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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 8/13/2025 has been entered.
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 1-12 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.
Claim 1 states that the electronic unit comprises at least one moisture sensor which is connected to the electronic unit. It is unclear how the electronic unit can be connected to itself.
Claim 2, the phrase “the fingers” lacks antecedent basis.
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.
Claims 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over USPAP 2020/0217746 to Woodbury in view of USPN 4,502,044 to Farris and USPN 5,726,624 to Caffee and further in view of (when necessary) USPAP 2006/0248946 to Howell, USPAP 2014/0272404 to Shake, USPAP 2009/0044595 to Vokey, and/or USPN 4,760,368 to Sugihara.
Claim 1, Woodbury discloses a multilayer construction structure comprising a printed resistive moisture sensor positioned on a substrate wherein the moisture sensor is formed by at least two adjacent electrically conductive measuring conductor tracks configured for resistive moisture management, the moisture sensor connected to an electronic unit by at least three conductor tracks, one of the at least two adjacent electrically conductive measuring conductor tracks of the moisture sensor is connected to at least one conductor track of the at least three conductor tracks, and another one of the at least two adjacent electrically conductive measuring conductor tracks of the moisture sensor is connected to at least two conductor tracks of the at least three conductor tracks (see entire document including [0029]-[0032], [0047]-[0050], [0062], [0152], [0157]-[0162], [0174], [0175] and Figures 15 and 16). Specifically, Figures 15 and 16 of Woodbury illustrate a moisture sensor formed by at least two adjacent electrically conductive measuring conductor tracks (530, 540 and 550) wherein the moisture sensor is connected to an electronic unit (510) by at least three conductor tracks (each end of each electrically conductive measuring conductive track is attached to a conductor track), one of the at least two adjacent electrically conductive measuring conductor tracks (e.g. 530) of the moisture sensor is connected to at least one conductor track of the at least three conductor tracks, and another one of the at least two adjacent electrically conductive measuring conductor tracks (e.g. 540) of the moisture sensor is connected to at least two conductor tracks of the at least three conductor tracks ([0157]-[0162] and Figures 15 and 16).
Woodbury does not appear to specifically mention one of the at least two adjacent electrically conductive measuring conductor tracks (530, 540 and 550) of the moisture sensor being connected to at least two conductor tracks of the at least three conductor tracks wherein the at least two conductor tracks are connected together and are at the same electrical potential but Caffee discloses that it is known in the art to connect a sensor via two wire bonds to duplicate electrical connection to increase reliability in the event that one of the wire bonds is broken during manufacture, assembly or use (see entire document including the paragraph bridging columns 6 and 7). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to connect at least one of the at least two adjacent electrically conductive measuring conductor tracks (530, 540 and 550) of the moisture sensor to at least two conductor tracks, wherein the at least two conductor tracks are connected together and are at the same electrical potential to increase reliability in the event that one of the wire bonds is broken during manufacture, assembly or use.
Woodbury does not appear to specifically mention the sensor being covered by a textile layer but Farris discloses that it is known in the art to mount at least one moisture sensor under a water-permeable textile layer to allow moisture absorbency and/or to disburse the moisture (see entire document including column 1, line 24 through column 3, line 20). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to mount the at least one moisture sensor between the substrate and a water-permeable textile layer to allow moisture absorbency and/or to disburse the moisture.
Claims 2 and 3, Woodbury does not appear to mention constructing the moisture sensor with concentric ring conductive tracks that grip and mesh and have a plurality of fingers but Howell discloses that it is known in the moisture sensor art to construct a moisture sensor as claimed (see entire document including [0035] and Figure 1C, 152). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to make the moisture sensor of Woodbury in any suitable configuration, such as disclosed by Howell, because it is within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known moisture sensor on the basis of its suitability and desired characteristics.
Claim 4, the moisture sensor is connected to two conductor tracks of the electronic unit (the Figures and [0029]-[0032] of Woodbury and Figure 1C of Howell).
Claim 5, the carrier layer may be diffusion-inhibiting or waterproof and permeable or impermeable to water vapor ([0048]-[0050], [0174] and [0175] of Woodbury).
Claim 6, the textile layer comprises hydrophilic fibers ([0048] and [0049] of Woodbury and the paragraph bridging columns 1 and 2 of Farris). Woodbury does not appear to specifically mention the specifically claimed textile layer but Shake discloses that it is known in the art to construct a cloth in nonwoven form with hydrophilic coated polyethylene terephthalate fibers (see entire document including [0002], [0023] and [0024]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to make the textile layer from any suitable textile material, such as taught by Shake, because it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability and desired characteristics.
Claim 7, a plurality of moisture sensors are provided over the length of the structure and directly adjacent moisture sensors have a distance based on conductive properties of the liquid (the Figures and [0029]-[0032] and [0047]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to adjust the distance between moisture sensors, such as claimed, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art.
Claim 8, the sensor field formed by the moisture sensor may have a maximum extension of between 0.5 cm to 20 cm [0115]. Plus, Woodbury discloses that the length may be varied based on the desired resistance [0066]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to vary the extension, such as claimed, based on the desired resistance.
Claim 9, the width of at least one water line formed between the at least two measuring conductor tracks may be about 1 cm ([0083] or Woodbury and the paragraph bridging columns 2 and 3 of Farris). Plus, Woodbury discloses that the distance may be varied based on the conductive properties of the liquid [0047]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to vary the distance, such as claimed, based on the conductive properties of the liquid.
Claim 10, Woodbury/Farris does not appear to mention the width of the carrier layer extending over at the width of the textile layer but Sugihara discloses that it is known in the art to construct a moisture sensor between two layers wherein one layer extends beyond the other layer (see entire document including Figure 1). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to make the carrier layer extend over the textile layer, by any suitable amount, such as claimed, based on the desired aesthetics of the construction foil and/or because it is within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a moisture sensor construction on the basis of its suitability and desired characteristics. The carrier layer arranged on the textile layer is spaced apart from the outer edges of the textile layer and/or is arranged centrally on the textile layer (Figures).
Claim 11, Woodbury does not appear to mention the specific width of the carrier layer or textile layer but Woodbury does disclose that the conductor length may be varied based on the desired resistance [0066]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to vary the width of the carrier layer and/or textile layer, such as claimed, based on the desired conductor resistance. Plus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to vary the dimensions of the construction foil based on the intended use and desired/required construction foil size.
Claim 12, Woodbury discloses that the substrate may comprise multiple layers [0048]. Plus, Vokey discloses that it is known in the art to place a moisture sensor adjacent a roof membrane [0024]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art place moisture sensor in any desired location, such as adjacent a roof membrane, based on the intended application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 8/13/2025 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW T PIZIALI whose telephone number is (571)272-1541. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7am-5pm.
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, Marla McConnell can be reached on 571-270-7692. 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.
/ANDREW T PIZIALI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1789