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 .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 1 recites the limitation "the fuel mixture" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Appropriate correction is required.
For reference:
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.
The claim is not considered indefinite however, since one of ordinary skill would understand that there is only a fuel and air mixture to be combusted.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 3-5, 8 and 11-13, 17are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. “the second value” and “the third value” are first claimed in claim 2 and claim 10, respectively. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements. The claims will be interpreted to be dependent on claim 2 and 10 respectively.
Claim 8 and 17 recite the limitation “the first gas” which is recited first in claim 7 and 16 respectively. The claims will be interpreted to be dependent on claim 7 and 16 respectively.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 9 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kishida et al [5049063].
With respect to claim 1, Kishida discloses: A method for calibrating flame current in a furnace (1), the method comprising: initiating, by a controller (17), combustion within a combustion chamber by allowing flow of the fuel mixture to the combustion chamber, wherein the combustion chamber is configured in the furnace and adapted for burning a fuel mixture comprising fuel and air [col 5, line 21-34]; receiving, by the controller, from a sensor (9) communicably coupled to it, signals indicative of a flow rate of the air to the combustion chamber, wherein the sensor is configured in the furnace and is configured to generate signals indicative of a flow rate of the fuel mixture into the combustion chamber, and wherein for a fixed flow rate of the fuel, the generated signals are indicative of a flow rate of the air [col 5, line 35-54]; receiving, by the controller, from a flame rod sensor (20) communicably coupled to it, signals indicative of a flame current of the combustion chamber, wherein the flame rod sensor is configured in the combustion chamber, and is configured to generate signals indicative of a flame current in the combustion chamber [col 6, line 45-61]; varying, by the controller, a flow rate of the air to the combustion chamber [col 5, line 55-61]; receiving, by the controller, from the flame rod sensor, responsive to varying of the flow rate of the air to the combustion chamber, signals indicative of a change in the flame current of the combustion chamber [col 8, line 12-24]; and determining, by the controller, based on varying of the flow rate of the air to the combustion chamber, and the change in the flame current of the combustion chamber, a correlation between the flow rate of the air to the combustion chamber, and the flame current of the combustion chamber [col 9, line 18-42].
With respect to claim 9, Kishida discloses: A system for calibrating flame current in a furnace (1), the system comprising: a combustion chamber (3) configured in the furnace, the combustion chamber adapted for burning a fuel mixture comprising fuel and air [col 5, line 9-20]; a sensor (9) configured in the furnace, the sensor configured to generate signals indicative of a flow rate of the fuel mixture into the combustion chamber, wherein for a fixed flow rate of the fuel, the generated signals are indicative of a flow rate of the air [col 5, line 35-54]; a flame rod sensor (20) configured in the combustion chamber, the flame rod sensor configured to generate signals indicative of a flame current in the combustion chamber [col 6, line 45-61]; and a controller (17) communicably coupled to the flame rod sensor and the sensor, the controller configured to: initiate combustion within the combustion chamber by allowing flow of the fuel mixture to the combustion chamber [col 5, line 21-34]; receive, from the sensor, signals indicative of a flow rate of the air to the combustion chamber; receive, from the flame rod sensor, signals indicative of a flame current of the combustion chamber [col 6, line 45-61]; vary a flow rate of the air to the combustion chamber [col 5, line 55-61]; receive, from the flame rod sensor, responsive to varying of the flow rate of the air to the combustion chamber, signals indicative of a change in the flame current of the combustion chamber [col 8, line 12-24]; and determine, based on varying of the flow rate of the air to the combustion chamber, and the change in the flame current of the combustion chamber, a correlation between the flow rate of the air to the combustion chamber, and the flame current of the combustion chamber [col 9, line 18-42].
Kishida further discloses:
{cl. 19} The system of claim 9, wherein the flame rod sensor (20) comprises a flame rod, and wherein the signals generated by the flame rod comprises an electric current [see FIG 1, col 3, line 60-col 4, line 20].
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.
Claim(s) 8 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kishida et al [5049063], further in view of Pedros [8157993].
With respect to claims 8 and 18, Kishida discloses the invention as substantially claimed, however does not show the components of the fuel mixture.
Pedros makes up for these deficiencies by teaching:
{cl. 8} The method of claim 1, wherein the first gas comprises any or a combination of nitrogen-based oxides, carbon-based oxides, and volatile organic compounds [see FIG 1, col 1, line 58-col 2, line 13, col 3, line 25-36].
{cl. 18} The system of claim 9, wherein the first gas comprises any or a combination of nitrogen-based oxides, carbon-based oxides, and volatile organic compounds [see FIG 1, col 1, line 58-col 2, line 13, col 3, line 25-36].
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention of Kishida with the teachings of Pedros because Pedros provides a multi-fuel mixture to reduce NOx formation.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-6, 7-8, 11-18 and 20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The features of the claims are not found to be obvious or are allowed based on dependency.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AVINASH A SAVANI whose telephone number is (571)270-3762. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday 8am-4pm.
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.
/AVINASH A SAVANI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3762
6/5/2026
Prosecution Insights