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 .
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-20 are currently pending.
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 11 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. Regarding claim 11, the phrase "such as" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
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.
Claim(s) 1, 5-7, 11-14, 16, 19, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US Patent No. 5,625,342 (Hall et al.).
Regarding claim 1, Hall discloses a flame detection system (fig. 1) comprising:
at least one monitoring device (14-20, fig. 1) comprising:
at least one primary flame detector (14) configured to detect one or more infrared (IR) signals from a "monitoring zone" (zone covered by IR detector 14); and
at least one secondary flame detector (16) configured to detect one or more IR signals from a "flame zone" (zone covered by IR detector 16 ; it is brought to the attention of the applicant that nothing in claim 1 defines clearly the "monitoring zone" and the "flame zone", nor is it clearly stated that said zones are somehow distinct, therefore it can be considered that said zones are not distinct, or are at least highly overlapping (as are implicitly the zones covered by each of the detectors 14 and 16 of D1) ); and
one or more processors (12) communicatively coupled to the at least one monitoring device (14-20, fig. 1), wherein the one or more processors are configured to:
receive the detected one or more IR signals from the "monitoring zone" (zone covered by IR detector 14) and the "flame zone" (zone covered by IR detector 16);
correlate the one or more IR signals from the "monitoring zone" with the one or more IR signals from the "flame zone" based at least on time and frequency domain of the detected one or more IR signals (col. 5 lines 14-30, especially "the shapes of the signals are compared to one another"; Abstract, The processor's algorithm employs a normalized cross-correlation analysis of the detector signals to discriminate between radiation received directly from a flame and radiation received from a reflection of a flame to insure that reflections will not trigger an alarm. In addition, the algorithm employs a Fast Fourier Transform (FFT) frequency spectrum analysis of one of the detector signals to discriminate between flames of different sizes. In a specific application, the detector incorporates two infrared (IR) detectors and one ultraviolet (UV) detector for discriminating between a directly sensed small hydrogen flame, and reflections from a large hydrogen flame. The signals generated by each of the detectors are sampled and digitized for analysis by the digital signal processor, preferably 250 times a second); and
determine a status of flame within the "monitoring zone" based at least on the correlation (col. 1 lines 13-16; col. 2 lines 46-49; col. 4 lines 16-20 ("If a high correlation is not present between at least one pair of the radiation detector signals")).
Regarding claim 5, Hall further discloses wherein the correlated one or more IR signals correspond to a partially correlated one or more IR signals (col. 5 lines 14-30, especially "the shapes of the signals are compared to one another"; Abstract, The processor's algorithm employs a normalized cross-correlation analysis of the detector signals to discriminate between radiation received directly from a flame and radiation received from a reflection of a flame to insure that reflections will not trigger an alarm. In addition, the algorithm employs a Fast Fourier Transform (FFT) frequency spectrum analysis of one of the detector signals to discriminate between flames of different sizes. In a specific application, the detector incorporates two infrared (IR) detectors and one ultraviolet (UV) detector for discriminating between a directly sensed small hydrogen flame, and reflections from a large hydrogen flame. The signals generated by each of the detectors are sampled and digitized for analysis by the digital signal processor, preferably 250 times a second).
Regarding claims 6 and 7, Hall further discloses wherein the one or more processors are configured to: analyze the partially correlated one or more IR signals; and determine the hazardous flame or the reflection of the friendly flame based on the analyzed partially correlated one or more IR signals and wherein the analyzed partially correlated one or more IR signals above a hazardous flame threshold value correspond to the hazardous flame and the analyzed partially correlated one or more IR signals below the hazardous flame threshold value correspond to the reflection of the friendly flame ((col. 5 lines 14-30, especially "the shapes of the signals are compared to one another"; Abstract, The processor's algorithm employs a normalized cross-correlation analysis of the detector signals to discriminate between radiation received directly from a flame and radiation received from a reflection of a flame to insure that reflections will not trigger an alarm. In addition, the algorithm employs a Fast Fourier Transform (FFT) frequency spectrum analysis of one of the detector signals to discriminate between flames of different sizes. In a specific application, the detector incorporates two infrared (IR) detectors and one ultraviolet (UV) detector for discriminating between a directly sensed small hydrogen flame, and reflections from a large hydrogen flame. The signals generated by each of the detectors are sampled and digitized for analysis by the digital signal processor, preferably 250 times a second).
Regarding claim 11, Hall further discloses wherein the correlation of the one or more IR signals is based at least on one or more metrics such as signal amplitudes at different frequencies, peaks and troughs in time domain (col. 5 lines 14-30, especially "the shapes of the signals are compared to one another"; Abstract, The processor's algorithm employs a normalized cross-correlation analysis of the detector signals to discriminate between radiation received directly from a flame and radiation received from a reflection of a flame to insure that reflections will not trigger an alarm. In addition, the algorithm employs a Fast Fourier Transform (FFT) frequency spectrum analysis of one of the detector signals to discriminate between flames of different sizes. In a specific application, the detector incorporates two infrared (IR) detectors and one ultraviolet (UV) detector for discriminating between a directly sensed small hydrogen flame, and reflections from a large hydrogen flame. The signals generated by each of the detectors are sampled and digitized for analysis by the digital signal processor, preferably 250 times a second).
Regarding claim 12, Hall further discloses wherein the at least one secondary flame detector is mounted onto the at least one primary flame detector or proximate to the at least one primary flame detector (proximate, see infrared detector 1 (14) and infrared detector 2 (16); Fig. 1), and wherein the at least one primary flame detector and the at least one secondary flame detector corresponds to a multi spectrum IR flame detector, an ultra-violet (UV) detector, a visible (VIS) detector, or an Infrared (IR) detector (IR detector, see Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 13, Hall further discloses wherein the at least one secondary flame detector is configured to align a field of view (FOV) towards the flame zone, and the at least one secondary flame detector is configured to have a narrow FOV to cover the flame zone (both infrared detectors are a part of flame detector 10 (Fig. 1) and are oriented and set up to sense flames (Col. 3, line 50 – Col. 4, line 20).
Regarding claim 14, see above discussion for claim 1.
Regarding claim 16, Hall further discloses wherein the status of flame corresponds to existence of a hazardous flame or a reflection of a friendly flame (Abstract, the processor's algorithm employs a normalized cross-correlation analysis of the detector signals to discriminate between radiation received directly from a flame and radiation received from a reflection of a flame to insure that reflections will not trigger an alarm).
Regarding claim 19, see above discussion for claim 1.
Regarding claim 20, Hall further discloses wherein the at least one secondary flame detector is mounted onto the at least one primary flame detector or proximate to the at least one primary flame detector (proximate, see infrared detector 1 (14) and infrared detector 2 (16); Fig. 1), and wherein the status of flame corresponds to the existence of a hazardous flame or a reflection of a friendly flame (col. 5 lines 14-30, especially "the shapes of the signals are compared to one another"; Abstract, The processor's algorithm employs a normalized cross-correlation analysis of the detector signals to discriminate between radiation received directly from a flame and radiation received from a reflection of a flame to insure that reflections will not trigger an alarm. In addition, the algorithm employs a Fast Fourier Transform (FFT) frequency spectrum analysis of one of the detector signals to discriminate between flames of different sizes. In a specific application, the detector incorporates two infrared (IR) detectors and one ultraviolet (UV) detector for discriminating between a directly sensed small hydrogen flame, and reflections from a large hydrogen flame. The signals generated by each of the detectors are sampled and digitized for analysis by the digital signal processor, preferably 250 times a second).
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.
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.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent No. 5,625,342 (Hall et al.) in view of US Patent No. 8,655,010 (Finn et al.).
Regarding claim 15, Hall discloses the flame detection system of claim 14 as discussed above. Hall fails to expressly disclose the at least one monitoring device corresponds to a camera-based flame detector.
Finn discloses a video-based system and method for fire detection (title) wherein the video detector may be broadly or narrowly responsive to radiation in the infrared spectrum (Col. 2, lines 50-60). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Hall and utilize a camera-based flame detector that can be utilized to detect infrared energy, because the simple substitution of one known infrared sensor for another would only involve routine skill in the art.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-4, 8-10, 17, and 18 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
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 11,928,954 (Andres et al.) discloses hazard detection apparatus, system, and method.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KERRI L MCNALLY whose telephone number is (571)270-1840. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 7:00 am - 3:30 pm.
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, Brian Zimmerman can be reached at 571-272-3059. 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.
/KERRI L MCNALLY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2686
Prosecution Insights