to be connected to a central air circulation pipe of a furnace.”
Claim 28 recites “shared control device”. It’s not clear what a shared control device is or what structural limitation is required for the shared control device.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 27 recites “A furnace having at least one burner unit as set forth in claim 17”. However the claim doesn’t provide additional limitations to further limit the burner unit. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
Claims 28 and 35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Gangoli (US 20160348904).
Regarding claim 28, Gangoli teaches a method for operating a furnace, comprising:
supplying a combustion gas to at least two burners (burner elements 20, fig 1B) via a gas pipe (pipe for fluid F1, fig 2B) and an air pipe (pipe for fluid F2, fig 2B) (See [0073] “one of the fluids F1 and F2 must be or contain a fuel, and the other of the fluids F1 and F2 must be an oxidant or contain oxygen.” [0054] “An oxidant may be air”); and
controlling (via controller 105, fig 2B) at least one gas metering valve (23 and 26, fig 2B) in the gas pipe and at least one air metering valve (28, fig 2B) in the air pipe by a shared control device (105, fig 2B) by synchronously opening and closing ([0056] “the control valve 26 is modulated between an open position and a closed position”. Similarly, control valve of air pipe 28 can be controlled between an open position and a closed position. [0077] “The sequence shown in FIG. 3 and described above is only one of essentially limitless variations. In one non-limiting example, one burner element 20 is active at a time in a repeating sequence such as a-b-c-d or a-b-d-c or a-c-b-d or a-c-d-b….one burner element 20 is active at a time in a random sequence. In yet another non-limiting example, one burner element 20 is active at a time but each for either the same or different lengths of time.” The airflow and gas flow can be controlled synchronously so that they can be closed or opened to meet the sequential control of burners) the at least one gas metering valve and the at least one air metering valve with a regulating apparatus (valve actuators).
Regarding claim 35, Gangoli teaches (a) initiating, by the shared control device, a sequence of strokes of an opening and closing when a lower furnace temperature is not met (The control device can initiate a sequence of opening or closing as explained in claim 28. As for the limitation “when a lower furnace temperature is not met”, it is noted that this limitation is a contingent limitation. See MPEP 2111.04 II, “The broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met…. See Ex parte Schulhauser… "[i]f the condition for performing a contingent step is not satisfied, the performance recited by the step need not be carried out in order for the claimed method to be performed"… Therefore "[t]he Examiner did not need to present evidence of the obviousness of the [ ] method steps of claim 1 that are not required to be performed under a broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim”. Therefore under broadest reasonable interpretation for this limitation, examiner interprets that a lower furnace temperature is met, therefore the method step is not positively recited as actually occurring, therefore this method step is not required.), (b) terminating, by the shared control device, the sequence of strokes (shared control device can terminate the sequence) “when an upper furnace temperature is exceeded” (See explanation above, this limitation is a contingent limitation and the method step is not positively recited as actually occurring and therefore the method step is not required) and (c) regulating, by the shared control device, burner performance by varying stoke time, stroke duration or stroke time and stroke duration ([0079] “the burner element 20 oriented to heat the furnace in the region of that temperatures sensor may be made active more frequently or for longer periods of time.” Controller can control burner unit individually so that burner operates for longer period of time. Therefore stroke duration is adjusted.).
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.
Claims 17-20, 23-24, and 26-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gangoli (US 20160348904) in view of Boing (US 20110053099).
Regarding claim 17, Gangoli teaches a burner unit for a furnace, comprising:
at least two burners (burner elements 20, fig 1B) configured for burning a combustion gas; a gas pipe (pipe for fluid F1, fig 2B); an air pipe (pipe for fluid F2, fig 2B) (See [0073] “one of the fluids F1 and F2 must be or contain a fuel, and the other of the fluids F1 and F2 must be an oxidant or contain oxygen.” [0054] “An oxidant may be air”); at least one gas metering valve (23 and 26, fig 2B) in the gas pipe; at least one air metering valve (28, fig 2B) in the air pipe; and a shared control device (105, fig 2B) adapted for controlling the at least one gas metering valve and the at least one air metering valve (See fig 2B).
Gangoli fails to teach the at least one gas metering valve and the at least one air metering valve are magnet valves.
Boing teaches at least one gas metering valve and the at least one air metering valve are magnet valves (See [0027] “magnetic valve 16” and [0028] “magnetic valve 23”. Figure show that magnetic valve 16 is in air line 8 while magnetic valve 23 is in gas line 10.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Gangoli as taught by Boing by substituting the valve with a magnetic valve as a fluid control valve since it’s been known that magnetic valve and the valve of Gangoli are known for the same purpose and substituting a known device for another requires only routine skill in the art.
Regarding claim 18, Gangoli in view of Boing teaches a regulating apparatus (valve actuators) “configured for synchronizing a corresponding operating state of the at least one gas metering valve and the at least one air metering valve” (This is intended function. Valve actuators are capable of synchronizing gas and air valves via controller operation).
Regarding claim 19, Gangoli in view of Boing teaches the gas pipe and the air pipe are branched toward the at least two burners, the at least two burners being switched in series at the gas pipe and the air pipe (See fig 3, and [0075] “FIG. 3 shows one possible sequence of operation for the embodiment of the burners…. the four burner elements 20 are labeled as a, b, c, and d. As shown, only one burner element 20 is active at a time”).
Regarding claim 20, Gangoli in view of Boing teaches one gas metering valve and one air metering valve assigned to each burner (see fig 2B).
Regarding claim 23, Gangoli in view of Boing teaches an opening cross section (opening inside air meter valve) of the at least one air metering valve is larger than an opening cross section (opening inside gas meter valve) of the at least one gas metering valve (The relative opening sizes of air meter valve and gas meter valve can be controlled by the controller such that one is larger than the other.)
Regarding claim 24, Gangoli in view of Boing teaches the burner unit has at least 3 or more burners (See fig 1B, there are four burners 20).
Regarding claim 26, Gangoli in view of Boing teaches the air pipe of the burner unit is “configured to be connected to a central air circulation pipe of a furnace” (This is intended function. See 112 rejection for claim interpretation).
Regarding claim 27, Gangoli in view of Boing teaches a furnace having at least one burner unit as set forth in claim 17 ([0047] “the burner 10 or 11 is mounted in a furnace”).
Claims 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gangoli (US 20160348904) in view of Boing (US 20110053099), further in view of Wolfe (US 4080149).
Regarding claims 21-22, Gangoli in view of Boing teaches all the limitations of claim 17, but fails to teach a check valve is in a check valve in (a) the gas pipe, (b) the air pipe or (c) the gas pipe and the air pipe of the burner unit or each burner.
Wolfe teaches a check valve in (a) the gas pipe, (b) the air pipe or (c) the gas pipe and the air pipe (col 3 lines 8-9, “air flow through check valve 32 and gas flow through gas check valve 24”) of a burner unit (combustion system 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Gangoli in view of Boing as taught by Wolfe by incorporating a check valve for fuel and air line respectively in order to prevent back flow in the gas line and the air line. Also for the limitation “for each burner” in claim 22, while Wolfe teaches only burner system, it would have been obvious for person of ordinary skill in the art to apply check valve in each of the burners in order to prevent backflow of gas or air from one burner to another.
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gangoli (US 20160348904) in view of Boing (US 20110053099), further in view of Kemp (US 20120107753).
Regarding claim 25, Gangoli in view of Boing teaches all the limitations of claim 17, but fails to teach a fan adapted for conveying air into the air pipe.
Kemp teaches a fan (6) adapted for conveying air into an air pipe (5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Gangoli in view of Boing by using a fan to convey air into the air pipe in order to ensure airflow is conveyed at desired pressure or flow rate into the burner unit.
Claims 29-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gangoli (US 20160348904) in view of Nakamura (US 20200025089).
Regarding claim 29-30, Gangoli teaches all the limitations of claim 28, but fails to teach regulating an operating state of the at least one air metering valve as a reference variable according to an operating state of the at least one gas metering valve (for claim 29) or regulating the combustion gas in a stoichiometric relationship (for claim 30).
Nakamura teaches regulating an operating state of air flow as a reference variable according to an operating state of the at least one gas flow or regulating the combustion gas in a stoichiometric relationship ([0011] “regulate the fuel flow rate and the oxidant flow rate so as to have the stoichiometric mixture ratio. Therefore, it is necessary to also increase and decrease the oxidant flow rate in accordance with increase and decrease in the fuel flow rate.” Air flow is adjusted in response to gas/fuel flow).
Gangoli teaches regulating air flow via the at least one air metering valve and adjusting gas flow via the at least one gas metering valve. Therefore as modified, Gangoli in view of Nakamura teaches regulating an operating state of the at least one air metering valve as a reference variable according to an operating state of the at least one gas metering valve (for claim 29) or regulating the combustion gas in a stoichiometric relationship.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Gangoli as taught by Nakamura by regulating the operating state of the at least one air metering valve in response to the operating state of the at least one gas metering valve in order to fully combust the fuel supplied to the burner unit.
Claim 31 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gangoli (US 20160348904) in view of Fujishima (US 20210041173).
Regarding claim 31, Gangoli teaches all the limitations of claim 28, but fails to teach regulating the at least one gas metering valve according to a requirement of (a) a burner performance, (b) a furnace temperature or (c) a burner performance and a furnace temperature as a reference variable of the shared control device.
Fujishima teaches regulating a gas valve according to a furnace temperature ([0107] “adjusting the flow rate of the fuel or oxygen are that the temperature of the space in the furnace is at least…”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Gangoli as taught by Fujishima by regulating the gas metering valve in response to furnace temperature in order to achieve desired combustion effect at a designed/desired temperature.
Claims 32-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gangoli (US 20160348904).
Regarding claims 32-34, Gangoli teaches all the limitations of claim 28, but fails to teach executing the opening and the closing at a stroke of at least 50 strokes/minute (for claim 32), or at least 100 strokes/minute, up to 400 strokes/minute (for claim 33), or at least 200 strokes/minute, up to 400 strokes/minute (for claim 34). However, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to modify the method of Gangoli to executing the opening and the closing at a stroke at desired rate since the present application does not show that the particular rate of strokes/minutes solves a particular problem or is for any specific purpose and because it appears that the method would function equally well in either configuration.
Claim 36 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gangoli (US 20160348904) in view of Kainu (US 20150316255).
Regarding claim 36, Gangoli teaches all the limitations of claim 28, but fails to teach metering air at a temperature below 700C via the at least one air metering valve and generating a temperature of up to 400° C in the furnace.
Kainu teaches in paragraph [0074] “The temperature of the air to be introduced in the furnace of the fluidized bed boiler can be, for example, 100° C. to 300° C. Thus, the temperature of the air feed pipe 410 can be about 100° C. to 300° C. The temperature of the furnace can be significantly higher, for example 600° C. to 900° C”.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Gangoli as taught by Kainu by control supplying air at a temperature to achieve desired furnace temperature after combustion.
Gangoli in view of Kainu teaches all the limitation except for air at a temperature below 700C and a temperature of up to 400° C in the furnace. However, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to modify the method of Gangoli in view of Kainu to supply air at a desired temperature (700C) that leads to furnace temperature of 400C since the present application does not show that the particular air temperature solves a particular problem or is for any specific purpose and because it appears that the method would function equally well in either configuration.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KO-WEI LIN whose telephone number is (571)270-7675. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 6:30-2:30 Eastern Time.
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, Steve McAllister can be reached at (571)272-6785. 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.
/KO-WEI LIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3762
Prosecution Insights