DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Objections
The claims listed below are objected to because of the following informalities:
In Claim 15, line 12, change “and is aligned” to -- and aligned --
In Claim 16, line 8, change “claim 15 arranged” to -- claim 15 is arranged--
In Claim 19, line 3, change “at its end” to -- at an end --
In Claim 25, delete the recitation of “()”
Appropriate correction is required.
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:
“an automatic control system” (Claim 26)
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.
Regarding “an automatic control system” (from Claim 26):
The specification fails to provide any possible structure for the claimed “system”. It is consequently unclear what structure the claimed “system” comprises or does not comprise to perform the claimed function of automatic control and if said structure is to be manifested (at least) mechanically, electronically or some combination thereof. The metes and bounds of Claim 26 are consequently unclear (as is presented below in this Office Action). For the purpose of expediting prosecution, “an automatic control system” (from Claim 26) will be interpreted as any system that can perform or contribute to performing the function of automatic control.
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 25-28 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 25 recites the limitation “comparing detected individual images with a reference image; and outputting an automatic acoustic and/or visual warning message if an actual value exceeds a target value” which is considered indefinite because it is unclear what parameter the claimed “actual value” is referring to and what units that “actual value” has. It is unclear how the “actual value” relates to the detected “images” and consequently unclear when the “automatic acoustic and/or visual warning message” would be output. Note that the specification fails to clarify this issue. The metes and bounds of Claim 25 are consequently unclear.
Claims 26-28 are rejected due to their dependency on Claim 25. Furthermore, Claims 26-28 each recite (at least) either an “actual value” or “actual further value” wherein, similar to Claim 25, it is unclear (at least) what parameter(s) the claimed “actual value”/ “actual further value” are referring to, what units that “actual value”/ “actual further value” has and how the “actual value”/ “actual further value” relates to the detected “images”. Thus, Claims 26-28 are also considered to be indefinite for at least the same reasons as Claim 25 (as are presented above).
Furthermore, Claim 26 recites the limitation “an automatic control system” which has invoked 112(f) (as is presented above in this Office Action). However, the specification fails to provide any possible structure for the claimed “system”. It is consequently unclear what structure the claimed “system” comprises or does not comprise to perform the claimed function of automatic control and if said structure is to be manifested (at least) mechanically, electronically or some combination thereof. The metes and bounds of Claim 26 are consequently unclear. For the purpose of expediting prosecution, “an automatic control system” (from Claim 26) will be interpreted as any system that can perform or contribute to performing the function of automatic control.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Merklein (US 2001/0035952 A1) in view of Amano (US 5,777,668).
Regarding Claim 15, Merklein teaches of a camera module (6) for use with a burner (18) for a shaft melting furnace (Note that the limitation of “a camera module for use with a burner for a shaft melting furnace” is being interpreted an intended use of the camera module that a prior art apparatus must be merely capable of doing to fulfill wherein a burner and a shaft melting furnace are not actually parts of the claimed apparatus. In the instant case, the camera module (6) taught by Merklein is intended for use “immediately at a combustion chamber” and thereby capable of use with any combustion chamber including one that is a part of a shaft melting furnace (see at least Abstract, [0002] and Fig. 1). The camera module taught by Merklein is accordingly capable of use with a burner for a shaft melting furnace and accordingly meets this intended use limitation as claimed.), comprising:
a housing (56) having a first opening (the right-hand open portion of element (56) as shown in Fig. 1), and
a second opening (the left-hand open portion of element (56) as shown in Fig. 1), the second opening arranged axially opposite the first opening (as is shown in Fig. 1) and closed off by an inspection lens (inspection lens comprising elements 8 and/or 20) (see at least [0024]-[0025] and Fig. 1);
a beam splitter (28) arranged in a viewing axis (horizontal axis of (26) as shown in Fig. 1) extending axially through the housing between the first opening and the second opening (as is shown in Fig. 1) (see at least [0024]-[0025] and Fig. 1); and
a camera (camera assembly comprising element (48) that is disposed vertically above element (28) as shown in Fig. 1) (see at least [0015], [0026] and Fig. 1 and note that element (48) and its assembly forms a “CCD camera”), the camera having a lens (48) arranged perpendicularly to the viewing axis (as is shown in Fig. 1, the axis of the camera lens that runs through (32) is directly perpendicular to the viewing axis that runs though (26)) and is aligned with the beam splitter (28) (as is shown in Fig. 1) (see at least [0024]-[0026] and Fig. 1),
wherein the camera module is configured to be arranged on the burner or on an observation device of the burner (Note that in light of the specification, “an observation device of the burner” is being interpreted as a mounting device/location for mounting the camera module to the burner. In the instant case, the camera module is configured to be arranged on (at least) the mounting device of element (6) that forms an observation device of the burner as is shown in Fig. 1 (see at least [0022]-[0024] and Fig. 1).).
Merklein fails to explicitly teach that the inspection lens is made of glass. However, such configuration is known in the art.
Amano discloses a relatable furnace monitoring camera (1) (see Figs. 1-2) that comprises an inspection lens (22) that is made of glass (“shielding glass panel 22”) that is disposed adjacent to a combustion chamber (2) of a furnace (see at least Col. 6 lines 16-28, Col. 7 lines 3-15 and Figs. 1-2). Amano teaches that forming the inspection lens (22) out of glass permits adequate “shielding” from the high temperatures of the furnace (see at least Col. 7 lines 3-15 and Figs. 1-2).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the apparatus taught by Merklein by configuring the existing inspection lens to be made of glass based on the teachings of Amano. Doing so would have ensured that the inspection lens would be able to withstand the high temperatures from the furnace that it would be subject to during use. Note that such modification would have necessarily resulted in the inspection lens being an “inspection glass” as claimed.
Allowable Subject Matter
5. Claims 16-24 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim (i.e., Claim 15) and for comprising informalities (as is presented above in this Office Action), but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims and in a way that overcomes all raised claim objections without introducing any new issues.
Independent Claim 25 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Dependent Claims 26-28 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding Claim 16: Note that while Claim 16 is written in an independent form that establishes “A burner (1) for a shaft melting furnace”, Claim 16 comprises the camera module “according to claim 15” and accordingly includes all limitations of Claim 15. Furthermore, Claim 16 provides that the burner comprises “an observation device (9) with a viewing axis (109) extending through a first chamber (4), a burner nozzle (7), and a radiant tube (8) of the burner (1), wherein a flame chamber of the shaft melting furnace can be monitored via the viewing axis (109)” wherein “the camera module (10) according to claim 15” is “arranged on the observation device (9)”. In the prior art of Merklein and Amano that was relied upon in the rejection for Claim 15, Merklein teaches of a burner (18) (see Fig. 1) that produces a flame (F) that is observable by the camera module (as is shown in Fig. 1). However, as can be observed in Fig. 1, the viewing axis views the flame from the side of the flame and the burner as opposed to through the burner itself (as is shown in Fig. 1). The viewing axis accordingly does not extend through (at least) “a burner nozzle (7), and a radiant tube (8) of the burner (1)” such that “a flame chamber of the shaft melting furnace can be monitored via the viewing axis (109)”. Thus, the combination of Merklein and Amano fails to render obvious Claim 16 and no motivation would have existed to have intentionally complicated the working arrangement taught by Merklein (or that of any other known prior art) in a way that would have resulted in the burner itself having the viewing axis pass therethrough such that the viewing axis would extend through (at least) “a burner nozzle (7), and a radiant tube (8) of the burner (1)” such that “a flame chamber of the shaft melting furnace can be monitored via the viewing axis (109)” since doing so would have (at least) inhibited the ability to observe flame from any existing burner which Merklein seeks to achieve. Therefore, the subject matter of Claim 16 is neither anticipated nor rendered obvious by any known prior art (including that of Merklein and Amano) and is consequently considered to be allowable over the known prior art. However, Claim 16 is objected to for depending upon a rejected base claim (i.e., Claim 15) and for comprising informalities (as is presented above in this Office Action) and is consequently not in condition for allowance at this time.
Regarding Claim 25: Note that while Claim 25 is written in an independent form that establishes “A method”, Claim 25 comprises “the burner as in claim 16” and accordingly includes all limitations of Claim 16 and in turn all limitations of Claim 15 (since the burner of claim 16 comprises the camera module “according to claim 15”). The subject matter of Claim 25 is therefore considered to be allowable for including the allowable subject matter of Claim 16 (see the comments regarding Claim 16 above). However, Claim 25 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) (as is presented above in this Office Action) and is consequently not in condition for allowance at this time.
It is recommended that Applicant amend the claims to obviate all objections and 112(b) rejection raised in this Office Action and to incorporate the subject matter of Claim 15 directly into Claim 16 (and then cancel Claim 15) to facilitate allowance of the application.
Conclusion
6. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The following prior art is considered relevant to this application in terms of structure and use:
McManus et al. (US 2011/0008737 A1)
Davall et al. (US 5,107,128)
Moll et al. (US 1,934,082)
Kemp (US 936,781)
JP 2010502447 A (see attached original document and translation for reference)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BENJAMIN W JOHNSON whose telephone number is (571)272-8523. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 7:30-5:00 PM.
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.
/BENJAMIN W JOHNSON/Examiner, Art Unit 3762 1/9/2026
/STEVEN B MCALLISTER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3762