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 .
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Page 17, Line 22: “secondo” should be amended to “second”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 8-11, 13-15, 17, and 21 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding Claim 1
Page 1, Line 21 recite: “a step of recognising”. The claim language should be amended to –a step of recognizing—
Page 1, Lines 12-14 recite: “a step of processing the signal detected by the first pressure sensor (33, 34) determining the energy content thereof”. For clarity within the claims, the claim language should be amended such that it reads –a step of processing and determining an energy content of the signal detected by the first pressure sensor (33, 34)
Regarding Claim 8
Page 2, Line 16 recites: “according to claim 1”. The claim language should be amended such that it reads –according to claim 1,--
Page 2, Line 17 recites: “a step of recognising”. The claim language should be amended to –a step of recognizing—
Page 2, Line 22 recites: “a sub-step of recognising”. The claim language should be amended to –a sub-step of recognizing—
Regarding Claim 9
Page 2, Line 27 recites: “an initial instant”. The claim language should be amended to –the
Page 2, Line 27-Page 3, Line 1 recites: “a final instant”. The claim language should be amended to –the
Regarding Claim 10
Page 3, Line 7 recites: “an initial instant”. The claim language should be amended to –the
Page 3, Lines 7-8 recites: “a final instant”. The claim language should be amended to –the
Regarding Claim 11
Page 3, Line 11 recites: “according to claim 1”. The claim language should be amended such that it reads –according to claim 1,--
Page 3, Lines 13-14 recite: “the effective RMS value”. The claim language should be amended such that it reads –the effective root mean square (RMS) value—
Regarding Claim 13
Page 4, Line 4 recites: “according to claim 12”. The claim language should be amended such that it reads –according to claim 12,--
Regarding Claim 14
Page 4, Line 4 recites: “according to claim 13”. The claim language should be amended such that it reads –according to claim 13,--
Regarding Claim 15
Page 4, Lines 25-26 recite: “using it as indicator”. For purposes of clarity, the claim language should be amended such that it reads –using it as an indicator—
Regarding Claim 17
Page 5, Line 5 recites: “according to claim 15 and comprising”. The claim language should be amended such that it reads –according to claim 15,
Page 5, Line 8 recites: “using it as indicator”. For purposes of clarity, the claim language should be amended such that it reads –using it as an indicator—
Regarding Claim 21
Page 5, Lines 24-25 recite: “according to claim 1 and comprising the further steps of”. For purposes of clarity, the claim language should be amended such that it reads –according to claim 1,
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
4. 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 1-22 are 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 1
Pages 1, Lines 2-3 recite the limitation “the combustion chamber (22) of a burner (21)”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Page 1, Line 9 recites the limitation "the signal". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Page 1, Line 21-23 recite the limitation “a step of recognising a failed combustion event inside the combustion chamber (22) in case the combustion index is smaller than the first threshold value” (emphasis added). The phrase “in case the combustion index is smaller than the first threshold value” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the “step of recognising a failed combustion event inside the combustion chamber” is dependent upon the combustion index is smaller than the first threshold value. For purposes of examination, the claim has been interpreted as if it read –a step of recognizing a failed combustion event inside the combustion chamber (22) when the combustion index is smaller than the first threshold value—.
Regarding Claim 2
Page 1, Line 25 recites the limitation “the sub-step of applying a filter”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding Claim 7
Page 2, Lines 13-15 recite the limitation “the range of distinctive oscillation frequencies of the burner (21) is around the injection frequency” (emphasis added). The term “around” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “around” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Regarding Claim 8
Page 2, Lines 19-21 recites the limitation “the first threshold value (TVoff) preferably is greater than the second threshold value (TVon)” (emphasis added). The phrase “preferably is greater than” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation is required or just a preference.
Page 2, Line 22-25 recite the limitation “a sub-step of recognising the occurrence of a combustion event inside the combustion chamber (22) in case the combustion index is greater than the second threshold value” (emphasis added). The phrase “in case the combustion index is greater than the second threshold value” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the “sub-step of recognising the occurrence of a combustion event inside the combustion chamber” is dependent upon the combustion index greater than the second threshold value. For purposes of examination, the claim has been interpreted as if it read –a sub-step of recognizing the occurrence of a combustion event inside the combustion chamber (22) when the combustion index is greater than the second threshold value—.
Regarding Claim 9
Page 3, Line 2 recites the limitation “the features of the burner”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Additionally, based on the claims and Specification it is unclear what “features” of the burner are utilized to define the duration of the first moving listening interval. Therefore, it is unclear how to determine what is encompassed by the term “features of the burner”.
Page 3, Lines 3-4 recites the limitation “preferably three of four pulsations” (emphasis added). The phrase “preferably” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation is required or just a preference.
Regarding Claim 10
Page 3, Lines 9-10 recites the limitation “preferably, the first moving listening interval has a duration of 10ms” (emphasis added). The phrase “preferably” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation is required or just a preference.
Regarding Claim 11
Page 3, Lines 13-14 recite the limitation “the effective RMS value in the final instant” (emphasis added). There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding Claim 12
Page 3, Lines 22-23 recite the limitation “the moving average absolute deviation (S) in the final instant” (emphasis added). There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Page 4, Line 1 recites the limitation “the i-th pressure sample”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding Claim 13
Page 4, Line 6 recites the limitation “the ratio between the sum of the squares of the differences between the value (xi) of the i-th pressure sample and the moving average (M) of said values (xi) of the pressure samples and the number (n) of samples” (emphasis added). There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding Claim 16
Page 5, Lines 3-4 recite the limitation “preferably, the second moving listening interval has a duration of at least 100 ms” (emphasis added). The phrase “preferably” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation is required or just a preference.
Regarding Claim 17
Page 5, Line 6 recites the limitation “the further step of calculating a moving standard deviation” (emphasis added). There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding Claim 18
Page 5, Line 14 recites the limitation “preferably, is at least 10 kHz” (emphasis added). The phrase “preferably” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation is required or just a preference.
Regarding Claim 19
Page 5, Line 18 recites the limitation “the first outlet duct (35)”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 1 previously discloses “a first duct (25, 35)”.
Regarding Claim 21
Page 5, Lines 26-27 recite the limitation “the first outlet duct (35)”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 1 previously discloses “a first duct (25, 35)”.
Regarding Claim 22
Page 6, Line 16 recites the limitation “the first outlet duct (35)”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 1 previously discloses “a first duct (25, 35)”.
Regarding Claims 3-6, 14-15, and 20
Claims 3-6, 14-15, and 20 are rejected insofar as they are dependent upon a rejected base claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) mental processes and mathematical concepts (calculating a combustion index, comparing said combustion index with a first threshold value) including mere data gathering steps of “acquiring the signal”. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the data gathering steps do not add meaningful limitations to the method as they are insignificant extra solution activities (MPEP 2106(g)).
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because:
Step 1: is the claim a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?
Yes. The claim is a process.
Step 2A, prong 1: is the claim directed to an abstract idea?
Yes. The claim falls under the group of a mental process of comparing a calculated combustion index to threshold values. A person can identify (in their mind) a difference based on two values. Additionally, the detected data is merely gathered and evaluated and then nothing is done with this information (no active step as a result of the detection).
Step 2A, prong 2: does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No. The data gathering steps do not add meaningful limitations as they are insignificant extra solution activities (MPEP 2106(g)).
Step 2B: is the claim drawn to significantly more?
No. The claim does not apply the judicial exception in a meaningful way and therefore cannot be considered to be significantly more.
Therefore, claims 1-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Allowable Subject Matter
Due to the 101 rejecitons and numerous 112 issues / claim objecitons, the allowability of the claims cannot be determined at this time. However, the subject matter if amended to overcome the 101 and the 112 issues appears to be allowable. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
In the method of claim 1, the inclusion of:
“a step of calculating a combustion index, which represents an indicator of the combustion inside the combustion chamber, based on the energy content of the signal detected by the first pressure sensor; a step of comparing said combustion index with a first threshold value; and a step of recognizing a failed combustion event inside the combustion chamber in case the combustion index is smaller than the first threshold value” was not found.
The closest prior art to the claimed subject matter are Krein (US 2025/0092813) and Garagnani (US 2023/0049216). Krein discloses determining whether the combustion in a burner is functioning or whether the flame has gone out by comparing an ascertained amplitude of a pressure sensor signal to a threshold. However, a combustion index is not calculated or compared to a first threshold value. Garagnani discloses determining an end of combustion in a burner by comparing a pressure signal to a threshold value. However, a combustion index is not calculated or compared to a first threshold value. Therefore, neither Krein nor Garagnani disclose the claimed subject matter.
Conclusion
10. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
- Zhang et al. (US 2023/0258117) – Diagnosing the functionality of a burner
- De Cesare et al. (US 2023/0003156) – Method to control a burner
- Pfeifer et al. (US 8,396,689) – Method for analysis of the operation of a gas turbine
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KELSEY L STANEK whose telephone number is (571)272-3565. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 8:30am-3:00pm.
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, DEVON KRAMER can be reached at (571) 272-7118. 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.
/K.L.S/Examiner, Art Unit 3741 /DEVON C KRAMER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3741