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
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims have been considered but 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.
Regarding the applicant’s argument that Purdie does not disclose “an air supply conduit feeding outside air from outside a building in which said air heating system is located to said air heating system,” the examiner disagrees. Specifically the applicant states “Purdie’s ‘incoming’ air refers to air flow into the room where combustion occurs-not air fed from outside a building through a dedicated conduit to the heating system.” The examiner points out that the heating system of Purdie draws air from said room, thus the conduit feeds outside air to the heating system. In other words they are fluidly connected.
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.
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.
Claims 1-3, 7, 13, 14, 16, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Purdie (GB 2416393 A), hereinafter Purdie, in view of Kidd (US 20060174846 A1), hereinafter Kidd.
Regarding claim 1, Purdie discloses an apparatus for heating air provided to a location, comprising:
an air heating system (“a burner 8” abstract) and a controller (“a control panel 1” abstract), said system providing heated air to said location (“The combustion apparatus may be a boiler” abstract), and said controller monitoring said system, and having the capability to shut the air heating system down (“Should the draught fall below a given level and/or stop then the control unit will detect this and automatically cut off the fuel supply valve rendering the combustion area safe” page 1);
an air supply conduit feeding outside air from outside a building in which said air heating system is located to said air heating system (At 15); and
a combustion air proving (CAP) system including a sensor in electrical communication with said controller, said sensor measuring a parameter correlating to, or representative of, air flow of said outside air to said system, and communicating said parameter to said controller (“A signal is sent to the draught devices or fans 6 to give a supply of draught air. Display 2 displays current conditions of the system and operation throughout. Pitot tube sensors 5 sense there is draught in the ductwork 13 and sensing transmitters 4 inform control panel 1 of this” page 2), wherein said controller monitors said parameter and is responsive to a change in parameter, such that a predetermined threshold initiates a shutdown sequence of said system, said controller programmed to determine whether a predetermined threshold value has been met, said predetermined threshold value including a measurement of negative pressure, vacuum, air flow volume, and/or temperature within said air heating system (“If the fans 6 fail by stopping or are operating too slow the fuel supply is shut off” abstract and “a system which, in the event of insufficient air flow, will automatically close the fuel supply valve” claim 4).
PNG
media_image1.png
448
580
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Purdie does not disclose wherein said controller is programmed, after initiating said shutdown sequence, to execute at least one recycle command to restart said air heaing system, and upon detecting that said predetermined threshold value is still met after said at least one recycle command, to execute a lockout command to shut down and lock out said air heating system.
However, Kidd teaches wherein said controller is programmed, after initiating said shutdown sequence, to execute at least one recycle command to restart said air heaing system, and upon detecting that said predetermined threshold value is still met after said at least one recycle command, to execute a lockout command to shut down and lock out said fluid heating system (“If the pressure switch 72 opens at step 180 (shutting down the burner) and subsequently closes again at step 260 before the open switch timer expires at step 270, the program will return to step 130 to initiate a pre-purge and request a restart of burner operation at steps 140 and 150. Once a flame has been established at step 160, the control again monitors the pressure switch 72 to ensure sufficient airflow is present for proper burner operation. If at step 180 the processor 56 detects the pressure switch 72 has opened again before the three minute short cycle timer period expired at step 220, the program will increment the short cycle counter at step 230 from a value of one to two and restart the burner. If this open pressure switch failure occurs repeatedly, the program will continue to increment the short cycle counter at step 230. If five consecutive occurrences of the pressure switch opening within the three minute short cycle time period transpires before the water temperature is raised to the desired temperature, the short cycle counter will increment to five and the program will initiate a lock-out of further burner operation at step 250” paragraph [0031]).
In view of Kidd’s teachings, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include wherein said controller is programmed, after initiating said shutdown sequence, to execute at least one recycle command to restart said air heaing system, and upon detecting that said predetermined threshold value is still met after said at least one recycle command, to execute a lockout command to shut down and lock out said fluid heating system as is taught in Kidd, in the apparatus disclosed by Purdie because the shutdown cause may be transient, while persistent shutdown is indicative of a greater problem requiring user intervention to prevent cycling of the apparatus.
Regarding claim 2, Purdie, as modified by Kidd, discloses the apparatus of claim 1 wherein the sensor is a pressure sensor and the parameter is representative of a pressure level, such that a predetermined pressure level threshold signaled by said pressure sensor initiates a shutdown sequence of said system (The basic pitot tube consists of a tube pointing directly into the oncoming fluid flow. Pressure in the tube can be measured as the moving fluid cannot escape and stagnates. This pressure is the stagnation pressure of the fluid, also known as the total pressure).
Regarding claim 3, Purdie, as modified by Kidd, discloses the apparatus of claim 1 wherein said controller detects a predetermined pressure drop, a near-vacuum condition, or a decrease in combustion air volume, in said air heating system, indicating a lack of air flow to said air heating system (“If the fans 6 fail by stopping or are operating too slow the fuel supply is shut off” abstract and “a system which, in the event of insufficient air flow, will automatically close the fuel supply valve” claim 4).
Regarding claim 7, Purdie, as modified by Kidd, discloses the apparatus of claim 1 wherein said heating system is a burner (“a burner 8” abstract).
Regarding claims 13 and 16, Purdie discloses a method of operating a heating system, comprising:
providing a controller to said heating system (“a control panel 1” abstract), said system providing heat to a location (“The combustion apparatus may be a boiler” abstract), said controller monitoring said heating system and having the capability to shut the heating system down (“Should the draught fall below a given level and/or stop then the control unit will detect this and automatically cut off the fuel supply valve rendering the combustion area safe” page 1);
said heating system including:
an air supply conduit feeding outside air from outside a building in which the heating system is located to said air heating system (At 15); and
a combustion air proving (CAP) system including a sensor in electrical communication with said controller, said sensor measuring a parameter and communicating said parameter to said controller (“A signal is sent to the draught devices or fans 6 to give a supply of draught air. Display 2 displays current conditions of the system and operation throughout. Pitot tube sensors 5 sense there is draught in the ductwork 13 and sensing transmitters 4 inform control panel 1 of this” page 2), wherein said controller monitors said parameter and is responsive to a change in parameter, such that a predetermined threshold value of said parameter initiates a shutdown sequence of said system (“If the fans 6 fail by stopping or are operating too slow the fuel supply is shut off” abstract and “a system which, in the event of insufficient air flow, will automatically close the fuel supply valve” claim 4);
firing said heating system (Figure 1 shows burner 8 activated);
measuring via said sensor said parameter responsive to an air flowing to the heating system (“A signal is sent to the draught devices or fans 6 to give a supply of draught air. Display 2 displays current conditions of the system and operation throughout. Pitot tube sensors 5 sense there is draught in the ductwork 13 and sensing transmitters 4 inform control panel 1 of this” page 2);
sending a signal via the sensor responsive to said parameter measurement to said controller (“A signal is sent to the draught devices or fans 6 to give a supply of draught air. Display 2 displays current conditions of the system and operation throughout. Pitot tube sensors 5 sense there is draught in the ductwork 13 and sensing transmitters 4 inform control panel 1 of this” page 2);
determining whether a predetermined threshold value is met (“If the fans 6 fail by stopping or are operating too slow the fuel supply is shut off” abstract and “a system which, in the event of insufficient air flow, will automatically close the fuel supply valve” claim 4); and
shutting down the heating system via the controller when a signal from the sensor is determined by the controller to have reached a predetermined threshold value (“If the fans 6 fail by stopping or are operating too slow the fuel supply is shut off” abstract and “a system which, in the event of insufficient air flow, will automatically close the fuel supply valve” claim 4).
Purdie does not disclose:
after shutting down, executing via said controller at least one recycle command to restart said heating system;
determining whether said predetermined threshold value is still met after said at least one recycle command; and
executing via said controller a lockout command to shut down and lock out said heating system upon detecting that said predetermined threshold value is still met after said at least one recycle command;
starting up the heating system via said controller after shutting down;
measuring said parameter;
determining whether said threshold value is still present; and
shutting down the heating system via the controller if said threshold value is still present.
However, Kidd teaches:
after shutting down, executing via said controller at least one recycle command to restart said heating system;
determining whether said predetermined threshold value is still met after said at least one recycle command; and
executing via said controller a lockout command to shut down and lock out said heating system upon detecting that said predetermined threshold value is still met after said at least one recycle command;
starting up the heating system via said controller after shutting down;
measuring said parameter;
determining whether said threshold value is still present; and
shutting down the heating system via the controller if said threshold value is still present (“If the pressure switch 72 opens at step 180 (shutting down the burner) and subsequently closes again at step 260 before the open switch timer expires at step 270, the program will return to step 130 to initiate a pre-purge and request a restart of burner operation at steps 140 and 150. Once a flame has been established at step 160, the control again monitors the pressure switch 72 to ensure sufficient airflow is present for proper burner operation. If at step 180 the processor 56 detects the pressure switch 72 has opened again before the three minute short cycle timer period expired at step 220, the program will increment the short cycle counter at step 230 from a value of one to two and restart the burner. If this open pressure switch failure occurs repeatedly, the program will continue to increment the short cycle counter at step 230. If five consecutive occurrences of the pressure switch opening within the three minute short cycle time period transpires before the water temperature is raised to the desired temperature, the short cycle counter will increment to five and the program will initiate a lock-out of further burner operation at step 250” paragraph [0031]).
In view of Kidd’s teachings, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include:
after shutting down, executing via said controller at least one recycle command to restart said heating system;
determining whether said predetermined threshold value is still met after said at least one recycle command; and
executing via said controller a lockout command to shut down and lock out said heating system upon detecting that said predetermined threshold value is still met after said at least one recycle command;
starting up the heating system via said controller after shutting down;
measuring said parameter;
determining whether said threshold value is still present; and
shutting down the heating system via the controller if said threshold value is still present as is taught in Kidd, in the apparatus disclosed by Purdie because the shutdown cause may be transient, while persistent shutdown is indicative of a greater problem requiring user intervention to prevent cycling of the apparatus.
Regarding claim 14, Purdie, as modified by Kidd, discloses the method of claim 13 including measuring said parameter within said air supply conduit (Figure 1 shows the pitot tube 5 in the conduit at 15).
Regarding claim 17, Purdie, as modified by Kidd, discloses the method of claim 13 wherein said controller is programmed to determine whether said predetermined threshold value has been met, said predetermined threshold value including a measurement of negative pressure, vacuum, air flow volume, and/or temperature within said air heating system (“If the fans 6 fail by stopping or are operating too slow the fuel supply is shut off” abstract and “a system which, in the event of insufficient air flow, will automatically close the fuel supply valve” claim 4).
Claims 4, 5, 10, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Purdie, in view of Kidd, and further in view of Kalisch (DE 102006007814 A1), hereinafter Kalisch.
Regarding claims 4 and 5, Purdie, as modified by Kidd, discloses the apparatus of claim 1 further including an air flow conduit or body attachable to said air supply conduit, said body includes an inlet and an outlet for the passage of said outside air flow (At 15).
Purdie, as modified by Kidd, does not disclose:
a damper interchangeable between an open position and a closed position, said open position allowing said outside air to flow through said air supply conduit to said air heating system, and said closed position preventing or impeding air from flowing through said air supply conduit to said air heating system;
said damper disposed within said combustion air proving system body.
However, Kalisch teaches:
a damper interchangeable between an open position and a closed position, said open position allowing said outside air to flow through said air supply conduit to said air heating system, and said closed position preventing or impeding air from flowing through said air supply conduit to said air heating system (“As long as the pressure difference between the interior of the installation room 2 and outside the installation room 2 located area 14 remains above a predetermined pressure value, for example, 4 Pascal, it is the ventilation unit 1 to remain in the closed position” and “it is possible to make the flap position and electric motor. For this purpose, additional is a differential pressure measuring device 12 provide, which falls below a minimum differential pressure with the flap 13 Connected actuator drives” all citations from the machine translation appended to the foreign reference);
said damper disposed within said combustion air proving system body (Figure 1).
PNG
media_image2.png
640
396
media_image2.png
Greyscale
In view of Kalisch’s teachings, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include a damper as is taught in Kalisch, in the apparatus disclosed by Purdie because Kalisch states “the ventilation unit in the open position allows an air flow directed from the area outside the installation space into the installation space and in the closed position no air exchange between the installation space and the area outside the installation space through the ventilation unit.” Therefore, when it is not necessary for the damper to be open, it can be closed to prevent the ingress of cold outside air.
Regarding claims 10 and 11, Purdie, as modified by Kidd, discloses a combustion air proving system for monitoring combustion air supplied to a burner, comprising:
a body having an inlet and an outlet for the passage of air flow (At 15);
a sensor disposed on said combustion air proving system body between the inlet and the outlet, the sensor monitoring a parameter correlating to, or representative of, said air flow, wherein said sensor is an air pressure sensor or an air flow sensor, and said parameter is an air pressure level or an air flow level, respectively (“Pitot tube sensors 5 sense there is draught in the ductwork 13 and sensing transmitters 4 inform control panel 1 of this” page 2).
Purdie does not disclose a damper for affecting the air flow monitored by said sensor, and a biasing member for maintaining the damper in an open position, wherein said damper actuation is responsive to a damper lever or damper switch or damper knob.
However, Kalisch teaches a damper for affecting the air flow monitored by said sensor, and a biasing member for maintaining the damper in an open position, wherein said damper actuation is responsive to a damper lever or damper switch or damper knob (“As long as the pressure difference between the interior of the installation room 2 and outside the installation room 2 located area 14 remains above a predetermined pressure value, for example, 4 Pascal, it is the ventilation unit 1 to remain in the closed position” and “it is possible to make the flap position and electric motor. For this purpose, additional is a differential pressure measuring device 12 provide, which falls below a minimum differential pressure with the flap 13 Connected actuator drives” The examiner notes that an electric motor will require completion of an electrical circuit which may be considered a damper switch).
In view of Kalisch’s teachings, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include a damper as is taught in Kalisch, in the apparatus disclosed by Purdie because Kalisch states “the ventilation unit in the open position allows an air flow directed from the area outside the installation space into the installation space and in the closed position no air exchange between the installation space and the area outside the installation space through the ventilation unit.” Therefore, when it is not necessary for the damper to be open, it can be closed to prevent the ingress of cold outside air.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Purdie, in view of Kidd, and further in view of Rosenland (EP 1236957 A2), hereinafter Rosenland.
Regarding claim 6, Purdie, as modified by Kidd, discloses the apparatus of claim 1.
Purdie, as modified by Kidd, does not disclose wherein the sensor is an air volume sensor or air temperature sensor.
However, Rosenland teaches wherein the sensor is an air volume sensor or air temperature sensor (“It is also conceivable to replace the Pressure sensor to use an air mass sensor with which the instantaneous air volume flow can be determined directly” all citations from the machine translation appended to the foreign reference).
PNG
media_image3.png
472
494
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Purdie does not disclose the claimed airflow sensor. Rosenland teaches the claimed airflow sensor. The substitution of one known element (the pressure sensor of Purdie) for another (the air volume sensor) would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention, since the substitution of the air volume sensor taught in Rosenland would have yielded predictable results, namely, detecting presence and magnitude of an airflow Agrizap, Inc. v. Woodstream Corp., 520 F.3d 1337, 86 USPQ2d 1110 (Fed. Cir. 2008).
Claims 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Purdie, in view of Kidd, in view of Agpo (NL 8502346 A), hereinafter Agpo, and further in view of Euchner (US 3964675 A), hereinafter Euchner.
Regarding claims 8 and 9, Purdie, as modified by Kidd, discloses the apparatus of claim 1.
Purdie, as modified by Kidd, does not disclose:
a flapper connected to an actuator via a pivot rod, said flapper rotatable to block an intake of said air heating system, said actuator adjusted such that a switch is engaged completing an electrical circuit when said sensor measures a decrease in combustion air volume at said intake of said air heating system;
said combustion air volume for a particular firing rate of said air heating system being unrestricted as forces from said combustion air volume rotate said actuator via said flapper and pivot rod into engagement with said switch;
wherein said flapper rotates closer to a closed position when said air supply conduit has blockage that reduces combustion air volume, thereby disengaging said actuator from said switch, and thus opening electrical contacts of said switch.
However, Agpo teaches:
a member (16) connected to an actuator (18), said member translatable to block an intake of said air heating system, said actuator adjusted such that a switch is engaged completing an electrical circuit when said sensor measures a decrease in combustion air volume at said intake of said air heating system (“If, during a final blockage, insufficient air transport is possible through the appliance, the float body 16 will lower and, for example, the lower flange 18 will switch switch 24 which signals the boiler control device to deactivate the burner” all citations from the machine translation appended to the foreign reference);
said combustion air volume for a particular firing rate of said air heating system being unrestricted as forces from said combustion air volume translate said actuator via said member and out of engagement with said switch (See figure);
wherein said member translates closer to a closed position when said air supply conduit has blockage that reduces combustion air volume, thereby engaging said actuator with said switch, and thus activating said switch (“If, during a final blockage, insufficient air transport is possible through the appliance, the float body 16 will lower and, for example, the lower flange 18 will switch switch 24 which signals the boiler control device to deactivate the burner”).
PNG
media_image4.png
586
490
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Purdie does not disclose a body which is responsive to airflow for engaging a switch as claimed. Agpo teaches a body which is responsive to airflow for engaging a switch as claimed. The substitution of one known element (the pressure sensor of Purdie) for another (the body/switch sensor of Agpo) would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention, since the substitution of the body/switch sensor taught in Agpo would have yielded predictable results, namely, detecting presence and magnitude of an airflow Agrizap, Inc. v. Woodstream Corp., 520 F.3d 1337, 86 USPQ2d 1110 (Fed. Cir. 2008).
Purdie, as modified by Kidd and Agpo, does not disclose:
wherein the member is a flapper connected to the actuator via a pivot rod, said flapper rotatable;
wherein forces from said combustion air volume rotate said actuator via said flapper and pivot rod into engagement;
wherein said flapper rotates closer to a closed position thereby disengaging said actuator from said switch, and thus opening electrical contacts of said switch.
However, Euchner teaches:
wherein the member is a flapper connected to the actuator via a pivot rod, said flapper rotatable (“In the outlet duct 12, there is a plate or "flapper" 21, which is pivotally mounted so as to pivot around the point 22, and which is connected to a lever 23 so as to rotate the lever 23 around the pivot point 22. The lever 23, and hence the flapper 21, are urged in a clockwise direction, as viewed in FIG. 4, around the pivot point 22 by an adjustable, calibrated spring 24 mounted on a fixed base 25 and engaging an end portion of the lever 23” column 6, line 45);
wherein forces from said air volume rotate said actuator via said flapper and pivot rod into engagement (“When the flue gas flow through the duct 12 has its highest value, the flapper 21, the levers 23, 29 and 31 and the linkage 30 assume the positions shown in dot-dash lines in FIG. 4” column 6, line 59);
wherein said flapper rotates closer to a closed position thereby disengaging said actuator (“when the flue gas flow in the duct 12 decreases sufficiently, as would be the case when the flue gas flow in the duct 9 decreases substantially, the flapper 21 and its associated lever and linkages move to the positions shown in full lines in FIG. 4” column 6, line 63).
PNG
media_image5.png
534
460
media_image5.png
Greyscale
In view of Euchner’s teachings, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include a flap as is taught in Euchner, in the apparatus as presently modified because a biased flap is not susceptible to variations in orientation like the gravity biased float of Agpo. Therefore, including a flap as taught by Euchner will provide more choices in installation.
Purdie, as modified by Kidd, Agpo, and Euchner, does not disclose a closed position disengaging said actuator from said switch, and thus opening electrical contacts of said switch. However, the court has held mere reversal to be an obvious modification In re Gazda, 219 F.2d 449, 104 USPQ 400 (CCPA 1955). In this case, the claimed actuator is brought out of contact with the switch to open the switch. Agpo teaches the actuator is brought into contact with the switch which signals the boiler control device to deactivate the burner. The difference between the claims and the prior art is a mere reversal of the direction of actuation and likely from a normally open switch to a normally closed switch and therefore an obvious modification.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Purdie, in view of Kidd, in view of Kalisch, in view of Agpo, and further in view of Euchner.
Regarding claim 12, Purdie, as modified by Kidd and Kalisch, discloses the apparatus of claim 10.
Purdie, as modified by Kidd and Kalisch, does not disclose:
a flapper connected to an actuator via a pivot rod, said flapper rotatable to block an intake of said air heating system, said actuator adjusted such that a switch is engaged completing an electrical circuit when said sensor measures a decrease in combustion air volume at said intake of said air heating system;
said combustion air volume for a particular firing rate of said air heating system being unrestricted as forces from said combustion air volume rotate said actuator via said flapper and pivot rod into engagement with said switch.
However, Agpo teaches:
a member (16) connected to an actuator (18), said member translatable to block an intake of said air heating system, said actuator adjusted such that a switch is engaged completing an electrical circuit when said sensor measures a decrease in combustion air volume at said intake of said air heating system (“If, during a final blockage, insufficient air transport is possible through the appliance, the float body 16 will lower and, for example, the lower flange 18 will switch switch 24 which signals the boiler control device to deactivate the burner” all citations from the machine translation appended to the foreign reference);
said combustion air volume for a particular firing rate of said air heating system being unrestricted as forces from said combustion air volume translate said actuator via said member and out of engagement with said switch (See figure).
Purdie does not disclose a body which is responsive to airflow for engaging a switch as claimed. Agpo teaches a body which is responsive to airflow for engaging a switch as claimed. The substitution of one known element (the pressure sensor of Purdie) for another (the body/switch sensor of Agpo) would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention, since the substitution of the body/switch sensor taught in Agpo would have yielded predictable results, namely, detecting presence and magnitude of an airflow Agrizap, Inc. v. Woodstream Corp., 520 F.3d 1337, 86 USPQ2d 1110 (Fed. Cir. 2008).
Purdie, as modified by Kidd, Kalisch, and Agpo, does not disclose:
wherein the member is a flapper connected to the actuator via a pivot rod, said flapper rotatable;
wherein forces from said combustion air volume rotate said actuator via said flapper and pivot rod into engagement.
However, Euchner teaches:
wherein the member is a flapper connected to the actuator via a pivot rod, said flapper rotatable (“In the outlet duct 12, there is a plate or "flapper" 21, which is pivotally mounted so as to pivot around the point 22, and which is connected to a lever 23 so as to rotate the lever 23 around the pivot point 22. The lever 23, and hence the flapper 21, are urged in a clockwise direction, as viewed in FIG. 4, around the pivot point 22 by an adjustable, calibrated spring 24 mounted on a fixed base 25 and engaging an end portion of the lever 23” column 6, line 45);
wherein forces from said air volume rotate said actuator via said flapper and pivot rod into engagement (“When the flue gas flow through the duct 12 has its highest value, the flapper 21, the levers 23, 29 and 31 and the linkage 30 assume the positions shown in dot-dash lines in FIG. 4” column 6, line 59).
In view of Euchner’s teachings, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include a flap as is taught in Euchner, in the apparatus as presently modified because a biased flap is not susceptible to variations in orientation like the gravity biased float of Agpo. Therefore, including a flap as taught by Euchner will provide more choices in installation.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Purdie, in view of Kidd, and further in view of Brown (GB 2319106 A), hereinafter Brown.
Regarding claim 15, Purdie, as modified by Kidd, discloses the method of claim 13.
Purdie, as modified by Kidd, does not explicitly disclose including testing for air flow and sensor operation by preventing or impeding air flow and monitoring said parameter during said testing for air flow and sensor operation.
However, Brown teaches including testing for air flow and sensor operation by preventing or impeding air flow and monitoring said parameter during said testing for air flow and sensor operation (“ODS burner assemblies require to be adjusted or set-up in different ways to suit different appliances to which they may be fitted. Tests therefore require to be carried out when new appliances are being designed to ensure the assembly will operate to switch off the appliance under blocked flue conditions before the carbon monoxide level exceeds prescribed safety standards. For this purpose appliances are subjected to testing in a test area or vitiation room in which a controlled environment can be maintained. This comprises a sealed room in which an appliance can be installed and operated with the flue blocked” page 1).
In view of Brown’s teachings, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include testing as is taught in Brown, in the method disclosed by Purdie because Brown states that testing is required to ensure the assembly will operate to switch off the appliance under blocked conditions. Therefore, including testing will ensure proper operation of the appliance of Purdie.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Copenhaver (US 4403942 A) “The safety switch 8 is preferably a sail switch 9 located in a combustion blower outlet 11 of the furnace 7. However, the safety switch 8 may be a pressure switch, centrifugal switch, or other such device. The safety switch 8 shuts down the furnace 7 if the sail switch 9 is not in the proven condition indicating that there is flow through the combustion blower outlet”
Adams (US 5248083 A) “Pressure switches 64 measure the differential pressures at induced draft blower 30. Pressure switch 64 measures the air pressure differential created by induced draft blower 30 with respect to the ambient air pressure. In this manner, the furnace is able to determine whether there is an adequate induced air flow to operate the furnace. If an insufficient induced air flow is present, contact 67 will open cutting off power to ignition module 52 and closing valve 44. Contact 66 opens if heat exchanger 16 temperature increases dramatically over the setpoint temperature, generally 120.degree. F. Similar to relay 67, relay 66 shuts down ignition module 52 and closes valve 44”
Spiesser (DE 4231374 A1) “At a certain minimum air pressure value, the linearity of the control tion of the gas flow interrupted depending on the control pressure. The effect the control pressure goes to zero and the actuator shuts off the gas flow, so that in There is a shutdown of gas shortage or excess air. Incomplete combustion states are thus prevented”
La Fontaine (US 20010051321 A1) “said microprocessor uses a timer to permit a recheck of the appliance operation after it has shut-down based on insufficient differential pressure across the combustion air delivery means to determine if the appliance is safe to restart”
Kim (US 6401708 B1) “if the pressure signal S is `0`, the controller 16 shuts off the gas valve 16. In this instance, it is preferable that an informing step is provided before stopping the operation, in which the clogged state is informed to the user by either sounding the buzzer, or displaying on the display, so that the user comes to know the clogged state”
PNG
media_image6.png
468
462
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Bohan (US 6571817 B1) “If the air flow is not within this predetermined range, the system moves to step 308 wherein a warning signal is created and the heating system is shut down. Most importantly, no fuel is provided to the combustion chamber at this point. This is done by simply turning off the valve portion of the pressure proving valve and not allowing any fuel to pass from inlet channel 42 to outlet channel 44”
Soeholm (US 20040185770 A1) “The mechanical draft system 100 further includes a pressure controller 124 for maintaining an acceptable air pressure inside the mechanical room 102. The pressure controller 124 controls the speeds of the intake fan 106 and exhaust fan 122 in order to provide an adequate draft through the mechanical draft system 100. By regulating the supply of air to the appliances 104, the energy efficiency of the appliances 104 is greatly improved. Maintaining an equalized air pressure between the atmosphere and the interior of the mechanical room 102 further avoids dangerous operating conditions”
PNG
media_image7.png
472
692
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Weimer (US 20110203497 A1) “The combustion air unit 404 provides the correct amount of combustion air as needed by the boilers by varying the combustion air flow rate to meet that demand”
PNG
media_image8.png
450
612
media_image8.png
Greyscale
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 LOGAN P JONES whose telephone number is (303)297-4309. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:30-5:00 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, Michael Hoang can be reached at (571) 272-6460. 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.
/LOGAN P JONES/Examiner, Art Unit 3762 /MICHAEL G HOANG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3762
