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 Objections
Claim 3 is objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a duplicate of claim 2. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 6, 7, 13-15, 18, 20, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Osaka (JP S6082720), which shows all of the claimed limitations. Osaka shows:
1. (Currently Amended) A burner control system, comprising: a controller 13; a burner 1 connectable to a combustible gas supply 4 and comprising a controllable valve 5,7 coupled to the controller (fig. 1); and an optical sensor 35 arranged at the burner and coupled to the controller (fig. 5), wherein the controller is configured to determine a use state of the burner, from a group of use states comprising at least an ignition state, based on a measurement signal of the optical sensor that is indicative for a light level corresponding to said use state, and to selectively control the controllable valve in dependency of said use state of the burner (Abstract; page 88; inherent).
2. (Currently Amended) The burner control system according to claim 1, wherein the controller is configured to determine a load of the burner based on the measurement signal of the optical sensor and a known combustible gas-air ratio of the combustible gas emitted by the burner (Abstract; page 88; inherent).
3. (Currently Amended) The burner control system according to claim 1, wherein the controller is configured to determine a load of the burner based on the measurement signal of the optical sensor and a known combustible gas-air ratio of the combustible gas emitted by the burner (Abstract; page 88; inherent).
6. (Currently Amended) The burner control system according to claim 1, wherein the group of use states further comprises a combustion state, and the controller is configured to determine if the measurement signal indicative for the light level is above a pre-determined threshold indicative for a presence of a flame (page 88 – col. 3; inherent).
7. (Currently Amended) The burner control system according to claim 6, wherein the controller is configured to perform a safety procedure if the measurement signal indicative for a light level is below the pre-determined threshold indicative for the presence of a flame in the combustion state (page 88 – col. 3; inherent).
13. (Currently Amended) The burner control system according to claim 7, wherein the controller is configured to perform the safety procedure based on the measurement signal of the optical sensor by performing one or more than one of: closing the controllable valve of the burner; stopping an operation of a fan comprised by the burner control system; and performing a safety shutdown of the burner control system (Abstract; page 88; inherent).
14. (Currently Amended) The burner control system according to claim 4, wherein the optical sensor is the UV sensor (page 88, para. 6).
15. (Currently Amended) A method for controlling a burner control system of or for a heating system, the method comprising: obtaining a measurement signal of an optical sensor that is indicative for a light level; determining a use state of a burner, from a group of use states comprising at least an ignition state, based on the obtained measurement signal corresponding to said use state, wherein the burner is connectable to a combustible gas supply and comprised by the burner control system; and selectively controlling a controllable valve of the burner control system in dependency of said use state of the burner (see previous claims).
18. (Currently Amended) The method according to claim 15, wherein the group of use states further comprises a combustion state, the method further comprising: determining if the measurement signal indicative for the light level is above a pre-determined threshold indicative for the presence of a flame in the combustion state (see previous claims).
20. (Currently Amended) The method according to claim 19, the method further comprising performing a safety procedure if the measurement signal indicative for the light level is below a pre-determined threshold indicative for the presence of a flame (see previous claims).
22. (Currently Amended) The method according to claim 15, wherein performing the safety procedure comprises one or more of: closing the controllable valve of the burner; stopping an operation of a fan comprised by the burner control system; and performing a safety shutdown of the burner control system (see previous claims).
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 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 8-11 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Osaka (JP S6082720), which discloses substantially all of the claimed limitations.
Osaka teaches the invention as described above but fails to explicitly teach the spark generating igniter comprising a spark plug.
Official Notice is given that the use of a spark plug as an igniter is old and well known in the art.
Such an arrangement has the clear and obvious benefit of providing for effective combustion ignition.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate a spark plug igniter into the invention disclosed by Osaka, so as to provide for effective combustion ignition.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 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.
Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. These references disclose devices with many of the claimed components. Nevertheless, in order to avoid overburdening the applicant with redundant rejections, these references were not applied.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALFRED BASICHAS whose telephone number is 571 272 4871. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday during regular business hours.
To contact the examiner’s supervisor please call MICHAEL HOANG whose telephone number is 571 272 6460.
Any inquiry of a general nature or relating to the status of this application or proceeding should be directed to the Tech Center telephone number is 571 272 3700.
October 8, 2026
/ALFRED BASICHAS/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3762
