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 Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1, 34 and 35 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
For claims 1, 34 and 35, the limitations “flow rate” of primary air flow, “flow rate” of main steam flow, and “oxygen concentration” were not in the original specification. The specification only discloses “primary air flow”, main steam flow” and “flue gas oxygen”, and doesn’t have the particular parameters (flow rate and concentration). Therefore those limitations are new matter limitations.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefore, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 19-23 and 25-36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract ideas without significantly more. The claims recite method of determining post elevation in a single axis solar tracker. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the limitations merely recite mental steps that are concepts performed in human mind. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, for example:
Claim 19 recites “monitoring current operation data of the boiler”, “preparing and calibrating a numerical model”, “computing bed temperatures”, “comparing the measured bed temperatures (TMi) with the computed bed temperatures” and “determining that local temperature anomaly is present”. These are all mental steps without additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Also the limitation of “computing bed temperatures” is a concept of mathematical relationship or formula. Therefore claim 19 recites mental steps that are done by human observation and evaluation and can be performed in human mind.
As for the limitation “upon detecting the local temperature anomaly, performing at least one of automatically adjusting combustion boiler system operation and generating an alert informing a boiler operator of a local bed temperature anomaly” in claim 19, it is noted that this limitation is a contingent limitation. See MPEP 2111.04 II, “The broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met…. See Ex parte Schulhauser… "[i]f the condition for performing a contingent step is not satisfied, the performance recited by the step need not be carried out in order for the claimed method to be performed"… Therefore "[t]he Examiner did not need to present evidence of the obviousness of the [ ] method steps of claim 1 that are not required to be performed under a broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim”. This step of “performing…” depends upon the occurrence of the local temperature anomaly. Therefore under broadest reasonable interpretation for this limitation, this method step is not positively recited as actually occurring and this method step is not required.
The dependent claims 20-23 and 25-27 merely include limitations that further define the abstract ideas. Additionally claim 20 recites “comparing the computed temperature (Tci) and the measured bed temperature (TMi) against an anomaly criterion and determining that local temperature anomaly is present if the anomaly criterion is fulfilled” is also a mental step without additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 28 recites “measuring current operation data of the boiler”, “computing an average of the measured bed temperatures”, “computing a standard deviation of measured bed temperature”, “computing a difference between measured bed maximum temperature and measured bed minimum temperature”, “computing S spread” and “prepare a bed sintering index”. These are all mental steps without additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Also the limitation of “computing a standard deviation of measured bed temperature”, “computing a difference between measured bed maximum temperature and measured bed minimum temperature”, and “computing a spread” are concepts of mathematical relationship or formula. Therefore claim 28 recites mental steps that are done by human observation and evaluation and can be performed in human mind.
As for the limitation “upon detecting the bed sintering index exceeding a predefined criterion, performing at least one of automatically adjusting combustion boiler operation and generating an alert informing boiler operator of a bed sintering condition” in claim 28, it is noted that this limitation is a contingent limitation. See MPEP 2111.04 II, “The broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met…. See Ex parte Schulhauser… "[i]f the condition for performing a contingent step is not satisfied, the performance recited by the step need not be carried out in order for the claimed method to be performed"… Therefore "[t]he Examiner did not need to present evidence of the obviousness of the [ ] method steps of claim 1 that are not required to be performed under a broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim”. This step of “performing…” depends upon the occurrence of bed sintering index exceeding a predefined criterion. Therefore under broadest reasonable interpretation for this limitation, this method step is not positively recited as actually occurring and this method step is not required.
In claim 32, “automatically adjusting combustion boiler system operation” can be done manually by operator.
The dependent claims 29-30 and 32-34 merely include limitations that further define the abstract ideas.
Claim 35 recites “monitoring current operation data of the boiler”, “preparing and calibrating a numerical model”, “computing bed temperatures”, “comparing the measured bed temperatures (TMi) with the computed bed temperatures” and “determining that local temperature anomaly is present”. These are all mental steps without additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Also the limitation of “computing bed temperatures” is a concept of mathematical relationship or formula. Therefore claim 35 recites mental steps that are done by human observation and evaluation and can be performed in human mind. While claim 35 recites “combustion boiler system that comprises a furnace having a boiler grid with at least three temperature sensors”, those limitations are merely tool to perform abstract ideas and are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As for the limitation “adjusting combustion boiler system or generating an alert”, users can manually perform these functions.
Claim 36 recites “estimating a risk”, “measuring current operation data of the boiler”, “computing an average of the measured bed temperatures”, “computing a standard deviation of measured bed temperature”, “computing a difference between measured bed maximum temperature and measured bed minimum temperature”, “computing S spread” and “prepare a bed sintering index”. These are all mental steps without additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Also the limitation of “computing a standard deviation of measured bed temperature”, “computing a difference between measured bed maximum temperature and measured bed minimum temperature”, and “computing a spread” are concepts of mathematical relationship or formula. Therefore claim 36 recites mental steps that are done by human observation and evaluation and can be performed in human mind.
As for the limitation “upon detecting the bed sintering index exceeding a predefined criterion, performing at least one of automatically adjusting combustion boiler operation and generating an alert informing boiler operator of a bed sintering condition” in claim 28, it is noted that this limitation is a contingent limitation. See MPEP 2111.04 II, “The broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met…. See Ex parte Schulhauser… "[i]f the condition for performing a contingent step is not satisfied, the performance recited by the step need not be carried out in order for the claimed method to be performed"… Therefore "[t]he Examiner did not need to present evidence of the obviousness of the [ ] method steps of claim 1 that are not required to be performed under a broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim”. This step of “performing…” depends upon the occurrence of bed sintering index exceeding a predefined criterion. Therefore under broadest reasonable interpretation for this limitation, this method step is not positively recited as actually occurring and this method step is not required.
Therefore none of claims 19-36 amounts to significantly more than abstract ideas and claims 19-36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05 August 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding applicant’s argument that 101 rejections were overcome, examiner respectfully disagree. As explained in the rejections above, the amendment didn’t overcome 101 rejections and therefore the 101 rejections are maintained.
Conclusion
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 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, 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.
/KO-WEI LIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3762
Prosecution Insights