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 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 1-9 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 introduces “one or more redundancy signals” in line 10, however, the claim also introduces “one or more redundancy signals” in line 5. It is unclear if the applicant is introducing new redundancy signals or referring back to the redundancy signals already claimed. For the purposes of examination the claim is interpreted as requiring “the one or more redundancy signals” in line 10.
Claims 2-9 are rejected based on their dependency on claim 1.
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) 1-4 and 7-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bohan (US 4,560,343) in view of Kaplan (US 2010/0075264 A1).
With respect to claim 1 Bohan discloses a gas ignition system for a gas cooking appliance, comprising: an ignition component [reference character 32] configured to provide a feedback signal [reference characters 67 or 82] indicative of a temperature of the ignition component [see column 2 line 55 through column 3 line 3]; a gas valve [reference character 45] configured to provide gas to the ignition component based at least in part on an enable signal [reference character 71]; and an ignition controller [reference character 53] operably coupled to the ignition component and the gas valve, the ignition controller comprising: an enable circuit [see Figs. 3-5] configured to provide the enable signal based at least in part on the feedback signal.
Bohan does not disclose that gas valve provides gas to the ignition component based on one or more redundancy signals and one or more redundancy circuits configured to provide one or more redundancy signals based at least in part on the feedback signal.
Kaplan discloses an ignition control circuit that includes a main processor [reference character 106] and a supervisory processor [reference character 108] that each independently receive a feedback signal (interpreted as the enable and redundancy signals) from a flame sense electrode [reference character 110] and the gas valves [reference character 102 and 104] provide gas to the igniter based on the enable and redundancy signals [via reference characters 116 and 118].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing date of the invention to modify the ignition control system taught by Bohan by including a redundant ignition control and flame monitoring circuit, as taught by Kaplan, in order to provide redundant and fail safe operation [see Abstract of Kaplan].
With respect to claim 2 the combination of Bohan and Kaplan disclose a first redundancy circuit configured to provide a first redundancy signal based at least in part on the feedback signal [see Fig. 1 of Kaplan].
Neither Bohan nor Kaplan disclose a second redundancy circuit configured to provide a second redundancy signal based at least in part on the feedback signal. However, providing a second redundancy circuit involves an obvious duplication of the essential working parts of the invention, where providing a second redundancy circuit would provide secondary redundancy. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing date of the invention was to provide a second redundancy circuit, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
With respect to claim 3 the combination of Bohan and Kaplan, as described in the rejection for claim 2, would require that the enable circuit, the first redundancy circuit, and the second redundancy circuit are independent electrical pathways of the ignition controller. Since the enable and redundancy circuit by Kaplan are independent a person having ordinary skill in the art would also make the second redundancy circuit independent.
With respect to claim 4 the combination of Bohan and Kaplan disclose that the enable signal and the one or more redundancy signals are provided based at least in part on a comparison of the feedback signal to a threshold [see column 6 lines 18-27 of Bohan, where the threshold is binary between the presence or absence of a flame rectification signal] indicative of an ignition temperature of the ignition component.
With respect to claim 7 the combination of Bohan and Kaplan disclose that the enable signal and the one or more redundancy signals are provided based at least in part on a call for heat signal [reference characters 66 and 81 of Bohan], the call for heat signal indicating that the gas valve corresponds to the ignition component.
With respect to claim 8 the combination of Bohan and Kaplan disclose that the ignition component comprises: a positive temperature coefficient (PTC) HSI [see column 4 line 3] operable to ignite the gas at an ignition temperature, wherein the feedback signal is indicative of a temperature of the positive temperature coefficient (PTC) HIS [see column 2 line 55 through column 3 line 3].
Claim(s) 10-13 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bohan (US 4,560,343) in view of Kaplan (US 2010/0075264 A1).
With respect to claim 10 Bohan discloses a method for providing gas to an ignition component [reference character 32] of a gas cooking appliance, comprising: receiving, from the ignition component, a feedback signal [reference characters 67 or 82] indicative of a temperature of the ignition component [see column 2 line 55 through column 3 line 3]; determining, by an enable circuit [see Figs. 3-5] of an ignition controller, an enable signal [reference character 71] based at least in part on the feedback signal; and providing gas to the ignition component based at least in part on the enable signal and the one or more redundancy signals [reference character 71].
Bohan does not disclose that gas valve provides gas to the ignition component based on one or more redundancy signals and one or more redundancy circuits configured to provide one or more redundancy signals based at least in part on the feedback signal.
Kaplan discloses an ignition control circuit that includes a main processor [reference character 106] and a supervisory processor [reference character 108] that each independently receive a feedback signal (interpreted as the enable and redundancy signals) from a flame sense electrode [reference character 110] and the gas valves [reference character 102 and 104] provide gas to the igniter based on the enable and redundancy signals [via reference characters 116 and 118].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing date of the invention to modify the ignition control system taught by Bohan by including a redundant ignition control and flame monitoring circuit, as taught by Kaplan, in order to provide redundant and fail safe operation [see Abstract of Kaplan].
With respect to claim 11 the combination of Bohan and Kaplan disclose that a first redundancy signal provided by a first redundancy circuit, the first redundancy signal being based at least in part on the feedback signal [see Fig. 1 of Kaplan].
Bohan does not disclose a second redundancy signal provided by a second redundancy circuit, the second redundancy signal being based at least in part on the feedback signal. However, providing a second redundancy circuit involves an obvious duplication of the essential working parts of the invention, where providing a second redundancy circuit would provide secondary redundancy. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing date of the invention was to provide a second redundancy circuit, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
With respect to claim 12 the combination of Bohan and Kaplan disclose that the enable circuit, the first redundancy circuit, and the second redundancy circuit, as described in the rejection for claim 12, are independent electrical pathways of the ignition controller. Since the enable and redundancy circuit by Kaplan are independent a person having ordinary skill in the art would also make the second redundancy circuit independent.
With respect to claim 13 the combination of Bohan and Kaplan disclose that the enable signal and the one or more redundancy signals are determined based at least in part on a comparison of the feedback signal to a threshold [see column 6 lines 18-27 of Bohan, where the threshold is binary between the presence or absence of a flame rectification signal] indicative of an ignition temperature of the ignition component.
With respect to claim 15 the combination of Bohan and Kaplan disclose that the enable signal and the one or more redundancy signals are provided based at least in part on a call for heat signal [reference characters 66 and 81 of Bohan], the call for heat signal indicating that a gas valve providing the gas to the ignition component corresponds to the ignition component.
Claim(s) 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bohan (US 4,560,343) in view of Kaplan (US 2010/0075264 A1).
With respect to claim 18 a gas cooking appliance, comprising: one or more ignition components [reference character 32] configured to provide one or more feedback signals [reference characters 67 or 82] indicative of a temperature of the one or more ignition components [see column 2 line 55 through column 3 line 3]; one or more gas valves [reference character 45] configured to provide gas to the one or more ignition components based at least in part on an enable signal [reference character 71]; and an ignition controller [reference character 53] operably coupled to the one or more ignition components and the one or more gas valves [see Figs. 3-5], the ignition controller comprising: an enable circuit [see Figs. 3-5] configured to provide the enable signal based at least in part on a feedback signal
Bohan does not disclose that gas valve provides gas to the ignition component based on one or more redundancy signals and one or more redundancy circuits configured to provide one or more redundancy signals based at least in part on the feedback signal.
Kaplan discloses an ignition control circuit that includes a main processor [reference character 106] and a supervisory processor [reference character 108] that each independently receive a feedback signal (interpreted as the enable and redundancy signals) from a flame sense electrode [reference character 110] and the gas valves [reference character 102 and 104] provide gas to the igniter based on the enable and redundancy signals [via reference characters 116 and 118].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing date of the invention to modify the ignition control system taught by Bohan by including a redundant ignition control and flame monitoring circuit, as taught by Kaplan, in order to provide redundant and fail safe operation [see Abstract of Kaplan].
With respect to claim 19 the combination of Bohan and Kaplan disclose that the enable signal and the one or more redundancy signals are provided based at least in part on a call for heat signal [reference characters 66 and 81 of Bohan], the call for heat signal indicating that a gas valve of the one or more gas valves corresponds to an ignition component of the one or more ignition components that provided the feedback signal.
With respect to claim 20 the combination of Bohan and Kaplan disclose a first redundancy circuit configured to provide a first redundancy signal based at least in part on the feedback signal [see Fig. 1 of Kaplan].
Neither Bohan nor Kaplan disclose a second redundancy circuit configured to provide a second redundancy signal based at least in part on the feedback signal. However, providing a second redundancy circuit involves an obvious duplication of the essential working parts of the invention, where providing a second redundancy circuit would provide secondary redundancy. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing date of the invention was to provide a second redundancy circuit, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
Claim(s) 9 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bohan (US 4,560,343) in view of Kaplan (US 2010/0075264 A1) in view of Deng (US 9,022,064 B2).
With respect to claims 9 and 16 the combination of Bohan and Kaplan does not disclose that the enable circuit and the one or more redundancy circuits are positioned within a controller package of the ignition controller.
Deng discloses a burner control device where the control board [reference character 103] and associated ignition control circuits [see Fig. 2] are located within a controller package [reference character 100 in Figs. 2-3].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing date of the invention to incorporate the enable circuit and the redundancy circuit into a single housing, as taught by Deng, in order to allow for simple replacement of the unit.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 14 and 17 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VIVEK K SHIRSAT whose telephone number is (571)272-3722. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00AM-5:20AM.
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.
/VIVEK K SHIRSAT/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3762
Prosecution Insights