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 .
Election/Restrictions
Restriction to one of the following inventions is required under 35 U.S.C. 121:
I. Claims 1-14, drawn to a method for controlling a combustion system, classified in F23N 5/025.
II. Claims 15-20, drawn to a method or system for reducing emissions of a combustion system, classified in F24B 1/006.
The inventions are independent or distinct, each from the other because:
Inventions I and II are directed to related methods and/or systems. The related inventions are distinct if: (1) the inventions as claimed are either not capable of use together or can have a materially different design, mode of operation, function, or effect; (2) the inventions do not overlap in scope, i.e., are mutually exclusive; and (3) the inventions as claimed are not obvious variants. See MPEP § 806.05(j). In the instant case, the inventions as claimed can have a materially different design, mode of operation, function, or effect. Furthermore, the inventions as claimed do not encompass overlapping subject matter and there is nothing of record to show them to be obvious variants.
Restriction for examination purposes as indicated is proper because all the inventions listed in this action are independent or distinct for the reasons given above and there would be a serious search and/or examination burden if restriction were not required because one or more of the following reasons apply:
The different groups or inventions would require searching different classifications along with unique text searches queries.
Applicant is advised that the reply to this requirement to be complete must include (i) an election of an invention to be examined even though the requirement may be traversed (37 CFR 1.143) and (ii) identification of the claims encompassing the elected invention.
The election of an invention may be made with or without traverse. To reserve a right to petition, the election must be made with traverse. If the reply does not distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election shall be treated as an election without traverse. Traversal must be presented at the time of election in order to be considered timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are added after the election, applicant must indicate which of these claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
During a telephone conversation with YIWEN ARTEMIS LAI on August 17, 2026 a provisional election was made without traverse to prosecute the invention of claims 1-14. Affirmation of this election must be made by applicant in replying to this Office action. Claims 15-20 are withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention.
Applicant is reminded that upon the cancelation of claims to a non-elected invention, the inventorship must be corrected in compliance with 37 CFR 1.48(a) if one or more of the currently named inventors is no longer an inventor of at least one claim remaining in the application. A request to correct inventorship under 37 CFR 1.48(a) must be accompanied by an application data sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.76 that identifies each inventor by his or her legal name and by the processing fee required under 37 CFR 1.17(i).
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.
Claim 14 is 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 14 recites “wherein determining the transition from the initiation phase to the initiation transition phase”. This limitation is firstly introduced in Claim 12 however, Claim 14 depends from Claim 11 which does not recite this limitation thus, there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The Examiner respectfully suggests amending Claim 14 so that it is dependent on Claim 12 in order to cure the lack of antecedent basis.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-2 and 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 10,041,682 B1 (hereinafter “MYERS”) in view of US 20210278087 A1 (hereinafter “HODGES”).
Regarding Claim 1, MYERS discloses a method for controlling a combustion system comprising a chamber sensor (110/112), an exhaust sensor (also 110/112), a primary actuator (32) associated with primary airflow (62; see also Col. 10, Lns. 44-45: “The forced air combined with the manifolds' mechanics permits control of air introduction and circulation.”), a secondary actuator (also 32) associated with secondary airflow (78/82; see also Col. 10, Lns. 44-45: “The forced air combined with the manifolds' mechanics permits control of air introduction and circulation.”), and at least one processor (97) in communication with the chamber sensor (see Fig. 9), the exhaust sensor, the primary actuator and the secondary actuator, the method comprising: when the combustion system is in at least one of an initiation phase or an initiation transition phase, controlling, with the at least one processor, the primary actuator and the secondary actuator based on an initiation configuration (see at least Col. 4, Lns. 58-62: “The processor unit of the controller system is configured with a Combustion Fan Speed Control unit, adapted to increase the speed of the combustion fan at a start-up mode of the stove system operation, and regulate air flow throughout operation.”); determining, with the at least one processor, a transition of the combustion system to an equilibrium phase based at least in part on: a comparison of at least one chamber temperature measurement received from the chamber sensor with a chamber endothermic setpoint; and a comparison of at least one exhaust temperature measurement received from the exhaust sensor with an exhaust ignition setpoint; and when the combustion system is in the equilibrium phase, controlling, with the at least one processor, the primary actuator and the secondary actuator based on an equilibrium configuration (see Col. 15, Lns. 48-58: “Although, it is shown in the fan speed logic loop 132, that the controller operates based on the input readings of temperature sensors, it is contemplated also that the readings on the state of the burning process in the subject oven system may be made based on reading from the oxygen sensor, or alternatively, based on a combination of temperature and oxygen sensors. No matter what sensor(s) provide(s) the reading into the controller, all inputs are monitored continuously by the Smart Controller and adjustments to the combustion fan speed and the catalyst protection loop are affected dynamically as soon as variables change.” See also Col. 16, Lns. 18-25: “The subject oven system is exceedingly efficient due to a complete combustion of the fuel in a multi-phase combustion process facilitated by the air injection/distribution system embedded in the stove, and through the use of a well-controlled forced air supply for both primary combustion phase and the secondary combustion phase provided by the combustion fan 32 dynamically regulated by the Smart Controller 74 based on the burning conditions in the stove.”; See also Fig. 10).
The Examiner takes the position that MYERS’ combustion air fan (32) reads on the primary actuator and secondary actuator limitation since it is associated with both the primary airflow and the secondary airflow. However, MYERS does not disclose separate actuators.
In the interest of compact prosecution HODGES teaches a method for controlling a combustion system comprising a primary actuator (20) associated with primary airflow, a secondary actuator associated with secondary airflow (see para. [0008]: “The system further includes airflow valves, dampers and/or slide gates to control intake air passageways in a primary combustion air intake, a secondary combustion air intake, and/or a pilot air intake. The temperature sensors, combustion air blower, and airflow valves are preferably connected to a central processor such that the processor is capable of receiving input signals from the sensors and controlling the blower and the airflow valves.”). In addition, HODGES further teaches a control method comprising an initiation phase and a transition to an equilibrium phase based, at least in part, on a sensed temperature (see para. [0036]: “Control of the operation of the automatic ignition and combustion air systems will at times require central processor 13 to balance the generation of higher than normal levels of particulate matter against the need to establish an ignition of the main charge of fuel in the store, while appreciating that higher levels of particulate matter are likely to report to exhaust streams during times of start up. At this time the central processor may be in what may be referred to as a “start-up” mode. Once the temperature sensors indicate that the primary fuel charge has been ignited (or in an alternate embodiment after a pre-determined time), central processor 13 can switch to an operational mode where intake air can be more closely controlled to minimize particulate matter generation without the threat of snuffing out the flame.”)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify MYERS to comprise a separate primary actuator associated with primary airflow and a separate secondary actuator associated with secondary airflow as taught and/or suggested by HODGES, since such a modification would provide individualized and greater control over both the primary airflow and the secondary airflow thereby providing a more fine-tuned control of said combustion system.
Regarding Claim 2, MYERS further discloses wherein determining the transition to the equilibrium phase further comprises determining that the transition to the equilibrium phase has occurred when the at least one chamber temperature measurement is greater than the chamber endothermic setpoint (see Col. 5, Lns. 5-8: “Additionally, the controller adjusts the speed of the combustion fan to correspond to a predetermined mode of the stove system operation if the temperature in the combustion chamber exceeds the predetermined high threshold.”).
Regarding Claims 12 and 13, HODGES further teaches further comprising at least one of: determining, with the at least one processor (13), a transition into the initiation phase (i.e., a start-up mode; see para. [0036]: “During start up, until the stove senses that the primary fuel charge has been ignited (for example, until temperature sensors 21 record a temperature of a pre-determined level) it is expected that combustion will be less than optimum and that excessive particulate matter may be created. Control of the operation of the automatic ignition and combustion air systems will at times require central processor 13 to balance the generation of higher than normal levels of particulate matter against the need to establish an ignition of the main charge of fuel in the store, while appreciating that higher levels of particulate matter are likely to report to exhaust streams during times of start up. At this time the central processor may be in what may be referred to as a “start-up” mode.”); and determining, with the at least one processor (13), a transition from the initiation phase to the initiation transition phase; wherein determining the transition into the initiation phase comprises determining whether an ignition event has occurred (see again para. [0036]: “Once the temperature sensors indicate that the primary fuel charge has been ignited (or in an alternate embodiment after a pre-determined time), central processor 13 can switch to an operational mode where intake air can be more closely controlled to minimize particulate matter generation without the threat of snuffing out the flame.”).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-11 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.
Claim 14 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
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure because the references are either in the same field of endeavor or are reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the applicant was concerned. Please see form PTO-892 (Notice of References Cited) attached to, or included with, this Office Action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JORGE A PEREIRO whose telephone number is (571)270-3932 and whose fax number is (571) 270-4932. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9:00 - 5:00 EST.
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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JORGE A PEREIRO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3799
Prosecution Insights