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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed December 23rd, 2025 has been entered. Claims 1-20 remain pending in the application. Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome each and every objection previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed October 2nd, 2025.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejection of claim 3 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) have been considered but are moot because the limitations of the claims have been amended to add new issues. New grounds of rejection have been issued.
Applicant argues that Behrendt (US 20090015837 A1) in view of Sarabi (US 20090168833 A1) fail to disclose detection of an infrared reflection method step of claim 1, claim 15, and newly amended claim 3 stating on page 9 of the remarks filed December 23rd, 2025 that “[…] Sabari does not disclose or suggest detecting an infrared reflection of a flame on a test piece. Sabari also does not disclose or suggest capturing initiation of fire damage using the infrared reflection or capturing fire damage though through cessation of the fire damage using infrared reflection.”
As cited in the previous Office Action and restated below, Behrendt teaches in figures 1-11 and at least paragraphs 60-62, 81-82 the step of optically monitoring and optically measuring a reflection of a piece-flame. Sarabi is cited for explicitly teaching, in at least figures 1-4 and at least paragraphs 36 and 56, the use of infrared for optical monitoring in a analogous burn tests (In addition to the rejection as cited below, see Sarabi par.’s 53-55).
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, Sarabi explicitly teaches the monitoring of infrared wavelengths to monitor flames in a burn test environment to provide highly accurate heat and temperature detections of materials with well-known infrared spectrums (See Sarabi par. 56).
The examiner would like to emphasize that words of the claims are given their plain meaning under the broadest reasonable interpretation as would be understood by a person having ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2111.01(I)). In the present instance one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that Behrendt in view of Sarabi teach each limitation of the claims as cited below, including those recited on pages 7-8 of the present Remarks (“detecting an infrared reflection of a flame on a test piece," "capturing initiation of fire damage to the test piece using the infrared reflection," "capturing the fire damage though through cessation of the fire damage using the infrared reflection", "an optical sensor system configured to detect an infrared reflection of a flame on a test piece" and "a computer programmed to: capture initiation of fire damage to the test piece using the infrared reflection; and capture the fire damage though through cessation of the fire damage using the infrared reflection,").
Accordingly, claims 1, 12, amended claim 3, and their respective dependent claims are rejected as cited below.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Behrendt (US 20090015837 A1) further in view of Sarabi (US 20090168833 A1).
Regarding Claim 1: Behrendt discloses (in at least figures 1-11 the description, and the claims) a method for evaluating a burn test, the method comprising:
detecting a reflection of a flame on a test piece (fig. 3 and par. 60: cameras 306, 308, 310, and 312 of positioning system 300 continuously monitor test piece 302 and burner 304. See par. 61: red light emitters 316, 314 illuminate test piece 302 and are coupled with mirror 318 to suppress detection of burner flame by cameras 306 and 308. See also par. 62);
capturing initiation of fire damage to the test piece using the reflection (fig. 3 and par. 62: “cameras 310 and 312 are colour cameras, which continually deliver images to the image processing, whereby it can be established by analysis of the image data whether the test piece 302 is burning” );
capturing the fire damage through cessation of the fire damage using the reflection; and evaluating the fire damage (fig. 3 and par.’s 60-62: cameras of positioning system continuously monitor test piece 302 for image analysis of burn test. See also fig. 11, par. 35, and par.’s 81-82: “During the flame exposure, the test piece is also optically captured by at least one camera and the image data obtained in this way are evaluated by means of the image processing […]at which point in time after reaching the first mark 1108 the flames go out, and how long the length of damage to the test piece is in this case, can be determined, for example by comparison with a reference image of an undamaged test piece.”) 1.
Behrendt does not explicitly disclose wherein the reflection of a flame on a test piece is an infrared reflection.
Sarabi discloses an analogous method (fig.’s 1-4 and abstract: method and device for testing the fire hazard of a material), the method comprising detecting an infrared reflection of a flame on a test piece (par. 36: optical measurement system may include a pyrometer or other systems to measure the infrared spectrum of the IR light emitted, par. 56: camera system 122 captures infrared images for analysis of fire test by computer system 104).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the light in the infrared spectrum, as taught by Sarabi, to be detected by the system of Behrendt thereby allowing for highly accurate heat and temperature detections of materials with well-known infrared spectrums (Sarabi par. 56).
Regarding Claim 2: Behrendt and Sarabi disclose the method of Claim 1, and Behrendt discloses wherein:
detecting the reflection of the flame on the test piece comprises optically monitoring the test piece using at least one optical sensor (fig. 3 and par.’s 60-62: cameras of positioning system continuously monitor test piece 302 for image analysis of burn test. See par. 60: cameras of positioning system are optical cameras. See also par. 62: “[…] test piece 302 can be optically captured by the cameras. The cameras 310 and 312 are colour cameras […]”);
capturing initiation of the fire damage comprises determining an initial location of the fire damage on the test piece (fig. 11, par. 35, and par.’s 81-82: “During the flame exposure, the test piece is also optically captured by at least one camera and the image data obtained in this way are evaluated by means of the image processing […]at which point in time after reaching the first mark 1108 the flames go out, and how long the length of damage to the test piece is in this case, can be determined, for example by comparison with a reference image of an undamaged test piece.”);
capturing the fire damage comprises determining a terminal location of the fire damage on the test piece after the flame extinguishes; and evaluating the fire damage comprises determining a burn length of the fire damage between the initial location and the terminal location (fig. 11, par. 35, and par.’s 81-82: “During the flame exposure, the test piece is also optically captured by at least one camera and the image data obtained in this way are evaluated by means of the image processing […] at which point in time after reaching the first mark 1108 the flames go out, and how long the length of damage to the test piece is in this case, can be determined, for example by comparison with a reference image of an undamaged test piece.”).
Sarabi discloses detecting the infrared reflection of a flame on a test piece (par. 36: optical measurement system includes a pyrometer to measure the infrared spectrum of the IR light emitted, par. 56: camera system 122 captures infrared images for analysis of fire test by computer system 104).
The rationale to combine is the same as for claim 1.
Regarding Claim 3: Behrendt discloses (in at least figures 1-11 the description, and the claims) a method for evaluating a burn test, the method comprising:
optically monitoring a test piece while subjecting the test piece to a burner-flame and after removing the test piece from the burner-flame (fig. 3 and par. 60: optical cameras 306, 308, 310, and 312 of positioning system 300 continuously monitor test piece 302 and burner 304. See fig. 8: steps 800-804 and par. 75: “[…] in step 802 it is established by means of image processing whether formation of a drip thereby takes place. If no drip is detected during the flame exposure, in step 804 the burner is made to move away to the side after the 10 seconds have elapsed, so that it does not have any influence on the test piece.” See also fig 11 and par.’s 81-82: positioning system 300 also monitors horizontal burn test according to EN 60695-11-20 guidelines) 2,
wherein optically monitoring comprises optically measuring a reflection of the piece-flame (fig. 3 and par.’s 60-62: cameras of positioning system continuously monitor test piece 302 for image analysis of burn test. See also fig. 11, par. 35, and par.’s 81-82: “During the flame exposure, the test piece is also optically captured by at least one camera and the image data obtained in this way are evaluated by means of the image processing […] at which point in time after reaching the first mark 1108 the flames go out, and how long the length of damage to the test piece is in this case, can be determined, for example by comparison with a reference image of an undamaged test piece.”) 3; and
determining at least one burn characteristic of the test piece after a piece-flame extinguishes (fig. 3 and par.’s 60-62: optical cameras 306 and 308 continuously monitor test piece 302 for image analysis of changes/damage due to burning of the test piece in each of the burn tests. See fig.’s 8-10 and par.’s 75-76: EN 60695-11-20 vertical burn test includes determination of burn duration of test piece and drip formation during flame exposure. See also fig. 11 and par.’s 81-82: EN 60695-11-20 horizontal burn test includes comparing the length of burn damage to the test piece with a reference image of an undamaged test piece).
Behrendt does not explicitly disclose wherein the reflection of the piece-flame is an infrared reflection.
Sarabi discloses an analogous method (fig.’s 1-4 and abstract: method and device for testing the fire hazard of a material), the method comprising detecting an infrared reflection of a flame on a test piece (par. 36: optical measurement system may include a pyrometer or other systems to measure the infrared spectrum of the IR light emitted, par. 56: camera system 122 captures infrared images for analysis of fire test by computer system 104).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the light in the infrared spectrum, as taught by Sarabi, to be detected by the system of Behrendt thereby allowing for highly accurate heat and temperature detections of materials with well-known infrared spectrums (Sarabi par. 56).
Regarding Claim 4: Behrendt in view of Sarabi discloses method of Claim 3, and Behrendt further discloses wherein the at least one burn characteristic comprises at least one of a burn length as a function of location on the test piece (fig. 3 and par. 60: optical cameras 306 and 308 continuously monitor test piece 302 for changes/damage due to burning of the test piece in each of the burn tests. fig. 11, par. 35, and par.’s 81-82: horizontal burn test according to EN 60695-11-10 includes determining “which point in time after reaching the first mark 1108 the flames go out, and how long the length of damage to the test piece is in this case, can be determined, for example by comparison with a reference image of an undamaged test piece.”) and a burn duration between removing the test piece from the burner-flame and extinguishing of the piece-flame (fig. 3 and par. 60: optical cameras 306 and 308 continuously monitor test piece 302 for changes/damage due to burning of the test piece in each of the burn tests. Fig. 8 and par.’s 75-76: vertical burn test according to EN 60695-11-10 includes determining the burning time of the test piece in step 812).
Regarding Claim 5: Behrendt in view of Sarabi discloses the method of Claim 4, and Behrendt further discloses wherein the at least one burn characteristic further comprises: drippage; and a drip-burn duration between formation of a burning drip and extinguishing of a drip-flame (fig. 3 and par. 60: optical cameras 306 and 308 continuously monitor test piece 302 for changes/damage due to burning of the test piece in each of the burn tests. Fig. 8 and par.’s 75-76: vertical burn test according to EN 60695-11-10 includes “[…] in step 802 it is established by means of image processing whether formation of a drip thereby takes place. If no drip is detected during the flame exposure, in step 804 the burner is made to move away to the side after the 10 seconds have elapsed, so that it does not have any influence on the test piece.”).
Regarding Claim 6: Behrendt in view of Sarabi discloses the method of Claim 3, and Behrendt further discloses the method further comprising: optically measuring at least one flame parameter, comprising at least one of a flame profile of the piece-flame, a heat profile of the piece-flame, a heat intensity of the piece-flame, and a temperature of the piece-flame; and correlating the at least one flame parameter to location on the test piece (fig. 3 and par. 62: “The cameras 310 and 312 are colour cameras, which continually deliver images to the image processing, whereby it can be established by analysis of the image data whether the test piece 302 is burning.” That is, cameras 310 and 312 detect the presence of a flame at a location on the test piece. See also par.’s 17 and claim 15: imagine processing determines an RGB color profile of the burner flame)
Behrendt does not disclose that the at least one flame parameter is a profile of explicitly the piece-flame.
Sarabi discloses an analogous method (fig.’s 1-4 and abstract: method and device for testing the fire hazard of a material) further comprising: optically measuring at least one flame parameter, comprising at least one of a flame profile of the piece-flame, a heat profile of the piece-flame, a heat intensity of the piece-flame, and a temperature of the piece-flame; and correlating the at least one flame parameter to location on the test piece (fig. 1, par. 31, and par. 64: “The flame height 154 can furthermore be identified by measuring the region 152 against the measurement scale 150. The flame height 154 is then stored in the memory 132 by the computer program product 138. This may be done for each image 144 which is delivered by the camera system 124.”).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the flame parameter including a flame profile, as taught by Behrendt, to include a piece-flame profile, as taught by Sarabi, to more accurately pinpoint the location of the piece-flame and provide a more detailed depiction of the flame for image processing (Sarabi par. 31 and par. 36).
Regarding Claim 7: Behrendt and Sarabi disclose the method of Claim 6, and Behrendt discloses
wherein optically measuring the at least one flame parameter (fig. 3 and par. 62: “The cameras 310 and 312 are colour cameras, which continually deliver images to the image processing, whereby it can be established by analysis of the image data whether the test piece 302 is burning.”)
Sarabi discloses wherein optically measuring the at least one flame parameter of the piece-flame comprises at least one of measuring an infrared refraction of the piece-flame and measuring an infrared reflection of the piece-flame (par. 36: optical measurement system may include a pyrometer or other systems to measure the infrared spectrum of the IR light emitted, par. 56: camera system 122 captures infrared images for analysis of fire test by computer system 104).
The rationale to combine is the same as for claim 6.
Regarding Claim 8: Behrendt and Sarabi disclose the method of Claim 7, and Sarabi discloses wherein optically measuring the at least one flame parameter of the piece-flame is performed using an infrared sensor (par. 36: optical measurement system may include a pyrometer or other systems to measure the infrared spectrum of the IR light emitted, par. 56: camera system 122 captures infrared images for analysis of fire test by computer system 104).
The rationale to combine is the same as for claim 6.
Regarding Claim 9: Behrendt discloses the method of Claim 3, and Behrendt further discloses wherein optically monitoring is performed using an optical sensor system (fig. 3 and par. 60: optical cameras 306, 308, 310, and 312 of positioning system 300 continuously monitor test piece 302 and burner 304.).
Regarding Claim 10: Behrendt in view of Sarabi discloses the method of Claim 3, and Behrendt further discloses the method comprising: capturing a pre-test image of the test piece before subjecting the test piece to the burner-flame; capturing at least one intra-test image of the test piece after removing the test piece from the burner-flame and before extinguishing of the piece-flame; and capturing a post-test image of the test piece after extinguishing of the piece-flame, wherein determining the at least one burn characteristic comprises comparing the post-test image, intra-test image, and the pre-test image (fig. 3, par. 60: optical cameras 306, 308, 310, and 312 of positioning system 300 continuously monitor test piece 302 and burner 304, and par. 62: “The cameras 310 and 312 are colour cameras, which continually deliver images to the image processing, whereby it can be established by analysis of the image data whether the test piece 302 is burning.” See fig. 11, par. 35, and par.’s 81-82: “During the flame exposure, the test piece is also optically captured by at least one camera and the image data obtained in this way are evaluated by means of the image processing […] at which point in time after reaching the first mark 1108 the flames go out, and how long the length of damage to the test piece is in this case, can be determined, for example by comparison with a reference image of an undamaged test piece.”).
Regarding Claim 11: Behrendt in view of Sarabi discloses the method of Claim 10, and Behrendt further discloses wherein each one of the pre-test image, the intra-test image, and the post-test image comprises at least one of an infrared image, an X-ray image, and a color image (fig. 3, par. 60: optical cameras 306, 308, 310, and 312 of positioning system 300 continuously monitor test piece 302 and burner 304, and par. 62: “The cameras 310 and 312 are colour cameras […]”).
Regarding Claim 12: Behrendt in view of Sarabi discloses the method of Claim 10, and Behrendt discloses the method further comprising: determining a base measurement of the at least one burn characteristic using the pre-test image; and determining a test measurement of the at least one burn characteristic using at least one of the intra-test image and the post-test image, wherein determining the at least one burn characteristic comprises comparing the test measurement and the base measurement (fig. 11, par. 35, and par.’s 81-82: “During the flame exposure, the test piece is also optically captured by at least one camera and the image data obtained in this way are evaluated by means of the image processing […] at which point in time after reaching the first mark 1108 the flames go out, and how long the length of damage to the test piece is in this case, can be determined, for example by comparison with a reference image of an undamaged test piece.”).
Regarding Claim 13: Behrendt in view of Sarabi discloses the method of Claim 12, and Behrendt discloses the method further comprising: correlating at least one of the base measurement, the test measurement, the pre-test image, the intra-test image, and the post-test image with the test piece (fig. 11, par. 35, and par.’s 81-82: “During the flame exposure, the test piece is also optically captured by at least one camera and the image data obtained in this way are evaluated by means of the image processing […] at which point in time after reaching the first mark 1108 the flames go out, and how long the length of damage to the test piece is in this case, can be determined, for example by comparison with a reference image of an undamaged test piece.” See par. 81: first mark 1108, second mark 1110, reference line 1114, and related test piece metrics correlate directly to the designated test piece 1100); digitally storing at least one of the base measurement, the test measurement, the pre-test image, the intra-test image, and the post-test image (par. 35: length of damage is stored. See also fig. 1 and par. 57: “the image data of the reference image are stored by the computer program product 120 in the memory 118. During the flame exposure of the test piece 112 by the burner 110, image data of the burner 110 and of the test piece are continuously captured by the first camera 106 and the computer program product 120 continually calculates from the projected image 122 at a given time of the test piece 112 and of the burner 110 the distance between the burner 110 and the reference point 124 (the reference point 124 is thereby continually re-determined) and compares the distance determined at a given time in the projected image 122 with the distance prescribed in the image data of the reference image.”)4; and physically storing the test piece (fig. 7 and par. 69: specimen magazine 702 contains a supply 710 of test pieces. See also par. 73: 700 may also have a scrap magazine for used test pieces).
Regarding Claim 14: Behrendt in view of Sarabi discloses the method of Claim 3, and Behrendt discloses the method further comprising pre-screening the test piece before subjecting the test piece to the burner-flame and optically monitoring the test piece (fig. 7 and par.’s 60-69: the thickness of the test piece 714 is automatically measured with measuring device 712 before being fed into test chamber 708. Test pieces are also automatically repositioned in test chamber before being subjected to burner flame.).
Regarding Claim 15: Behrendt discloses (in at least figures 1-11 the description, and the claims) a system for evaluating a burn test, the system comprising:
an optical sensor system configured to detect a reflection of a flame on a test piece (fig. 3 and par. 60: optical cameras 306, 308, 310, and 312 of positioning system 300 continuously monitor test piece 302 and burner 304. See par. 61: red light emitters 316, 314 illuminate test piece 302 and are coupled with mirror 318 to suppress detection of burner flame by cameras 306 and 308. See also par. 62); and
a computer programmed to: capture initiation of fire damage to the test piece using the reflection (fig. 3 and par. 60: “The cameras 306 and 308 serve for the image data capture of the test piece 302 and of the burner 304” and par. 62: “cameras 310 and 312 are colour cameras, which continually deliver images to the image processing, whereby it can be established by analysis of the image data whether the test piece 302 is burning.” See also fig. 1 and par. 56: “The data of the images of the test piece 112 made by the first camera 106 are transmitted to the computer system 104. The computer program product 120 serves for the image processing of the data of images made by means of the first camera 106.” Note: computer system and image processing component are represented by element numbers 706 and 726 in figure 7.)5; and
capture the fire damage though cessation of the fire damage using the reflection (fig. 3 and par.’s 60-62: cameras of positioning system continuously monitor test piece 302 for image analysis of burn test. See also fig. 11, par. 35, and par.’s 81-82: “During the flame exposure, the test piece is also optically captured by at least one camera and the image data obtained in this way are evaluated by means of the image processing […]at which point in time after reaching the first mark 1108 the flames go out, and how long the length of damage to the test piece is in this case, can be determined, for example by comparison with a reference image of an undamaged test piece.”)6.
Behrendt does not explicitly disclose wherein the reflection of a flame on a test piece is an infrared reflection.
Sarabi discloses an analogous method (fig.’s 1-4 and abstract: method and device for testing the fire hazard of a material), the method comprising detecting an infrared reflection of a flame on a test piece (par. 36: optical measurement system may include a pyrometer or other systems to measure the infrared spectrum of the IR light emitted, par. 56: camera system 122 captures infrared images for analysis of fire test by computer system 104).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the light in the infrared spectrum, as taught by Sarabi, to be detected by the system of Behrendt thereby allowing for highly accurate heat and temperature detections of materials with well-known infrared spectrums (Sarabi par. 56).
Regarding Claim 16: Behrendt and Sarabi disclose the system of Claim 15, and Behrendt discloses wherein the computer is programmed to:
determine an initial location of the fire damage on the test piece to capture the initiation of the fire damage (fig. 11, par. 35, and par.’s 81-82: “During the flame exposure, the test piece is also optically captured by at least one camera and the image data obtained in this way are evaluated by means of the image processing […]at which point in time after reaching the first mark 1108 the flames go out, and how long the length of damage to the test piece is in this case, can be determined, for example by comparison with a reference image of an undamaged test piece.”);
determine a terminal location of the fire damage on the test piece after the flame extinguishes to capture the fire damage through the cessation of the fire damage; and measure a burn length of the fire damage between the initial location and the terminal location (fig. 11, par. 35, and par.’s 81-82: “During the flame exposure, the test piece is also optically captured by at least one camera and the image data obtained in this way are evaluated by means of the image processing […] at which point in time after reaching the first mark 1108 the flames go out, and how long the length of damage to the test piece is in this case, can be determined, for example by comparison with a reference image of an undamaged test piece.”).
Regarding Claim 17: Behrendt and Sarabi disclose system of Claim 15, and Behrendt discloses wherein:
the optical sensor system is configured to optically measure at least one flame parameter of the flame that is consuming the test piece during the burn test (fig. 3 and par. 62: “The cameras 310 and 312 are colour cameras, which continually deliver images to the image processing, whereby it can be established by analysis of the image data whether the test piece 302 is burning.” That is, cameras 310 and 312 detect the presence of a flame at a location on the test piece);
the computer is programmed to determine at least one burn characteristic of the test piece after the flame extinguishes based on the least one flame parameter; and the at least one burn characteristic comprises at least one of a burn length as a function of location on the test piece, a burn duration between removing the test piece from a burner-flame and extinguishing of the flame, and the at least one flame parameter as a function of the location on the test piece (fig. 3 and par. 60: optical cameras 306 and 308 continuously monitor test piece 302 for changes/damage due to burning of the test piece in each of the burn tests. fig. 11, par. 35, and par.’s 81-82: horizontal burn test according to EN 60695-11-10 includes determining “which point in time after reaching the first mark 1108 the flames go out, and how long the length of damage to the test piece is in this case, can be determined, for example by comparison with a reference image of an undamaged test piece.”).
Behrendt does not explicitly disclose wherein the at least one flame parameter of the flame comprises at least one of a flame profile, a heat profile, a heat intensity, and a temperature of the flame.
Sarabi discloses wherein the at least one flame parameter of the flame comprises at least one of a flame profile, a heat profile, a heat intensity, and a temperature of the flame (fig. 1, par. 31, and par. 64: “The flame height 154 can furthermore be identified by measuring the region 152 against the measurement scale 150. The flame height 154 is then stored in the memory 132 by the computer program product 138. This may be done for each image 144 which is delivered by the camera system 124.”).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the flame parameter including a flame profile, as taught by Behrendt, to include a piece-flame profile, as taught by Sarabi, to more accurately pinpoint the location of the piece-flame and provide a more detailed depiction of the flame for image processing (Sarabi par. 31 and par. 36).
Regarding Claim 18: Behrendt and Sarabi disclose the system of Claim 15, and Sarabi discloses wherein the optical sensor system comprises an infrared sensor configured to measure at least one of an infrared refraction of the flame and the infrared reflection of the flame (par. 36: optical measurement system may include a pyrometer or other systems to measure the infrared spectrum of the IR light emitted, par. 56: camera system 122 captures infrared images for analysis of fire test by computer system 104).
The rationale to combine is the same as for claim 15.
Regarding Claim 19: Behrendt and Sarabi disclose the system of Claim 15, and Behrendt discloses wherein: the optical sensor system comprises a structural sensor configured to: capture a pre-test image of the test piece before subjecting the test piece to the flame; an intra-test image of the test piece after removing the test piece from the flame and before extinguishing of the flame; and a post-test image of the test piece after extinguishing of the flame; the computer is programmed to determine at least one burn characteristic by comparing the post-test image, the intra-test image, and the pre-test image; and each one of the pre-test image, the intra-test image, and the post-test image comprises at least one of an infrared image, an X-ray image, and a color image (fig. 3, par. 60: optical cameras 306, 308, 310, and 312 of positioning system 300 continuously monitor test piece 302 and burner 304, and par. 62: “The cameras 310 and 312 are colour cameras, which continually deliver images to the image processing, whereby it can be established by analysis of the image data whether the test piece 302 is burning.” See fig. 11, par. 35, and par.’s 81-82: “During the flame exposure, the test piece is also optically captured by at least one camera and the image data obtained in this way are evaluated by means of the image processing […] at which point in time after reaching the first mark 1108 the flames go out, and how long the length of damage to the test piece is in this case, can be determined, for example by comparison with a reference image of an undamaged test piece.”).
Regarding Claim 20: Behrendt and Sarabi disclose the system of Claim 15, and Behrendt the system further comprising a non-destructive testing system configured to pre-screen the test piece before subjecting the test piece to the flame and optically measuring at least one flame parameter (fig. 7 and par.’s 60-69: the thickness of the test piece 714 is automatically measured with measuring device 712 before being fed into test chamber 708. Test pieces are also automatically repositioned in test chamber before being subjected to burner flame. See also par.’s 17 and claim 15: imagine processing determines an RGB color profile of the burner flame prior to testing).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure includes:
Campbell (US 11906453 B1) discloses the method according to claims 1-5 and the system according to claims 15-18.
Wintrich (WO 02070953 A1) discloses the method according to claims 1-3 and the system according to claims 15-16.
Goring (US 2025172469 A1) discloses the method according to claims 1-3 and the system according to claims 15-16.
Jeter (US 3545252 A) discloses the method of claims 3-5.
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 EVAN MANCINI whose telephone number is (703)756-5796. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8AM-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, KRISTINA DEHERRERA can be reached at (303)297-4237. 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.
/EVAN MANCINI/Examiner, Art Unit 2855
/KRISTINA M DEHERRERA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2855 3/16/26
1 Note that the apparatus disclosed in figures 1-7 is capable of evaluating the burn tests according to the international standard guidelines of EN 60695-11-10 which include the horizontal and vertical tests shown in figures 8-11. See also par. 60 and claims 18, 21, 33, 35, and 39.
2 Note that the apparatus disclosed in figures 1-7 is capable of evaluating the burn tests according to the international standard guidelines of EN 60695-11-10 which include the horizontal and vertical tests shown in figures 8-11. See also par. 60 and claims 18, 21, 33, 35, and 39.
3 Note that the apparatus disclosed in figures 1-7 is capable of evaluating the burn tests according to the international standard guidelines of EN 60695-11-10 which include the horizontal and vertical tests shown in figures 8-11. See also par. 60 and claims 18, 21, 33, 35, and 39.
4 Apparatus 700 in the block diagram of fig. 7 incorporates the positioning system 300 of fig. 3 (element 718 in fig. 7) and the fundamentals of the apparatus 100 shown in figure 1.
5 Apparatus 700 in the block diagram of fig. 7 incorporates the positioning system 300 of fig. 3 (element 718 in fig. 7) and the fundamentals of the apparatus 100 shown in figure 1.
6 Note that the apparatus disclosed in figures 1-7 is capable of evaluating the burn tests according to the international standard guidelines of EN 60695-11-10 which include the horizontal and vertical tests shown in figures 8-11. See also par. 60 and claims 18, 21, 33, 35, and 39.