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 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, 8-9, 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Poyyapakkam et al [10544736].
With respect to claim 1, Poyyapakkam discloses: A method comprising: receiving (via sensor 25) a gas concentration value indicating a concentration of one or more gases in a gas mixture provided to a burner (5) [col 2, line 45-47, col 3, line 16-18, where “composition” is reasonably interpreted as concentration]; determining (via controller 28 and the signal), using the gas concentration value, an air flow rate to input to the burner [col 3, line 21-30 with reference to “The control unit 28 drives the throttling valve 27 on the basis of the signal received by the sensor 25.”]; and controlling (via throttle valve 27) the air flow rate provided to the burner based on the determined air flow rate [col 3, line 21-30 with reference to “Thus the throttle valve 27 adjusts the carrier air flow on the basis of the fuel flow.”].
With respect to claim 8, Poyyapakkam discloses: An apparatus comprising [see FIG 3]: a control circuit to (17) [col 2, line 56-60]: receive (via sensor 25) a gas concentration value indicating a concentration of one or more gases in a gas mixture provided to a burner (5) [col 2, line 45-47, col 3, line 16-18, where “composition” is reasonably interpreted as concentration]; determine (via controller 28 and signal), using the gas concentration value, an air flow rate to input to the burner [col 3, line 1-6, col 3, line 21-30 with reference to “The control unit 28 drives the throttling valve 27 on the basis of the signal received by the sensor 25.”]; and control (via throttle valve 27) the air flow rate provided to the burner based on the determined air flow rate [col 3, line 21-30 with reference to “Thus the throttle valve 27 adjusts the carrier air flow on the basis of the fuel flow.”].
Poyyapakkam further discloses:
{cl. 9} The apparatus of claim 8, wherein the control circuit is to receive the gas concentration value in real-time [col 1, line 56-59].
With respect to claim 15, Poyyapakkam discloses: A system comprising [see FIGs 1-3]: a gas concentration sensor (25); a ventilator (6); and a control circuit (17) [col 2, line 56-60] to: receive (via sensor 25) a gas concentration value, from the gas concentration sensor, indicating a concentration of one or more gases in a gas mixture provided to a burner (5) [col 2, line 45-47, col 3, line 16-18, where “composition” is reasonably interpreted as concentration]; determine (via controller and the signal), using the gas concentration value, an air flow rate to input to the burner [col 3, line 1-6, col 3, line 21-30 with reference to “The control unit 28 drives the throttling valve 27 on the basis of the signal received by the sensor 25.”]; and control (via throttle valve 27) the air flow rate provided to the burner based on the determined air flow rate [col 3, line 21-30 with reference to “Thus the throttle valve 27 adjusts the carrier air flow on the basis of the fuel flow.”].
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) 2-3, 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Poyyapakkam et al [10544736], further in view of Iida [4481908].
With respect to claims 2-3, 16, Poyyapakkam discloses the invention as substantially claimed, however does not show the use of the control loop claimed.
Iida makes up for these deficiencies by teaching:
{cl. 2} The method of claim 1, wherein the determining is by a control loop (8), the control loop comprising a proportional-integral-derivative control loop [col 3, line 67-col 4, line 23].
{cl. 3} The method of claim 1, wherein the determining is by a control loop, the control loop comprising a proportional-integral control loop [col 4, line 24-col 5, line 12].
{cl. 16} The system of claim 15, wherein the control circuit comprises a control loop to determine the air flow rate to input to the burner, wherein the control loop is a proportional-integral-derivative control loop or a proportional-integral control loop [col 3, line 67-col 5, line 12].
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Poyyapakkam to use a control loop as taught by Iida because Iida’s control allows for a known cycling process to ensure properly timed combustion.
Claim(s) 4, 7, 11, 14, 17 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Poyyapakkam et al [10544736], further in view of Munsterhuis et al [20210364165]
With respect to claims 4, 7, 11, 14, 17 and 20, Poyyapakkam discloses the invention as substantially claimed, but does not show the use of the flame sensor.
Munsterhuis makes up for these deficiencies by teaching:
{cl. 4} The method of claim 1, comprising: receiving a flame signal reading (via sensor 13); determining, based on the flame signal reading, whether a flame exists in the burner; maintaining a safety valve (19, 20) in an open position when the flame is present; and closing the safety valve when the flame is not present [see FIG 1, paragraph 0031].
{cl. 7} The method of claim 1, comprising: receiving an ambient air temperature reading; receiving a temperature setpoint value; determining a difference between the ambient air temperature reading and the temperature setpoint value; and generating a burner signal to control a flame in the burner [see abstract, paragraph 0037-0040].
{cl. 11} The apparatus of claim 8, wherein the control circuit is to: receive a flame signal reading (13); determine, based on the flame signal reading, whether a flame exists in the burner; maintain a safety valve (19, 20) in an open position when the flame is present; and close the safety valve when the flame is not present [see FIG 1, paragraph 0031].
{cl. 14} The apparatus of claim 8, wherein the control circuit is to: receive an ambient air temperature reading; receive a temperature setpoint value; determine a difference between the ambient air temperature reading and the temperature setpoint value; and generate a burner signal to control a flame in the burner [see abstract, paragraph 0037-0040].
{cl. 17} The system of claim 15, wherein the control circuit is to: receive a flame signal reading (13); determine, based on the flame signal reading, whether a flame exists in the burner; maintain a safety valve (19, 20) in an open position when the flame is present; and close the safety valve when the flame is not present [see FIG 1, paragraph 0031].
{cl. 20} The system of claim 15, wherein the control circuit is to: receive an ambient air temperature reading; receive a temperature setpoint value; determine a difference between the ambient air temperature reading and the temperature setpoint value; and generate a burner signal to control a flame in the burner [see abstract, paragraph 0037-0040].
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Poyyapakkam with the teachings of Munsterhuis because Munsterhuis provides a known control that allows for efficient combustion based on flame and air temperature monitoring.
Claim(s) 5, 12, 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Poyyapakkam et al [10544736], further in view of Varagani et al [20060177785].
With respect to claims 5, 12 and 18, Poyyapakkam discloses the invention as substantially claimed, but does not show the exhaust concentration determination.
Varagani makes up for these deficiencies by teaching:
{cl. 5} The method of claim 1, comprising: receiving (via controller 17) an indication of an exhaust gas concentration (13) in an exhaust from the burner, wherein the determining the air flow rate to input to the burner uses the received indication of the exhaust gas concentration in the exhaust from the burner [paragraph 0053-0057].
{cl. 12} The apparatus of claim 8, wherein the control circuit is to: receive an indication of an exhaust gas concentration (13) in an exhaust from the burner, and wherein the determining the air flow rate to input to the burner uses the received indication of the exhaust gas concentration in the exhaust from the burner [paragraph 0053-0057].
{cl. 18} The system of claim 15, wherein the control circuit is to: receive an indication of an exhaust gas concentration in an exhaust from the burner [paragraph 0053-0057].
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Poyyapakkam with the teachings of Varagani because Varagani provides a known control that adjusts airflow to a proper value for more desirable combustion.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Poyyapakkam et al [10544736], further in view of Blaauwwiekel et al [20130115563].
Blaauwwiekel makes up for thes deficiencies by teaching:
{cl. 10} The apparatus of claim 8, wherein the control circuit is to control the air flow rate by generating a signal control a rotation speed of a ventilator [see FIG 1, paragraph 0020].
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Poyyapakkam with the teachings of Blaauwiekel because Blaauwiekel provides a known technique to obtain a desired operational value regarding airflow.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6, 13 and 19 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. Modifying the applied art would require hindsight reasoning as a teaching reference would need to be modified to arrive at the claimed invention.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Lana et al [20220010740], Ucke et al [20110023841] and Inoue [20040011050] are considered relevant art.
Lana shows relevance with regard to paragraph 0025 showing a controller that controls airflow based on a gas concentration.
Ucke shows measuring a gas concentration prior to combustion [see claim 42].
Inoue shows relevance with regard to paragraph 0117 showing a controller that controls airflow based on a gas concentration.
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
6/17/2026
Prosecution Insights