DETAILED ACTION
Examiner has received and accepted the amended claims and remarks filed on 12 December 2025. These amended claims and remarks are the claims and remarks being referred to in the instant Office Action.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to Claim 8 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 112(b) Rejection of Claim 8 has been withdrawn. Examiner made the rejection as language typically seen would be similar to “wherein the plurality of sensors further comprises one of more wired sensors”, however the rejection is moot as Applicant has clarified the language in the remarks.
Applicant's remaining arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding Claims 15 and 16, the 112(b) and 112(d) Rejections are maintained as Claim 15 includes a condition in which step (a) of Claim 11 would not occur when reading Claim 11 alone. Claim 11 permits all sensors as being wired sensors, and in such a situation, steps (a) and (b) would not occur; however, it appears the limitations in Claim 15 would force steps (a) and (b) of Claim 11 to occur. As such, Claims 15 and 16 are unclear as to if there are wireless sensors present in the inventions of Claim 15 or 16 or not, thus rendering the claims indefinite and Claims 15 and 16 fail to include all the limitations of Claim 11.
Regarding Claims 1, 11, and 20, Applicant argues Vokey fails to render obvious the connection member comprises one or more arms, and the transceiver attached to said one or more arms. Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Vokey teaches in Figure 2 arms formed by tape (7). Mustapha discloses the remaining claim limitations.
As such, it would have been obvious to modify Mustapha so to include one or more arms in the connection member, the transceiver attached e.g. electrically to the one or more arms for the benefit of increasing the sensitivity and leak location resolution of the system, as taught by Vokey [0045]. Note Examiner is not stating elements 214, 224, 234, 270, and 276 are connected to one another, but individual sensor conductors (218, 228, 236, 268, 278) connected in various combinations with a connection member (32, 208, 238, and 272) (Figures 15 – 20b). Also note Examiner is not relying on Vokey to teach the conductors themselves.
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 15 and 16 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 Claims 15 and 16, the claims recite selecting the first sensor when the plurality of sensors comprises one or more wired sensors however Claim 11 recites the selection occurs when the plurality of sensors comprises one or more wireless sensors. It is unclear as to if there are wireless sensors present in the inventions of Claim 15 or 16 or not, thus rendering the claims indefinite.
Claims dependent on a rejected claim are therefore rejected as well
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 15 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Regarding Claims 15 and 16, the claims recite selecting the first sensor when the plurality of sensors comprises one or more wired sensors however Claim 11 recites the selection occurs when the plurality of sensors comprises one or more wireless sensors. As such it would appear Claim 15 does not include the limitation of Claim 11. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
Claim(s) 1 – 5, 7, 8, 10 – 12, 15, and 17 - 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mustapha et al (CA 2645384), in view of Vokey et al. (US 2018/0202163).
Regarding Claim 1, Mustapha discloses a system for monitoring moisture at a structural component, the structural component comprising a membrane (roof membrane) for fluid impermeability and a deck (roof) for supporting the membrane at a first side of the membrane opposite a second side of the membrane (Page 14, lines 21 – 26), the system comprising:
(a) a plurality of sensors (16) spaced apart from each other adjacent to the membrane at the second side (Figure 1), the plurality of sensors comprising one or more wireless sensors (Page 15, lines 15 – 18), each of said one or more wireless sensors comprising a plurality of sensor conductors (218, 228, 236, 268, 278) and a connection member (32, 208, 238, and 272) connecting the plurality of sensor conductors to each other while electrically insulating said sensor conductors from each other (Page 19, line 25 – Page 20, line 3), said each wireless sensor further comprising a transceiver (66); and
(b) a controller (18) operable to selectively communicate wirelessly with said each wireless sensor, and operable to selectively determine a sensor output from each sensor of the plurality of sensors (Page 15, lines 13 – 18).
Mustapha fails to expressly disclose the connection member comprises one or more arms, and the transceiver attached to said one or more arms.
Vokey teaches a connection member comprises one or more arms (Figure 2).
As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to modify Mustapha to include one or more arms in the connection member, the transceiver attached e.g. electrically to the one or more arms for the benefit of increasing the sensitivity and leak location resolution of the system, as taught by Vokey [0045].
Regarding Claim 2, Vokey teaches said one or more arms comprises a plurality of said arms connecting from a center of the connection member towards a plurality of arm ends (Figure 2), respectively, each said arm end having attached thereto one said sensor conductor (8, 9, 11, 12).
The combination would have been obvious for the same reasons regarding the rejection of Claim 1 above.
Regarding Claim 3, Vokey teaches each sensor comprises four said sensor conductors (8, 9, 11, 12), said each arm projecting substantially at right angles to its adjacent said arms (Figure 2).
The combination would have been obvious for the same reasons regarding the rejection of Claim 1 above.
Regarding Claim 4, Mustapha discloses said transceiver is a transponder for transmitting said sensor output in response to wirelessly receiving a request (Page 15, line 19 – Page 16, line 6)
Regarding Claim 5, Mustapha discloses said one or more wireless sensors comprises an antenna for wireless communication (68) (Figure 2).
Regarding Claim 7, Mustapha discloses said one or more wireless sensors comprises a battery-powered sensor comprising a battery (powered via 78)
Regarding Claim 8, Mustapha discloses the plurality of sensors comprises one or more wired sensors (via 70) (Figure 2), the controller being operable to selectively energize each said wire sensor with a sensor excitation voltage (via V+) (Figure 2).
Regarding Claim 10, Mustapha discloses the controller is operable to determine resistance between a pair of said sensor conductors (Page 58, lines 15 – 26), and to determine in response to a plurality of said resistances an area of the structural component associated with multiple occurrences of pooling (i.e. a leak) of an electrically conductive fluid adjacent the membrane at its second side (Page 58, lines 15 – 26).
Regarding Claim 11, Mustapha discloses a method of monitoring moisture at a structural component comprising a membrane (roof membrane) for fluid impermeability and a deck (roof) for supporting the membrane at a first side of the membrane opposite a second side of the membrane (Page 14, lines 21 – 26), the method comprising:
(a) selecting a first sensor from among a plurality of sensors (16) spaced apart from each other adjacent to the membrane at the second side (Page 44, lines 1 – 4) when the plurality of sensors comprises one or more wireless sensors (Page 15, lines 15 – 18), each of said one or more wireless sensors comprises a plurality of sensor conductors (218, 228, 236, 268, 278) and a connection member (32, 208, 238, and 272) connecting the plurality of sensor conductors to each other while electrically insulating said sensor conductors from each other (Page 19, line 25 – Page 20, line 3), and when said each wireless sensor further comprises a transceiver (66); and
(b) determining a sensor output from said first sensor by a controller (18) operable to selectively communicate wirelessly with said each wireless sensor (Page 44, lines 1 – 4).
Mustapha fails to expressly disclose the connection member comprises one or more arms, and the transceiver attached to said one or more arms
Vokey teaches a connection member comprises one or more arms (Figure 2).
As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to modify Mustapha to include one or more arms in the connection member, the transceiver attached e.g. electrically to the one or more arms for the benefit of increasing the sensitivity and leak location resolution of the system, as taught by Vokey [0045].
Regarding Claim 12, Mustapha discloses the controller receiving said sensor output via wireless communications in response to wirelessly transmitting a request to said first sensor when said first sensor is one said wireless sensor (Page 15, line 19 – Page 16, line 6).
Regarding Claim 15, Mustapha discloses selecting the first sensor when the plurality of sensors comprises one or more wired sensors (Page 15, lines 15 – 18) and determining said sensor output when the controller is operable to selectively energize each said wire sensor (Page 26, line 38 – Page 27, line 14).
Regarding Claim 17, Mustapha discloses calibrating a sensor-excitation voltage (e.g. providing the appropriate V+) (Figure 2).
Regarding Claim 18, Mustapha discloses energizing a set of said wired sensor with said sensor-excitation voltage (utilizing V+) (Figure 2)
Regarding Claim 19, Mustapha discloses the controller determining resistance between a pair of said sensor conductors (Page 58, lines 15 – 26), and to determine in response to a plurality of said resistances an area of the structural component associated with multiple occurrences of pooling (i.e. a leak) of an electrically conductive fluid adjacent the membrane at its second side (Page 58, lines 15 – 26).
Regarding Claim 20, Mustapha discloses a system for monitoring moisture at a structural component, the structural component comprising a membrane (roof membrane) for fluid impermeability and a deck (roof) for supporting the membrane at a first side of the membrane opposite a second side of the membrane (Page 14, lines 21 – 26), the system comprising:
(a) means for sensing an electrical parameter (16) associated with an electrically conductive fluid (water) adjacent the membrane at the second side (Page 44, lines 1 – 4), in which the means for sensing comprises a plurality of sensors comprising one or more wireless sensors Page 15, lines 15 – 18), each of said one or more wireless sensors comprising a plurality of sensor conductors (218, 228, 236, 268, 278) and a connection member (32, 208, 238, and 272) connecting the plurality of sensor conductors to each other while electrically insulating said sensor conductors from each other (Page 19, line 25 – Page 20, line 3), each said one or more wireless sensors further comprising a transceiver (66);
(b) control means (18) for controlling said means for sensing said electrical parameter associated with said electrically conductive fluid adjacent the membrane at the second side (Page 6, lines 2 – 5); and
(c) means for communicating wirelessly (66) between said control means and said means for sensing said electrical parameter associated with said electrically conductive fluid adjacent the membrane at the second side (Page 7, lines 1 – 22).
Mustapha fails to expressly disclose the connection member comprises one or more arms, and the transceiver attached to said one or more arms
Vokey teaches a connection member comprises one or more arms (Figure 2).
As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to modify Mustapha to include one or more arms in the connection member, the transceiver attached e.g. electrically to the one or more arms for the benefit of increasing the sensitivity and leak location resolution of the system, as taught by Vokey [0045].
Claim(s) 6, 13, and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mustapha et al (CA 2645384), in view of Vokey et al. (US 2018/0202163), in further view of Antonioli (US 2018/0271356).
Regarding Claim 6, Mustapha does disclose a battery (via 78); however, the combination fails to expressly disclose said one or more wireless sensors comprises a charging coil for charging electrical circuitry of said one or more wireless sensors.
Antonioli teaches a charging coil for charging a battery [0036, 0043].
As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to modify the combination so that one or more wireless sensors comprises a charging coil for charging electrical circuitry of said one or more wireless sensors for the benefit of allowing the sensor to receive power while remaining in place.
Regarding Claim 13, Mustapha does disclose a battery (via 78); however, the combination fails to expressly disclose wirelessly powering said first sensor.
Antonioli teaches a charging coil for charging a battery which ultimately powers a sensor [0036, 0043].
As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to modify the combination so that the first sensor is wirelessly powered for the benefit of allowing the sensor to receive power while remaining in place.
Regarding Claim 14, Mustapha does disclose a battery (via 78); however, the combination fails to expressly disclose wirelessly charging said first sensor.
Antonioli teaches wirelessly charging a battery which ultimately powers a sensor [0036, 0043].
As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to modify the combination so that the first sensor is wirelessly charged for the benefit of allowing the sensor to receive power while remaining in place.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 9 is 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
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDER MERCADO whose telephone number is (571)270-7094. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 9am - 4pm EST.
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, Laura Martin can be reached at (571) 272-2160. 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.
ALEXANDER A. MERCADO
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2855
/ALEXANDER A MERCADO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855