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 3, 10 and 16 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 3 recites “wherein increase the amount of gas…” in the seventh line of the claim. This appears to be a grammatical error which should be amended as follows: “wherein increasing the amount of gas”.
Claim 10 recites “wherein adjust the amount of gas…” in the seventh line of the claim. This appears to be a grammatical error which should be amended as follows: “wherein adjusting the amount of gas”.
Claim 16 recites “wherein adjust the amount of gas…” in the seventh line of the claim. This appears to be a grammatical error which should be amended as follows: “wherein adjusting the amount of gas”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claims 1-2, 6-9, 13-15 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2001/0051321 A1 (hereinafter “LA FONTAINE”).
Regarding Claims 1-2, 8-9 and 15, LA FONTAINE discloses a heating appliance, a method and/or a system comprising: a pressure sensor (36/48); a controller (40) configured to: receive, from the pressure sensor and at a first time, a first atmospheric pressure measurement of an ambient environment; receive, from the pressure sensor and at a second time, a second atmospheric pressure measurement of an ambient environment; determine that the second atmospheric pressure measurement is less than the first atmospheric pressure measurement; and adjust an amount of gas or an amount of air provided to a combustion chamber of the heating appliance based on the determination; wherein the controller is further configured to: receive, from the pressure sensor and at a third time, a third atmospheric pressure measurement of an ambient environment; determine that the third atmospheric pressure measurement is greater than the second atmospheric pressure measurement; and decrease an amount of gas or an amount of air provided to a combustion chamber of the furnace (see at least the Abstract: “An ambient atmospheric pressure sensor is provided to sense ambient atmospheric pressure and generates a signal representative of ambient atmospheric pressure to a microprocessor… Based on this signal the microprocessor generates a control signal to the air blower to either increase or decrease the amount of combustion air delivered to the combustion chamber to provide optimal fuel combustion at the sensed ambient atmospheric pressure. Alternatively, the throttle may be used to vary the amount of combustion air delivered to the combustion chamber. Optionally, the microprocessor can be used to regulate the amount of fuel delivered to the combustion chamber in relation to the sensed ambient atmospheric pressure.”).
Regarding Claims 6, 13 and 19, LA FONTAINE further discloses wherein the controller (40) is further configured to disable an inducer fan (16) of the heating appliance for a threshold period of time, wherein the controller is configured to receive the first atmospheric pressure measurement after the threshold period of time (see the last sentence of para. [0050]: “Automatic recycling of a lockout condition on a predetermined time period could also be included in control system logic.” For the broader discussion of the safety shut off protocol see: “[0049] In the preferred embodiment of my invention and to ensure the safe operation of the gas-fired appliance at various elevations, it is possible to modify the safety shut-off device set point as a function of elevation. The safety shut-off set point is stored in the memory device (41) of microprocessor (40). Signal (38) is received by the microprocessor (40) from ambient atmospheric pressure measuring device (36) or manual input (42). Microprocessor (40) adjusts the safety shut-off set point stored in memory (41) as a function of elevation as determined by ambient atmospheric pressure. [0050] In one embodiment of my invention, the safety shut-off device comprises a device (48) that measures the differential pressure between combustion air intake conduit (10) and combustion air delivery conduit (22). Signal (51) proportional to the measured differential pressure is sent to microprocessor (40). Microprocessor (40) compares the received signal (52) with the elevation-modified set-point stored in memory (41). If the received signal (52) falls within an predetermined acceptable range but is not optimum when compared to the set-point the microprocessor (40) will adjust the speed of the electric motor (18) so that measured differential pressure remains within safe operating parameters. If the received signal falls outside an acceptable range and into an unsafe operating configuration then the microprocessor will shut down the appliance. The microprocessor (40) follows the logic as shown in FIG. 2. Upper limits for the speed of the combustion air blower motor (18) may also form a part of the control strategy. Should a predetermined maximum blower motor speed be reached without satisfying the flow or pressure targets determined by the microprocessor (40) then the microprocessor will shut down and lock-out the appliance. A trouble shooting diagnostic indicator may also be included to indicate the nature of the cause of the lockout condition to service personnel. Automatic recycling of a lockout condition on a predetermined time period could also be included in control system logic.”).
Regarding Claims 7, 14 and 20, LA FONTAINE further discloses wherein the controller (40) is further configured to: determine that the first atmospheric pressure measurement surpasses a threshold pressure value for more than a threshold period of time; and disable operation of the heating appliance (see para. [0050]: “If the received signal falls outside an acceptable range and into an unsafe operating configuration then the microprocessor will shut down the appliance. The microprocessor (40) follows the logic as shown in FIG. 2. Upper limits for the speed of the combustion air blower motor (18) may also form a part of the control strategy. Should a predetermined maximum blower motor speed be reached without satisfying the flow or pressure targets determined by the microprocessor (40) then the microprocessor will shut down and lock-out the appliance.” The time needed to reach a predetermined maximum blower motor speed comprising the threshold period of time.).
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 4, 11 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LA FONTAINE in view of US 2021/0317988 A1 (hereinafter “MITCHELL”).
Regarding Claims 4, 11 and 17, LA FONTAINE does not disclose wherein the pressure sensor is wirelessly coupled to the controller, and wherein the controller is configured to wirelessly receive the first atmospheric pressure measurement from the pressure sensor.
MITCHELL teaches a heating appliance, method and/or system wherein the pressure sensor (122) is wirelessly coupled to the controller (118), and wherein the controller is configured to wirelessly receive the first atmospheric pressure measurement from the pressure sensor ([0037] The controller 118 can be an integrated hardware device that includes the processor 120 and/or the barometric pressure sensor 122, as shown in FIG. 2. Alternatively, the barometric pressure sensor 122 can be a separate device, and the separate barometric pressure sensor 122 can be in communication with the controller 118 via a wired or wireless connection. The byproduct sensor 116 can also be in communication with the controller 118 via a wired or wireless connection. Additionally, the temperature sensor 132 can be in communication with the controller 118 via a wired or wireless connection.).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify LA FONTAINE wherein the pressure sensor is wirelessly coupled to the controller, and wherein the controller is configured to wirelessly receive the first atmospheric pressure measurement from the pressure sensor as taught and/or suggested by MITCHELL, since such a modification would provide greater placement/location flexibility and easier setup with regard to said pressure sensor and controller as compared to a wired setup which adds complication and limitations due to the required routing of a wire between said pressure sensor and controller.
Claims 5, 12 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LA FONTAINE in view of US 20210325050 A1 (hereinafter “VIE”).
Regarding Claims 5, 12 and 18, LA FONTAINE does not disclose wherein the controller is further configured to: transmit the first atmospheric pressure measurement to an external device for presentation to a user through a user interface of the external device.
VIE teaches a heating appliance, method and/or system wherein a controller (200) is further configured to: transmit the first atmospheric pressure measurement (see 130) to an external device (144) for presentation to a user through a user interface of the external device ([0036] The communication interface 336 allows the user to wirelessly and remotely communicate with the spark ignition controller 300 using mobile device 144. In the example embodiment, the communication interface 336 includes Bluetooth and near field communication (NFC) modules, thereby allowing the user's mobile device 144 to communicate with the spark ignition controller 300 using NFC or Bluetooth communication. Other embodiments include only one of NFC or Bluetooth communication modules. Still other embodiments include one or more other communications modules, such as a Wi-Fi module, in addition or instead of the NFC and/or Bluetooth modules. When the mobile device 144 is communicatively connected to spark ignition controller 300, the user can use a program or application on the mobile device 144 to configure the spark ignition controller 300, rather than needing to use the user interface 332. Moreover, the communication interface is used, in some embodiments, for communicating with remote components of the system 100. For example, a Bluetooth enabled temperature sensor may be communicatively coupled to the spark ignition controller 300 through the communication interface 336 or a portion of the communication interface 336.).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify LA FONTAINE wherein the controller is further configured to: transmit the first atmospheric pressure measurement to an external device for presentation to a user through a user interface of the external device as taught and/or suggested by VIE, since such a modification would allow a user to use a program or application on the mobile device to remotely configure the controller rather than needing to use the user interface on the controller itself (see VIE, para. [0036]); In addition, such a modification would provide a user with a great variety of choices for said mobile device, such as a mobile phone, a tablet computing device, a laptop computing device, a smart watch, or the like, which may be used for wireless communication with the spark ignition controller (see VIE, para. [0019]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3, 10 and 16 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. Also note the claim objections above.
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
