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 .
Response to Amendment
1. The amendment filed 4/13/2026 has been entered. Amended Claims 15-16, 19 and 25-26 have been noted. The amendment has overcome the claim objections and 112(b) rejections previously set forth - those claim objections and 112(b) rejections have been withdrawn accordingly. Claims 15-28 are currently pending.
Claim Objections
2. The claims listed below are objected to because of the following informalities:
In Claim 25, line 6, change “an actual value” to -- an actual value of a parameter -- (or equivalent)
In Claim 27, the last two lines, change “an actual further value” to -- an actual further value of a parameter -- (or equivalent)
In Claim 28, the last two lines, change “an actual further value” to -- an actual further value of a parameter -- (or equivalent)
Appropriate correction is required.
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 McManus et al. (CH 701198 A2) (hereinafter “McManus”) (see attached original document and translation for reference) in view of Amano (US 5,777,668).
Regarding Claim 15, McManus teaches of a camera module (camera module comprising elements (116), (122), (124) and (114) as shown in Fig. 1) for use with a burner (102) 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 (camera module comprising elements (116), (122), (124) and (114) as shown in Fig. 1) taught by McManus is intended to “detect the light emission from the flames 104 in the tube burner 102 near the flame area 106 of the tube burner 102” (see at least [0020] and Fig. 1) and thereby capable of use with any flame generating burner and flame area including ones that are a part of a shaft melting furnace (as is evident from at least [0020] 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 (A) (see Examiner Annotated Fig. 1 below) having a first opening (B) (see Examiner Annotated Fig. 1), and
a second opening (C) (see Examiner Annotated Fig. 1), the second opening arranged axially opposite the first opening (as is shown in Examiner Annotated Fig. 1) and closed off by an inspection lens (inspection lens comprising elements 114) (see at least [0020] and Fig. 1);
a beam splitter (116) arranged in a viewing axis (viewing axis of element (122) as shown in Fig. 1) extending axially through the housing (as shown in Fig. 1) between the first opening and the second opening (as is shown in Fig. 1) (see at least [0022]-[0023] and Fig. 1); and
a camera (camera comprising element (124)) (see at least [0022]-[0023] and Fig. 1), the camera having a lens (lens of element (124)) arranged perpendicularly to the viewing axis (as is shown in Fig. 1) and aligned with the beam splitter (116) (as is shown in Fig. 1) (see at least [0020], [0022]-[0023] 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 mounted on (at least) the burner (102) itself as is shown in Fig. 1 - see at least [0022]-[0024] and Fig. 1).
McManus 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 McManus 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 flames 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.
PNG
media_image1.png
594
404
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Allowable Subject Matter
4. Claims 16-24 are allowed.
Claims 25-28 are objected to 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 claim objections without introducing any new issues.
Regarding Claim 16: The subject matter of Claim 16 is considered to be allowable for the reasons set forth in the Non-Final Rejection filed 1/14/2026 (see Section #5). Note that while Claim 16 previously included the camera module “according to claim 15”, Claim 16 now comprises a “camera module” and related elements that mirror that of Claim 15. Thus, Claim 16 is still considered to be allowable for its combination of limitations as is presented in the Non-Final Rejection filed 1/14/2026 (see Section #5).
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. The subject matter of Claim 25 is therefore also considered to be allowable for including the allowable subject matter of Claim 16 (see the comments regarding Claim 16 above). However, Claim 25, in addition to Claims 26-28 which depend on and thus include Claim 25, are objected to for informalities (as is presented above in this Office Action) and are consequently not in condition for allowance at this time.
Response to Arguments
5. The arguments filed 4/13/2026 have been fully considered but are moot in light of the new grounds of rejection necessitated by the claim amendments.
It is recommended that Applicant either significantly amend Claim 15 to mirror the subject matter of Claim 16 or 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)
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 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, Helena Kosanovic can be reached at 571-272-9059. 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 7/9/2026
/GREGORY A WILSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3762 7/10/2026
Prosecution Insights