DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Objections
Claims 9 and 13 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Examiner recommend changing “air flowrate and fuel flowrate parameters” to “an air flowrate parameter and a fuel flowrate parameter”.
Examiner recommend changing “this”, “these” to “the”.
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: “reading unit” in claim 9.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 9-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Entire claim set recites “possibly” in the limitations. It’s not clear as to if the limitations after the word “possibly” is required. Examiner recommend applicant to delete the word “possibly”.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the optimal air flow rate and fuel flow rate parameters" in line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Examiner recommend applicant to amend this limitation to “an optimal air flow rate parameter and an optimal fuel flow rate parameter”.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "this determination and identification" in line 10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Examiner recommend applicant to amend this limitation to “the determining and the identifying”.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the maximum efficiency" in line 18. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Examiner recommend applicant to amend this limitation to “a maximum efficiency”.
Claim 9 recites “reading means” in line 27. It’s not clear as to this limitation refers back to “reading means” in line 23. Examiner recommend applicant to amend the limitation in line 27 to “the reading means”.
Claim 9 recites “his/her” in line 27 and again in line 28. It’s not clear as to if this limitation refers back to “user” in line 25. Examiner recommend applicant to amend this limitation to “the user’s”.
Claim 9 recites “these regulation means” in line 32. It’s not clear as to if it refers back to “means for regulating” in line 30. Examiner recommend applicant to amend this limitation to “the means for regulating”.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the reading unit" in line 33. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Examiner recommend applicant to amend this limitation to “a reading unit”.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the regulation data" in line 33. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Examiner recommend applicant to amend this limitation to “regulation data”.
Claim 13 recites “optimal parameters” in several places. However claim 9 recites optimal parameters as well. It’s not clear if the optimal parameters in claim 13 are the same as the optimal parameters in claim 9. Examiner recommend applicant to amend the limitation of claim 13 to “the optimal parameters”.
Claim 13 recites “at least one optimal curve”. However claim 9 recites at least one optimal curve as well. It’s not clear if the optimal parameters in claim 13 are the same as the at least one optimal curve in claim 9. Examiner recommend applicant to amend the limitation of claim 13 to “the at least one optimal curve”.
Claim 13 recites “a user of a domestic pellet-fired burner” and “a domestic pellet-fired burner of a user”. It’s not clear if they refer to the same user and if they refer to the same domestic pellet-fired burner.
Claim 13 recites “means for regulating” and “said regulation means”. It’s not clear as to if these limitations refer back to “means for regulating” from claim 9. Examiner recommend applicant to amend limitations in claim 13 to “the means for regulating”.
Claim 13 recites “could be” or “could”. It’s not clear as to if limitations after “could be” or “could” are required. Examiner recommend applicant to positively recite limitations by changing “could be” to “is” and changing “could automatically adjusting” to “automatically adjust”.
Claim 15 recites “the reading unit includes processing processes capable of calculating”. It’s not clear as to if a tangible reading unit can include processes. Examiner recommend applicant to amend this limitation to (and for examining purpose, examiner interprets this limitation is) “the reading unit is configured to calculate”.
Regarding claim 16, the phrase "in particular" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 9 and 13 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.
Claims 10-12 and 14-16 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The limitations of independent claims cannot be met without impermissible hindsight reconstruction.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KO-WEI LIN whose telephone number is (571)270-7675. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 6:30-2:30 Eastern Time.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Steve McAllister can be reached at (571)272-6785. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/KO-WEI LIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3762