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
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1, 2, and 4-11 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 9-13, and 15 of U.S. Patent No. 11428407 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant claims are simply more broadly recited.
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 1-3, 7, 13, 14, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Purdie (GB 2416393 A), hereinafter Purdie.
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 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
Regarding claim 2, Purdie 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 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 discloses the apparatus of claim 1 wherein said heating system is a burner (“a burner 8” abstract).
Regarding claim 13, 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 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).
Regarding claim 14, Purdie 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 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 1, 2, 7, 13, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yasui (US 6234164 B1), hereinafter Yasui.
Regarding claim 1, Yasui discloses an apparatus for heating air provided to a location, comprising:
an air heating system (“an FF-type gas heater according to a first embodiment of the present invention has a combustion chamber 3 housing a burner 2” column 3, line 56) and a controller (“The FF-type gas heater also has a controller 30 for controlling operation thereof” column 5, line 18), said system providing heated air to said location (“The air that is heated by the heat exchanger 3a while flowing through the air passage 20 is then delivered into the room through an outlet port 21” column 4, line 35), and said controller monitoring said system, and having the capability to shut the air heating system down (“The controller 30 comprises an electronic circuit including a microcomputer, etc., and performs the functions of a memory means for storing a pressure value prior to operation, a change detecting means, and a combustion stopping means” column 5, line 22);
an air supply conduit feeding outside air to said air heating system (“an intake tube 5” column 3, line 64); 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, 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 (“While the fuel gas is continuously being burned by the burner 2, the controller 30 always compares a change from the pressure value prior to operation to the pressure value in operation which is detected by the pressure sensor 28, with the threshold value. If the detected change drops below the threshold value in STEP18 (YES), then the controller 30 determines that the intake tube 5 or the discharge tube 6 suffers an unwanted closure, and closes the solenoid-operated shut-off valves 15, 16 to stop burning the fuel gas with the burner 2 and indicates the tube closure in STEP19” column 7, line 28).
PNG
media_image2.png
496
726
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
654
464
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Yasui 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 pressure sensor 28 detects the pressure difference between the pressure of combustion air upstream of the orifice 25 and the pressure of combustion air downstream of the orifice 25 through the upstream connection pipe 26 and the downstream connection pipe 27. For example, the pressure sensor 28 comprises a thin-film semiconductor device having a thin film whose electrostatic capacitance varies depending on the difference between pressures applied to respective opposite surfaces thereof” column 5, line 1).
Regarding claim 7, Yasui discloses the apparatus of claim 1 wherein said heating system is a burner (“an FF-type gas heater according to a first embodiment of the present invention has a combustion chamber 3 housing a burner 2” column 3, line 56).
Regarding claim 13, Yasui discloses a method of operating a heating system, comprising:
providing a controller to said heating system (“The FF-type gas heater also has a controller 30 for controlling operation thereof” column 5, line 18), said system providing heat to a location (“The air that is heated by the heat exchanger 3a while flowing through the air passage 20 is then delivered into the room through an outlet port 21” column 4, line 35), said controller monitoring said heating system and having the capability to shut the heating system down (“The controller 30 comprises an electronic circuit including a microcomputer, etc., and performs the functions of a memory means for storing a pressure value prior to operation, a change detecting means, and a combustion stopping means” column 5, line 22);
said heating system including:
an air supply conduit feeding outside air to said air heating system (“an intake tube 5” column 3, line 64); 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, 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 (“While the fuel gas is continuously being burned by the burner 2, the controller 30 always compares a change from the pressure value prior to operation to the pressure value in operation which is detected by the pressure sensor 28, with the threshold value. If the detected change drops below the threshold value in STEP18 (YES), then the controller 30 determines that the intake tube 5 or the discharge tube 6 suffers an unwanted closure, and closes the solenoid-operated shut-off valves 15, 16 to stop burning the fuel gas with the burner 2 and indicates the tube closure in STEP19” column 7, line 28);
firing said heating system (“The controller 30 then energizes the ignition plug 13, opens the solenoid-operated shut-off valves 15, 16, and actuates the gas proportional valve 17 to supply a predetermined amount of fuel gas to the burner 2 to ignite the burner 2 in STEP15” column 7, line 12);
measuring via said sensor said parameter responsive to an air flowing to the heating system (“While the fuel gas is continuously being burned by the burner 2, the controller 30 always compares a change from the pressure value prior to operation to the pressure value in operation which is detected by the pressure sensor 28, with the threshold value” column 7, line 28);
sending a signal via the sensor responsive to said parameter measurement to said controller (“The pressure sensor 28 detects the pressure difference between the pressure of combustion air upstream of the orifice 25 and the pressure of combustion air downstream of the orifice 25 through the upstream connection pipe 26 and the downstream connection pipe 27. For example, the pressure sensor 28 comprises a thin-film semiconductor device having a thin film whose electrostatic capacitance varies depending on the difference between pressures applied to respective opposite surfaces thereof” column 5, line 1);
determining whether a predetermined threshold value is met (“If the detected change drops below the threshold value in STEP18 (YES), then the controller 30 determines that the intake tube 5 or the discharge tube 6 suffers an unwanted closure” column 7, line 32); 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 detected change drops below the threshold value in STEP18 (YES), then the controller 30 determines that the intake tube 5 or the discharge tube 6 suffers an unwanted closure, and closes the solenoid-operated shut-off valves 15, 16 to stop burning the fuel gas with the burner 2 and indicates the tube closure in STEP19” column 7, line 32).
Regarding claim 14, Yasui discloses the method of claim 13 including measuring said parameter within said air supply conduit (Figure 1).
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 4, 5, 10, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Purdie, in view of Kalisch (DE 102006007814 A1), hereinafter Kalisch.
Regarding claims 4 and 5, Purdie 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 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_image4.png
640
396
media_image4.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 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 Rosenland (EP 1236957 A2), hereinafter Rosenland.
Regarding claim 6, Purdie discloses the apparatus of claim 1.
Purdie 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_image5.png
472
494
media_image5.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 Agpo (NL 8502346 A), hereinafter Agpo, and further in view of Euchner (US 3964675 A), hereinafter Euchner.
Regarding claims 8 and 9, Purdie discloses the apparatus of claim 1.
Purdie 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_image6.png
586
490
media_image6.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 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_image7.png
534
460
media_image7.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 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 Kalisch, in view of Agpo, and further in view of Euchner.
Regarding claim 12, Purdie, as modified by Kalisch, discloses the apparatus of claim 10.
Purdie, as modified by 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 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 Brown (GB 2319106 A), hereinafter Brown.
Regarding claim 15, Purdie discloses the method of claim 13.
Purdie 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.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Purdie, in view of Krueger (US 8939141 B2), hereinafter Krueger.
Regarding claim 16, Purdie discloses the method of claim 13.
Purdie does not explicitly disclose:
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, Krueger teaches:
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 (“For instance, with some models, an appliance will automatically shut-off if the air intake is reduced to a particular level. Some appliances will attempt to restart or self-start periodically; however, if sufficient airflow is not restored by the time of the automatic re-start, the applicance will fail to operate or restart” column 10, line 53).
In view of Krueger’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 attempting restart as is taught in Krueger, in the method disclosed by Purdie because restarting the appliance will enable further use of the appliance. The initial problem causing the shutdown can be manually resolved by an operator. It is also possible that an initial shutdown was in error.
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_image8.png
468
462
media_image8.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_image9.png
472
692
media_image9.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_image10.png
450
612
media_image10.png
Greyscale
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
Prosecution Insights