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 .
DETAILED ACTION
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 6-7 and 16-17 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 6 recites “wherein the signal processor or processing module is configured to make a comparison of at least five samples and determine a maximum peak value for two test channels; and if the maximum peak value is greater than a predetermined allowable limit, then provide the corresponding signaling”. It is unclear if the samples come from one of the channels or both of the channels. It is unclear if the maximum peak value is for the two channels or only the five samples. It is unclear what the corresponding signaling comprises as it was previously for turning off the boiler but this appears to allow other actions. For examination purposes Examiner will interpret this to be at least five samples for each channel and then determining the peak value pertains to the peak value of both channels so there is only one output, and examiner will interpret the corresponding signaling to be to turn off the boiler. Claim 16 will be interpreted likewise.
Claim 7 recites “wherein the signal processor or processing module is configured to determine a percentage difference based upon the following relationship: Abs (1st test channel measurement - 2nd test channel measurement) 1st test channel measurement; or Abs (1st test channel measurement - 2nd test channel measurement) 2nd test channel measurement”. It is unclear how this is performed if there are no second or first channel measurements which appear to be possible per claim 6. Examiner will interpret this to require five samples for each channel per the interpretation of claim 6. Claim 17 will be interpreted likewise.
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(s) 1-3, 8-9, 11-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. PGPUB 20170234527 to Shah et al. (Shah).
Regarding claims 1, Shah teaches a probe (14, Figure 1), comprising: a signal processor or processing module configured to receive signaling containing information about a difference in conductance between samples of a foam/unstable fluid line for a predetermined foam difference count that are measured on at least one test channel and sensed by the probe (boiler controller, 20, Figure 1 as disclosed in Figure 2) arranged inside a boiler (probe shown in the boiler, 12, Figure 1), including a steam or hot water boiler or burner (12, Figure 1 is a steam or hot water boiler which is also disclosed as a burner per Paragraph 0053); and provide corresponding signaling containing information to turn OFF the boiler, based upon the signaling received (Paragraph 0054).
Regarding claim 2, Shah teaches wherein the signaling contains information about successive samples measured on one test channel (D, Figure 2 and Paragraphs 0053-0054. The place where the data is stored is considered a single test channel).
Regarding claim 3, Shah teaches wherein the one test channel is either a first test channel or a second test channel (channel can be considered a first or a second channel).
Regarding claim 8, Shah teaches wherein the signal processor or processing module is configured to make a comparison between a present test measurement and an average of previous test measurement value; and if the comparison is less that a predetermined percentage for a predetermined Delay on Break (DOM) time, then provide the corresponding signaling signaling containing information to turn ON the boiler, based upon the comparison (Paragraphs 0052 and Figure 2).
Regarding claim 9, Shah teaches wherein the signal processor or processing module is configured to make the comparison based upon the following relationship: Σ Previous test channel measurements (N) N (averaging is disclosed in at least D, Figure 2).
Regarding claims 11-13 and 18-19 the method claims are taught per the normal operation of the device in claims 1-3 and 8-9 above.
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) 4-5, 10, 14-15, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shah.
Regarding claim 4, Shah is silent on wherein the signaling contains information about simultaneous samples measured at the same instant on different test channels. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to provide multiple probes 14 and multiple test channels, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960)). When implemented because these operate while the device is on would result in simultaneous measurement.
Regarding claim 5, Shah is silent on wherein the different test channels are a first test channel and a second test channel. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to provide multiple test channels, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960)).
Regarding claim 10, Shah is silent on wherein N is at least 5.
Shah teaches any number for the number of samples and gives an example of three. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to provide at least five samples, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art.
Regarding claims 14-15 and 20 the method claims are taught per the normal operation of the device in claims 4-5 and 10 above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEVEN S ANDERSON II whose telephone number is (571)272-2055. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5.
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, Michael Hoang can be reached at 574-272-6460. 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.
/STEVEN S ANDERSON II/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3762
