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 Claims
This Office Action is responsive to communication filed on 1/2/2026.
Claims 1, 13-14 and 16-20 are amended.
Claims 1-20 are presented for examination.
Information Disclosure Statement
Examiner notes that no Information Disclosure Statement has been submitted as of the date of this Office action.
Response to Amendment
The previous office action indicated allowable subject material. The independent claims have been amended to be broader than the indicated allowable subject material, as stated on page 8 of the remarks received 1/2/2026. As such, the new ground(s) of rejection presented below are necessitated by Applicant’s amendment.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 2-3, 8, 10-12, 14, 17 and 19 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 2 recites the “processors are further configured to determine that the chimney overheat condition exists based upon the determined temperature being above a temperature threshold for a predetermined time period.” However, the claim which it depends on does not determine that a chimney overheat condition exists. Thus, the existence of “the chimney overheat condition” lacks antecedent basis. MPEP 2173.05(e).
Examiner’s note: Amending claim 2 to recite the “processors are further configured to determine thata chimney overheat condition exists based upon the determined temperature being above a temperature threshold for a predetermined time period.” will overcome this rejection.
Claim 3 depends on claim 2 and is likewise rejected.
Claims 17 and 19 recite similar deficiencies and are rejected are per claim 2.
Claims 8, 10-12 and 14 recite similar deficiencies and are rejected as per claim 2.
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.
Claims 1, 8, 11-13, 16 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over TORGALSBØEN (US20230091398A1)1 in view of MUHAMMAD (US20210299494A1)2, in further view of NAGAFUSA (US6505466B1) (hereinafter – “TORGALSBØEN-MUHAMMAD-NAGAFUSA”).
Regarding claim 1
TORGALSBØEN teaches a sensor network system, comprising:
at least one temperature sensor configured to measure temperature associated with a portion of a chimney ([0036]: temperature sensor may measure a temperature of a component of the chimney); and
one or more processor configured to ([0097]: sensor unit comprises a processor):
determine a temperature based upon a temperature signal received from the at least one temperature sensor ([0035]: sensor unit may include one or more different type of sensors that each measure parameter(s) relating to the chimney, sensor unit comprises a temperature sensor arranged to measure a temperature of the chimney);
determine that a chimney overheat condition does not exist based upon the determined temperature ([0072]: system is arranged to generate an emergency alarm signal when the parameter of the chimney (i.e., the temperature) exceeds a threshold, i.e., the system is arranged to determine that a chimney overheat condition either exists or does not exist based on the temperature exceeding a threshold).
TORGALSBØEN does not teach to determine that a fire is occurring based upon a sound signal or imagery data.
However, MUHAMMAD in analogous art teaches fire suppression system configured to communicate with a mobile device or a smart home hub ([0069]: system is connected to a network to allow a user device such as a mobile phone to access system to “server information about the system 1 to the user device 12”; [0074]: “spray head unit 14 can be used as a user interface unit for a control hub (“smart home hub”)”), comprising:
determining that a fire is occurring based upon sound or imagery data ([0087]: “The visible-light camera 22 or microphone 23 can be used to identify the presence of a fire. For example, image recognition software can be used to identify flame or smoke. Suitable image recognition software is FireVu 500® available from FireVu (Northwich, UK)”).
TORGALSBØEN and MUHAMMAD are analogous art to the claimed invention because they are from the same field of building management systems. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply the teachings of MUHAMMAD to the teachings of TORGALSBØEN such that MUHAMMAD’s image recognition software used to identify fire could be implemented in TORGALSBØEN’s processing unit for the purposes of providing feedback to the controller that a fire is taking place and that an overhead condition should exist. Based on the above, this is an example of “combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predicable results.” MPEP 2143.
The TORGALSBØEN-MUHAMMAD combination are not relied on for in response to the determination that a fire is occurring, determine if the determined temperature is above a system check temperature threshold.
However, NAGAFUSA in analogous art teaches an exhaust system comprising a controller wherein the controller determines if the systems’ sensors are functioning properly (Abstract), comprising:
in response to the determination that a fire is occurring, determine if the determined temperature is above a system check temperature threshold (Col. 8, ll. 32-57: “The exhaust gas sensor disconnect warning alerts the operator if the exhaust gas temperature sensor 170 has been disabled, disconnected, or otherwise is malfunctioning […] Once the engine has reaches a preset operating speed for a preset period, the controller 172 samples the exhaust gas temperature through the exhaust gas temperature sensor 170. For instance, the output of the exhaust gas temperature sensor 170 indicates that the exhaust gas temperature is less than a preset temperature A, the sensor is malfunction (see Decision Block 510). Specifically, operating the engine at 4,000 rpm for greater than two minutes should increase the temperature of the exhaust gases within the exhaust system to greater than about 350° C, or another preset value dependent upon the application. If the sensed temperature is below the preset temperature A, then the routine continues on. Otherwise, the routine continues to cycle and the controller 172 continues to monitor the output of the exhaust gas temperature sensor”, i.e., with the engine on for 2 minutes, the temperature should be above a threshold, checking that the temperature is not above the threshold indicates that the temperature sensor is not operating properly); and
if the determined temperature is not above the system check temperature threshold, send the error message to Col. 8, ll. 58-65: “upon a determination of […] a malfunction with the exhaust gas temperature sensor (Steps S-9, S-10), the controller 172 preferably activates an exhaust gas temperature warning (Step S-11). The exhaust gas temperature warning can include operating lights, gauges, buzzers and/or other alarm”).
NAGAFUSA is analogous art to the claimed invention because they are from the same field of monitoring and responding to overheat conditions produced by a heat source. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply the teachings of NAGAFUSA to the TORGALSBØEN-MUHAMMAD combination such that NAGAFUSA’s method of determining a sensor malfunction could be implemented in TORGALSBØEN’s processor for the purposes of sending an alert to the mobile device of MUHAMMAD. Based on the above, this is an example of “combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predicable results.” MPEP 2143.
Regarding claims 16 and 18
TORGALSBØEN teaches a method of operating a sensor network for a chimney ([0017]). The remaining limitations of claim 16 are substantially the same as claim 1; as such, the claim is rejected as per claim 1.
TORGALSBØEN teaches a non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising instructions to be executed by a processor (i.e., a computer system) ([0025]). The remaining limitations of claim 18 are substantially the same as claim 1; as such, the claim is rejected as per claim 1.
Regarding claim 8
TORGALSBØEN-MUHAMMAD-NAGAFUSA teaches the elements of claim 1 as outlined above.
TORGALSBØEN also teaches to:
receive historical temperature data of the chimney ([0109]: processor also receives historic temperature profile data); and
train an overheat condition determining artificial intelligence (AI) algorithm by inputting the historical temperature data into the overheat condition determining AI algorithm ([0110]: processor combines various data sources, for example using an artificial intelligence (AI) algorithm); and
determine the chimney overheat condition by inputting the determined temperature into the trained overheat condition determining AI algorithm ([0110]: processor combines various data sources, for example using an artificial intelligence (AI) algorithm, analysis of this data may help to form a conclusion as to the current state of the chimney).
Regarding claim 11
TORGALSBØEN-MUHAMMAD-NAGAFUSA teaches the elements of claim 1 as outlined above.
MUHAMMAD also teaches:
a smart home disposed outside of the chimney ([0044]: wall-mounted unit for a control hub for connected devices in a building; [0074]: spray head unit can be used as a user interface unit for a smart home hub for connected devices in a building), and wherein:
the one or more processors are disposed within the smart home hub ([0092]: spray head unit can be used as a home hub connected to other smart home devices; [0084]: spray head unit includes a processor); and
the one or more processors are configured to: in response to determining the chimney overheat condition, send an alert to a mobile device of a user ([0037]: spread head unit includes wireless network interface to enable wireless connection via mobile phone; [0040]: determining whether any temperature in the first measurement exceeds a predetermined threshold; [0073]: system can provide maintenance alters or fire notifications).
Regarding claim 12
TORGALSBØEN-MUHAMMAD-NAGAFUSA teaches the elements of claim 1 as outlined above.
MUHAMMAD also teaches:
to determine the chimney overheat condition based upon a signal generated by the sound monitoring device ([0087]: “The visible-light camera 22 or microphone 23 can be used to identify the presence of a fire. For example, image recognition software can be used to identify flame or smoke. Suitable image recognition software is FireVu 500® available from FireVu (Northwich, UK). Similarly, sound recognition software can be used to identify crackle or hiss, and suitable sound recognition software isai3® available from Audio Analytic (Cambridge, UK)”).
Regarding claim 13
TORGALSBØEN-MUHAMMAD-NAGAFUSA teaches the elements of claim 1 as outlined above.
MUHAMMAD teaches to determine that the fire is not occurring based upon the sound signal generated by the sound monitoring device ([0087]: microphone can be used to identify the presence of a fire, i.e., if a fire is not identified based on the sound signal, then it is determined that the fire is not occurring).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over TORGALSBØEN-MUHAMMAD-NAGAFUSA in view of Applicant’s Admitted Prior Art (hereinafter – “AAPA”).
Regarding claim 5
TORGALSBØEN-MUHAMMAD-NAGAFUSA teaches the elements of claim 1 as outlined above.
MUHAMMAD also teaches:
a temperature sensor comprising an infrared temperature sensor ([0083]: sensors 21, 22, 23 can include thermal sensors in the form of an infrared pyrometer); and
a rotation device configured to hold the infrared temperature sensor and rotate the infrared sensor ([0081]: rotatable spray head can turn on one, vertical axis and comprises a set of one or more sensors 21, 22, 23).
TORGALSBØEN-MUHAMMAD-NAGAFUSA do not explicitly teach rotating the infrared temperature sensor to measure temperature a first connection second and a second connection section.
While the TORGALSBØEN-MUHAMMAD-NAGAFUSA combination do not explicitly teach scanning at the connection sections, AAPA teaches that connection points of the chimney are particularly vulnerable to damage due to overheating. TORGALSBØEN teaches a system that is intended to identify an overheating condition of a structure (i.e., chimney). MUHAMMAD teaches a targeted fire suppression system that uses a non-contact temperature sensor that is rotatable through an axis to identify high temperature locations of a structure. AAPA teaches that it is a known problem that chimney connection sections are particularly susceptible to damage and thus are areas of concern for preventing a hazard. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to use the rotatable infrared temperature sensors of MUHAMMAD with the system of TORGALSBØEN-MUHAMMAD-NAGAFUSA such that the infrared temperature sensors could be directed towards chimney connection sections for the purposes of monitoring the connection sections, as motivated by AAPA.
Claims 2, 17 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over TORGALSBØEN-MUHAMMAD-NAGAFUSA in view of Forde (US20140069474A1)3 (hereinafter – “TORGALSBØEN-MUHAMMAD-NAGAFUSA-FORDE”).
Regarding claim 2
TORGALSBØEN-MUHAMMAD-NAGAFUSA teaches the elements of claim 1 as outlined above. TORGALSBØEN-MUHAMMAD-NAGAFUSA is not relied on for wherein the one or more processors are further configured to determine that the chimney overheat condition exists based upon the determined temperature being above a temperature threshold for a predetermined time period.
However, FORDE in an analogous art teaches this claim limitation. Forde teaches determining that the chimney overheat condition exists based upon the determined temperature being above a temperature threshold for a predetermined time period ([0051]: “length of time that a fire is lighting in each of the chimneys is recorded by sensing when the temperature goes above a preset threshold level. When this temperature is sensed for a time which exceeds a preset time period a cleaning procedure is initiated”).
FORDE is analogous art to the claimed invention because they are from the same field of building management systems. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply the teachings of FORDE to the teachings of the TORGALSBØEN-MUHAMMAD-NAGAFUSA combination such that FORDE’s method of determining an overheat condition based on a sensed temperature being above a temperature threshold for a predetermined period of time could be implemented in the processing device of TORGALSBØEN-MUHAMMAD-NAGAFUSA for the purposes of preventing false indications of an overheat condition.
Regarding claims 17 and 19
TORGALSBØEN-MUHAMMAD-NAGAFUSA teaches the elements of claim 16 as outlined above. The remaining limitations of claim 17 are substantially the same as claim 2; as such, the claim is rejected as per claim 2.
TORGALSBØEN-MUHAMMAD-NAGAFUSA teaches the elements of claim 18 as outlined above. The remaining limitations of claim 19 are substantially the same as claim 2; as such, the claim is rejected as per claim 2.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over TORGALSBØEN-MUHAMMAD-NAGAFUSA-FORDE in view of MALM (US20170211806A1)4. Regarding claim 3
TORGALSBØEN-MUHAMMAD-NAGAFUSA-FORDE teaches the elements of claim 2 as outlined above.
TORGALSBØEN-MUHAMMAD-NAGAFUSA-FORDE is not relied on for receiving an indication of a material comprised in the chimney.
However, REF5 in analogous art teaches this claim limitation. REF5 teaches a control system for controlling the operations of a burner and chimney comprising a processor configured to receive an indication of a material comprised in the chimney ([0055]: “maximum temperature is determined by the material properties of the stack”, i.e., temperature threshold is based on the materials in the chimney (i.e., stack)).
REF5 is analogous art to the claimed invention because they are from the same field of monitoring and responding to overheat conditions produced by a heat source. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply the teachings of REF5 to the teachings of TORGALSBØEN-MUHAMMAD-NAGAFUSA-FORDE such that REF5’s determination of a temperature threshold based on the materials comprising the chimney could be used with TORGALSBØEN-MUHAMMAD-NAGAFUSA-FORDE’s method of determining an overheat condition for the purposes of allowing the chimney safety system to be used with chimney’s comprised of different materials.
Claims 4, 6 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over TORGALSBØEN-MUHAMMAD-NAGAFUSA in view of GANTOS (US20190351267A1)5 (hereinafter – “TORGALSBØEN-MUHAMMAD-NAGAFUSA-GANTOS).
Regarding claim 4
TORGALSBØEN-MUHAMMAD-NAGAFUSA teaches the elements of claim 1 as outlined above. TORGALSBØEN-MUHAMMAD-NAGAFUSA is not relied on for the at least one temperature sensor comprises: an infrared temperature sensor, thermometer, a thermistor, a resistance temperature detector (RTD) or a thermopile.
However, GANTOS in an analogous art teaches a chimney monitoring system wherein at least one temperature sensor comprises: an infrared temperature sensor, thermometer, a thermistor, a resistance temperature detector, or a thermopile ([0014]: temperature sensor includes a thermocouple, a thermometer, a resistance-based temperature sensor, or another suitable device configured to provide feedback indicative of a temperature in the vent).
GANTOS is analogous art to the claimed invention because they are from the same field of chimney monitoring systems. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply the teachings of GANTOS to the teachings of TORGALSBØEN-MUHAMMAD-NAGAFUSA such that GANTOS’s type of temperature sensor could be as the temperature sensor of the temperature sensing system of TORGALSBØEN-MUHAMMAD-NAGAFUSA for the purposes of providing a temperature indication.
Regarding claim 20
TORGALSBØEN-MUHAMMAD-NAGAFUSA teaches the elements of claim 18 as outlined above. The remaining limitations of claim 20 are substantially the same as claim 4; as such, the claim is rejected as per claim 4.
Regarding claim 6
TORGALSBØEN-MUHAMMAD-NAGAFUSA teaches the elements of claim 1 as outlined above.
TORGALSBØEN-MUHAMMAD-NAGAFUSA is not relied on for wherein the at least one temperature sensor comprises a thermocouple. However, GANTOS in analogous art does teach this claim limitation ([0014]: thermocouple).
GANTOS is analogous art to the claimed invention because they are from the same field of chimney monitoring systems. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply the teachings of GANTOS to the teachings of TORGALSBØEN-MUHAMMAD-NAGAFUSA such that GANTOS’s thermocouple could be with as the temperature sensor of the temperature sensing system of TORGALSBØEN-MUHAMMAD-NAGAFUSA for the purposes of providing a temperature indication.
The TORGALSBØEN-MUHAMMAD-NAGAFUSA-GANTOS does not explicitly teach to attach the temperature sensor to the chimney. However, the examiner is takes official notice that using heat resistant tape to attach a temperature sensor to a structure designed to withstand and exhaust high temperature gases is a well-known concept in the art. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to affix the temperature sensor to the chimney using heat resistant tape, in order to facilitate installing a chimney temperature sensor on a chimney regardless of the material which the chimney is constructed of (i.e., heat resistant tape can be affixed to various metals, masonry, or ceramics and the like that comprise chimney structures, as opposed to a fastening device such a screw, which is application dependent).
Claims 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over TORGALSBØEN-MUHAMMAD-NAGAFUSA-GANTOS in view of AAPA.
Regarding claim 7
TORGALSBØEN-MUHAMMAD-NAGAFUSA-GANTOS teaches the elements of claim 6 as outlined above.
While the TORGALSBØEN-MUHAMMAD-NAGAFUSA-GANTOS do not teach explicitly attaching the temperature sensor at a chimney connection section, AAPA teaches that connection points of the chimney are particularly vulnerable to damage due to overheating. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to attach a temperature sensor to a section of the chimney that joins two different sections in order to identify or predict an overheat condition that may cause damage to the chimney thereby reducing hazards and/or dangers associated with the chimney, as motivated by AAPA.
Claims 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over TORGALSBØEN-MUHAMMAD-NAGAFUSA in view of ChimneyTek (“How to Avoid Animals That Get Trapped in Your Chimney”, published 07/15/2021, https://www.chimneytek.com/how-to-avoid-animals-that-get-trapped-in-your-chimney/. Accessed 09/23/2025.)6.
Regarding claim 9
TORGALSBØEN-MUHAMMAD-NAGAFUSA teaches the elements of claim 1 as outlined above.
TORGALSBØEN-MUHAMMAD-NAGAFUSA is not relied on for an animal repellent device configured to emit ultrasonic waves into and/or in proximity to the chimney to repel animals.
However, ChimneyTek in an analogous art teaches an animal repellent device configured to emit ultrasonic waves into and/or in proximity to the chimney to repel animals(Pg. 2, Section “How can I keep animals from going in my chimney?”, second bullet: “for additional protection from animals going into a chimney “you can install an ultrasonic device that will radiate noise you can’t hear but animals can (and will want to stay away from)”).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine ChimneyTek with REF1-REF2-REF3 to produce the claimed invention according to known methods, as motivated by ChimneyTek.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over TORGALSBØEN-MUHAMMAD-NAGAFUSA-GANTOS in view of MCAWARD (US20060105280A1)7.
Regarding claim 10
TORGALSBØEN-MUHAMMAD-NAGAFUSA teaches the elements of claim 1 as outlined above.
TORGALSBØEN-MUHAMMAD-NAGAFUSA are not relied on for the chimney safety device being disposed within a chimney box surrounding at least a portion of a flue of the chimney.
TORGALSBØEN-MUHAMMAD-NAGAFUSA are not relied on for the remaining limitations of the claim.
However, GANTOS in an analogous art teaches a chimney monitoring system wherein:
the one or more processors are disposed within the chimney safety device (FIG. 2 shows control system 16 disposed within the chimney safety device 10; [0019]: “control system 16 may include a memory 28 and a processor 30”);
the at least one temperature sensor is disposed within the chimney safety device (FIG. 2 shows sensors 18 disposed within the chimney safety device 10; [0016]: “vent monitoring system 10 includes a plurality of sensing devices 18 disposed within a housing 20”); and
the more or more processors are configured to: in response to determining the chimney overheat condition, send an alert to a mobile device of a user (Abstract: vent monitoring system includes a second sensor configured to provide feedback indicative of a temperature in a vent, and a control system configured to generate a notification when the second sensor exceeds a target level; [0013]: system communicates with external electronic device that is configured to provide notifications to a user and includes a smart phone).
PNG
media_image1.png
538
669
media_image1.png
Greyscale
GANTOS, FIG. 2
GANTOS is analogous art to the claimed invention because they are from the same field of chimney monitoring systems. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply the teachings of GANTOS to the teachings of TORGALSBØEN-MUHAMMAD-NAGAFUSA such that GANTOS’s chimney monitoring device could be used with TORGALSBØEN-MUHAMMAD-NAGAFUSA’s method of chimney monitoring for the purposes of implementing the system as a single device.
TORGALSBØEN-MUHAMMAD-NAGAFUSA-GANTOS are not relied on for the chimney safety device being disposed within a chimney box surrounding at least a portion of a flue of the chimney.
However, MCAWARD in an analogous art teaches a chimney safety device is disposed within a chimney box surrounding at least a portion of a flue of the chimney (Abstract, [0022]: detection unit is located in an air space adjacent to the chimney or flue).
MCAWARD is analogous art to the claimed invention because they are from the same field chimney monitoring systems. Moreover, TORGALSBØEN teaches a chimney monitoring device that is responsive to a sensed temperature crossing a threshold, and GANTOS teaches the elements of the monitoring device of TORGALSBØEN being disposed within the same housing. MCAWARD’s disclosure was submitted in 2004, prior to the smart phone being a ubiquitous device. However, MCAWARD does teach that the detection unit can activate an alarm to notify a user ([0018]). GANTOS teaches wherein MCAWARD’s alarm is a notification sent to a user’s smart phone. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply the teachings of MCAWARD to the teachings of TORGALSBØEN-MUHAMMAD-NAGAFUSA-GANTOS according to known methods, as motivated by MCAWARD in paragraph [0005], “there is thus a need for a detector structure which is suitable for monitoring ambient conditions in the gap or space between respective wall(s) and adjacent surfaces of a chimney or flue.”
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over TORGALSBØEN-MUHAMMAD-NAGAFUSA in view of REINHILD (CH700519A2)8.
Regarding claim 14
TORGALSBØEN-MUHAMMAD-NAGAFUSA teaches the elements of claim 1 as outlined above.
TORGALSBØEN-MUHAMMAD-NAGAFUSA are not relied on for the remaining limitations of the claim.
However, REINHILD in an analogous art teaches: in response to determining the chimney overheat condition exists, send a signal to a fireplace gas controller to shut off gas to a fireplace ([0003]: “The use of chimney monitoring devices is widely known. Monitoring devices are available on the market that trigger an alarm or shut off the gas flow if the temperature leaves a permissible range, i.e., is too high”).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to apply the teachings of REINHILD to the teachings of TORGALSBØEN-MUHAMMAD-NAGAFUSA such that REINHILD’s method of controlling a gas controller could be used with the safety system of TORGALSBØEN-MUHAMMAD-NAGAFUSA for the purposes of removing the fuel source in the case of an emergency, as motivated by REINHILD statement that : chimney monitoring devices and devices that are configured to shut off the fuel source to the heat-generating component at the base of the chimney are well-known and already available on the market.
Claims 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over TORGALSBØEN-MUHAMMAD-NAGAFUSA in view of SMITH (US20200066257A1)9.
Regarding claim 15
TORGALSBØEN-MUHAMMAD-NAGAFUSA teaches the elements of claim 1 as outlined above.
TORGALSBØEN-MUHAMMAD-NAGAFUSA is not relied on for a sound sensors and wherein: the one or more processors are further configured to detect the presence of an animal in the chimney by inputting sound data generated via the sound sensor into an animal presence determining machine learning (ML) algorithm trained by inputting historical sound patterns; (ii) historical chimney dimensional data; (iii) historical open/shut information of chimneys; or (iv) historical images of animals in chimneys to train the animal presence determining ML algorithm.
However, SMITH in an analogous art teaches detecting the presence of an animal by inputting sound data generated via a sound sensor into an animal presence determining machine learning algorithm ([0021]: event sensing system comprises sensor assembly including microphone configured to measure ambient audio in proximity to sensor assembly, sensor assembly includes processor configured to interpret audio data and determine the type of event associated with audio data; [0027]: audio processor implements machine learning algorithm to extra event data from the audio signal captured by microphone and is configured to undergo additional training to improve models; [0040]: event types may be associated with animal activity and rodent detection).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the chimney health system taught by TORGALSBØEN-MUHAMMAD-NAGAFUSA with the animal detection system taught by SMITH to produce the claimed invention. The rationale for doing so is animal intrusion and detection is a well-known problem in the art, as indicated by Applicant Admitted Prior Art in paragraph [0003] of the specification.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 Michael V Farina whose telephone number is (571)272-4982. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thu 8:00-6:00 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, Kamini Shah can be reached at (571) 272-2279. 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.
/M.V.F./Examiner, Art Unit 2115
/KAMINI S SHAH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2115
1 TORGALSBØEN is a prior art reference cited in the previous office action.
2 MUHAMMAD is a prior art reference cited in the previous office action.
3 FORDE is a prior art reference cited in the previous office action.
4 MALM is a prior art reference cited in the previous office action.
5 GANTOS is a prior art reference cited in the previous office action.
6 ChimneyTek is a prior art reference cited in the previous office action.
7 MCAWARD is a prior art reference cited in the previous office action.
8 REINHILD is a prior art reference cited in the previous office action.
9 SMITH is a prior art reference cited in the previous office action.