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 1 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites “a second flame sensor”, but the limitation doesn’t have “a first flame sensor”. It is unclear if applicant intended to claim “a first flame sensor” instead.
Many of the dependent claims recites “The A” or “The An” in first line. These need to be changed to “The”.
In claim 3 line 3, “a number” needs to be changed to “the number”.
In claim 3 line 3, “a position” needs to be changed to “the position”.
Claims 9 and 10 recite “according to the proceeding claim”. This needs to be changed to clearly specify what claim they depend on.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-13 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.
Claim 1 recites “electrical feature”. It’s not clear what an electrical feature is.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the position" in line 9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Examiner recommend applicant to amend this limitation to “a position”.
Claim 1 recites “s” used as a symbol for both “degree of opening” and “position of actuator”. It’s not clear if applicant intended to use different symbols for different parameters.
Claim 1 recites “n” used as a symbol for both “number of revs” and “number of revs per minute”. It’s not clear if applicant intended to use different symbols for different parameters.
Claim 1 recites “W” used as a symbol for both “thermal powered supplied” and “thermal power required”. It’s not clear if applicant intended to use different symbols for different parameters. (NOTE: a thermal power being supplied doesn’t necessarily mean the same as thermal power that is required).
Claim 1 recites a table T1, T2. It is not clear how two parameters are used to refer to the same table.
Claim 1 preamble states “a method…”, but the main body of the claim doesn’t have an active method step. It’s not clear what method step is needed for claim 1.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the ratio" in line 9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Examiner recommend applicant to amend this limitation to “a ratio”.
Claim 1 recites “it” in last line. It’s not clear what “it” refers to.
Claim 2 recites “said table T”, but claim 1 says “a table T1, T2”. It’s not clear as to if T means T1 or T2.
Claim 3 recites “an initial calibration procedure”, and then continues with “the following steps…setting…, modifying…”. It’s not clear if initial calibration procedure includes those following steps.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "said at least one electrical parameter" in line 8 and “said electrical parameter” in line 10 (and line 15). There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the desired excess air" in line 13-14. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Claim 5 recites “an adjustment step”, and then continues with “the following steps…reading…, reading…”. It’s not clear if adjustment procedure includes those following steps.
Claim 5 recites “a table, T1, T2”. It’s not clear if the table of claim 5 refers to the same limitation in claim 1.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the adjustment valve" in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Claim 6 recites “an adjustment step”, and then continues with “the following steps…reading…”. It’s not clear if adjustment step includes those following steps.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the flame sensor" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. NOTE: claim 1 says “a second flame sensor”, NOT a flame sensor.
Claim 6 recites “W1”, “n1” and “s1”. It’s not clear what those parameters are.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the adjustment valve" in line 7 and again in last line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Claim 6 recites “a value s1n”. it’s not clear what that value is.
Claim 7 recites “an adjustment step”, and then continues with “the following steps…varying…”. It’s not clear if adjustment step includes those following steps.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the flame sensor" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. NOTE: claim 1 says “a second flame sensor”, NOT a flame sensor.
Claim 7 recites the parameters R and Δs. it’s not clear what those symbol represent.
Claim 8 recites “a first gas” twice. It’s not clear as to if they refer to the same first gas.
Claim 10 recites “at least one electrical parameter of the flame of the burner”. However claim 8 recites the same limitation. It’s not clear if they both refer to the same at least one electrical parameter of the flame of the burner.
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 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Fischer (EP 3825523. See attached translation).
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.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fischer (EP 3825623. See attached translation) in view of Munsterhuis (US 20060105279).
Regarding claim 8, Fischer teaches an apparatus “for monitoring and controlling the composition of a gas mixture comprising a first gas and a second combustible gas” (This is intended use), said apparatus comprising:
a fan (8, fig 2) for adjusting the flow of a first gas (air 31),
a valve (11, fig 2) adapted to adjust the composition of said gas mixture,
a burner (1, fig 2) adapted to burn said gas mixture,
also Fischer fig 2 shows that a communication signal from fan motor 9 is sent to the controller
at least one second sensor (3, fig 2) arranged close to the flame of the burner and adapted to measure at least one electrical parameter of the flame of the burner,
a controller (7, fig 2) adapted to pilot said fan and said valve based on the processing of the signals the communication signal and from said at least one second sensor (See fig 2).
Munsterhuis teaches a first sensor adapted to measure the number of revs of the fan ([0014] “Combustion air fan 46 includes an RPM sensor 46a associated therewith to produce a signal indicative of fan speed on a line 46b to the controller 16.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Fischer as taught by Munsterhuis by adding a fan rpm sensor to the system in order to monitor the fan operation and make sure enough air is drawn into the system for complete combustion.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fischer (EP 3825623. See attached translation) in view of Munsterhuis (US 20060105279), and further in view of Tupa (US 20220010958).
Regarding claim 12, Fischer in view of Munsterhuis teaches all the limitations of claim 12.
Fischer in view of Munsterhuis fails to teach a further absolute pressure sensor associated with said fan and adapted to measure the pressure of said gas mixture.
Tupa teaches a further absolute pressure sensor associated with said fan and adapted to measure the pressure of said gas mixture ([0081] “controller assembly 250 is communicatively coupled to a pressure sensor 260 that is configured to detect a pressure within inlet nozzle 153 (or another point upstream of the premix blower 152)”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Fischer in view of Munsterhuis as taught by Tupa to incorporate a pressure sensor to the system in order to monitor pressure in the system to make sure enough gas mixture pressure is provided to the combustion burner.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-7 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 9-11 and 13 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 and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
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, 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
