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 1, line 18, change “a burner start” to -- the burner start --
In Claim 1, the last two lines, change “determining on basis of the pressure difference the air flow resistance of the gas burner appliance” to -- determining, on a basis of the pressure difference, the air flow resistance of the gas burner appliance --
Claims 2-16 are objected to for including the informalities of Claim 1 via their dependency on Claim 1
In each of Claims 2, 3, 5 and 6 change “on basis” to -- on a basis --
In Claim 10, line 8, change “a burner start” to -- the burner start --
In Claim 10, the last two lines, change “generating warning” to -- generating a warning --
In Claim 11, line 4, change “a burner start” to -- the burner start --
In Claim 11, line 6, change “deter mining” to -- determining --
In Claim 11, the last line, change “generating warning” to -- generating a warning --
In each of Claims 13 and 14, delete the recitations of “or a 1-value”.
In each of Claims 13 and 14, change “burn er” to -- burner --
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:
“a mixing device to provide the gas/air mixture by mixing an air flow provided by an air duct with a gas flow provided by a gas duct” (Claim 1)
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.
“a mixing device to provide the gas/air mixture by mixing an air flow provided by an air duct with a gas flow provided by a gas duct” (from Claim 1) is being interpreted as a venturi nozzle, 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 5, 12 and 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 5 recites the limitation “wherein the air flow resistance of the gas burner appliance is determined from the air mass flow preferably on basis of a characteristic map or characteristic curve” which is considered indefinite because the recitation of “preferably” makes it unclear if the limitation of “on basis of a characteristic map or characteristic curve” is actually required by the claim or not. Note that the specification fails to clarify this issue. The metes and bounds of the claim are consequently unclear.
Claim 12 recites the limitation “bounding the increased nominal fan speed by a maximum fan speed preferably to prevent a blown free siphon” which is considered indefinite because the recitation of “preferably” makes it unclear if the limitation of “to prevent a blown free siphon” is actually required by the claim or not. Note that the specification fails to clarify this issue. The metes and bounds of the claim are consequently unclear.
Regarding Claim 16: Claim 16 establishes “A gas burner appliance comprising the controller of claim 15” wherein the controller of Claim 15 is “configured to operate the gas appliance according to the method of claim 1”. Thus, Claim 16 effectively includes the limitations of each of Claims 1 and 15. Claim 16 proceeds to recite several method steps and claim elements that are already established in Claim 1. For example, Claim 16 recites “receive a first absolute pressure from an absolute pressure sensor of the gas burner appliance measured when a gas safety valve unit of the gas burner appliance is closed and when a fan is stopped”. It is unclear if, inter alia, the recitations of “a first absolute pressure”, “an absolute pressure sensor” and “a gas safety valve unit” as established in Claim 16 are referring to the same “first absolute pressure”, “absolute pressure sensor” and “gas safety valve unit” already established in Claim 1 or if they are referring to distinct, additional claim elements. Note that the specification fails to clarify this issue. The metes and bounds of the claim are consequently unclear. It is recommended that Applicant either cancel Claim 16 or significantly revise Claim 16 to eliminate all issues of ambiguity.
Allowable Subject Matter
4. Independent Claim 1 and dependent Claims 2-4, 6-11 and 13-15 are objected to for informalities (as is presented above in this Office Action), but would be allowable if rewritten in a way that obviates all the claim objections raised in this Office Action without introducing any new issues.
Note that as allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
Dependent Claims 5, 12 and 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, in addition to the claim objections set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding independent Claim 1: The combination of limitations claimed in Claim 1 is neither anticipated nor rendered obvious by any known prior art. Munsterhuis et al. (US 2016/0281984 A1) (hereinafter “Munsterhuis”) is considered to be one of the closest known prior art references to the claimed invention.
Regarding Claim 1, Munsterhuis teaches of a method for operating a gas burner appliance (10) (see at least [0022] and Fig. 1), the gas burner appliance comprising:
a combustion chamber (11) in which a defined gas/air mixture is combusted after combustion has been started in connection with a burner start (see at least [0023] and Fig. 1),
a mixing device (23) to provide the gas/air mixture by mixing an air flow provided by an air duct (15) with a gas flow provided by a gas duct (see at least [0024]-[0028] and Fig. 1),
a fan (14) to provide the air flow or the flow of the gas/air mixture, wherein a fan speed of the fan depends on a burner-load of the gas burner appliance (see at least [0024]-[0028] and Fig. 1),
a gas safety valve unit (19) assigned to the gas duct to open or close the gas duct (see at least [0023] and Fig. 1),
a gas flow modulator or a gas flow regulator (18) assigned to the gas duct to keep a mixing ratio of gas and air of the defined gas/air mixture constant over the modulation range of the gas burner appliance (see at least [0023]-[0028] and Fig. 1), and
a pressure sensor positioned between the gas safety valve unit and the mixing device (“pneumatic sensor of the pneumatic controller 24”) (see at least [0028] and Fig. 1).
Munsterhuis fails to teach that “the gas burner appliance is operated to determine the air flow resistance of the gas burner appliance by executing the following steps before combustion becomes started in connection with a burner start:
measuring a first absolute pressure by the absolute pressure sensor when the gas safety valve unit is closed and when the fan is stopped,
measuring a second absolute pressure by the absolute pressure sensor when the gas safety valve unit is closed and when the fan is running,
determining a pressure difference between the first absolute pressure and the second absolute pressure,
determining on basis of the pressure difference the air flow resistance of the gas burner appliance”.
Therefore, Munsterhuis fails to anticipate Claim 1. Furthermore, the specific method steps of Claim 1 which require, inter alia, independent first and second absolute pressure measurements under the distinct and specific conditions claimed to ultimately determine, on a basis of the pressure difference, “the air flow resistance of the gas burner appliance” in combination with the other limitations of the claim are not rendered obvious by any known prior art. No known motivation would have existed to have intentionally reconfigured the functional method taught by Munsterhuis in a way that would have resulted in the combination of limitations claimed in Claim 1. Therefore, the subject matter of Claim 1 is considered to be allowable over the known prior art.
However, Claim 1 is objected to for informalities (as is presented above in this Office Action) and is consequently not in condition for allowance at this time.
Conclusion
5. 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:
Fukushima at al. (US 2022/0052359 A1)
Munsterhuis et al. (US 2012/0058439 A1)
Kikuchi et al. (US 4,613,072)
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 1/6/2025
/STEVEN B MCALLISTER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3762