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 .
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 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.
DETAILED ACTION
Specification
The use of the term "thermometal" (¶ [0029]), which is a trade name or a mark used in commerce, has been noted in this application. The term should be accompanied by the generic terminology; furthermore the term should be capitalized wherever it appears or, where appropriate, include a proper symbol indicating use in commerce such as ™, SM , or ® following the term.
Although the use of trade names and marks used in commerce (i.e., trademarks, service marks, certification marks, and collective marks) are permissible in patent applications, the proprietary nature of the marks should be respected and every effort made to prevent their use in any manner which might adversely affect their validity as commercial marks.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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.
Claim(s) 1-14 is/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(s) 1-2 and 11-14 contains the trademark/trade name THERMOMETAL. Where a trademark or trade name is used in a claim as a limitation to identify or describe a particular material or product, the claim does not comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph. See Ex parte Simpson, 218 USPQ 1020 (Bd. App. 1982). The claim scope is uncertain since the trademark or trade name cannot be used properly to identify any particular material or product. A trademark or trade name is used to identify a source of goods, and not the goods themselves. Thus, a trademark or trade name does not identify or describe the goods associated with the trademark or trade name. In the present case, the trademark/trade name is used to identify/describe a temperature sensor and, accordingly, the identification/description is indefinite.
Claim(s) 2-14 is/are rejected due to their dependency on Claim 1.
Examiner’s Notes
Regarding Claim(s) 1: when reading the preamble in the context of the entire claim, the recitation of the preamble is not limiting because the body of the claim describes a complete invention and the language recited solely in the preamble does not provide any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations. Thus, the preamble of the claim(s) is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction. See MPEP § 2111.02.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3 and 11-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Martin (GB 1342725, see reference in its entirety).
With respect to independent Claim 1, Martin disclose(s):
A thermometer (Figs. 1-2) comprising:
a gauge (Fig. 4: 4) including a first indicia (see annotated Fig. 4 below) and a second indicia (see annotated Fig. 4 below);
a thermometal (Fig. 5: bi-metal coil sensor 12) operably connected to the gauge (Fig. 2); and
a stationary member (Fig. 1: 2) defining a first aperture (Fig. 1: 3), the gauge configured to rotate relative to the stationary member (Fig. 1 and pg. 2, lines 103-107),
wherein in response to the thermometal detecting a first range of temperatures (see annotated Fig. 4 below), the gauge is configured to rotate relative to the stationary member to display the first indicia through the first aperture (Fig. 1 and pg. 2, lines 103-107), and
wherein in response to the thermometal detecting a second range of temperatures (see annotated Fig. 4 below), the gauge is configured to rotate relative to the stationary member to display the second indicia through the first aperture (Fig. 1 and pg. 2, lines 103-107).
PNG
media_image1.png
322
245
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
261
253
media_image2.png
Greyscale
With respect to Claim 2, Martin disclose(s): the thermometer of Claim 1.
Martin further disclose(s): the gauge including a third indica (see annotated Fig. 4 above), wherein in response to the thermometal detecting a third range of temperatures (see annotated Fig. 4 above), the gauge is configured to rotate relative to the stationary member to display the third indicia through the first aperture (see annotated Fig. 4 above and pg. 2, lines 103-107).
With respect to Claim 3, Martin disclose(s): the thermometer of Claim 2.
Martin further disclose(s): wherein the first range of temperatures is less than the second range of temperatures (see annotated Fig. 4 above), and the third range of temperatures is greater than the second range of temperatures (see annotated Fig. 4 above).
With respect to Claim 11, Martin disclose(s): the thermometer of Claim 1.
Martin further disclose(s): wherein the thermometal is configured to form a coil that expands and contracts in response to a change in detected temperature (Fig. 5: bi-metal coil sensor 12).
With respect to Claim 12, Martin disclose(s): the thermometer of Claim 1.
Martin further disclose(s): wherein the thermometal is a bimetallic coil (Fig. 5: bi-metal coil sensor 12).
With respect to Claim 13, Martin disclose(s): the thermometer of Claim 1.
Martin further disclose(s): further comprising a base (Fig. 1: 1) configured to receive the thermometal and the gauge (Fig. 1), the base including a support surface (see annotated Fig. 2 above), the thermometal positioned adjacent to the support surface (see annotated Fig. 2 above).
With respect to Claim 14, Martin disclose(s): the thermometer of Claim 13.
Martin further disclose(s): wherein the support surface defines a first surface (see annotated Fig. 2 above) and a second surface (see annotated Fig. 2 above) vertically offset from the first surface (see annotated Fig. 2 above), the thermometal positioned adjacent to the second surface (see annotated Fig. 2 above).
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) 4-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Martin.
Regarding Claim 4, Martin disclose(s) the thermometer of Claim 1.
Martin do(es) not specifically disclose: wherein the second range of temperatures is 379 degrees Fahrenheit to 430 degrees Fahrenheit.
However, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to provide a range of 379 degrees Fahrenheit to 430 degrees Fahrenheit, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the “optimum range” involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Here the range of temperature does not appear to be significant to the function of the thermometer, thus noting the range is absent any criticality, nor would it adversely affect the function of the thermometer of Martin.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to change the optimum range of the temperature in order to improve precision of the thermometer.
Regarding Claim 5, Martin disclose(s) the thermometer of Claim 4.
Martin do(es) not specifically disclose: wherein the first range of temperatures is below 379 degrees Fahrenheit.
However, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to provide a range to be below 379 degrees Fahrenheit, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the “optimum range” involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Here the range of temperature does not appear to be significant to the function of the thermometer, thus noting the range is absent any criticality, nor would it adversely affect the function of the thermometer of Martin.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to change the optimum range of the temperature in order to improve precision of the thermometer.
Regarding Claim 6, Martin disclose(s) the thermometer of Claim 4.
Martin do(es) not specifically disclose: wherein the first range of temperatures is above 430 degrees Fahrenheit.
However, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to provide a range to be above 430 degrees Fahrenheit, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the “optimum range” involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Here the range of temperature does not appear to be significant to the function of the thermometer, thus noting the range is absent any criticality, nor would it adversely affect the function of the thermometer of Martin.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to change the optimum range of the temperature in order to improve precision of the thermometer.
Regarding Claim 7, Martin disclose(s) the thermometer of Claim 1.
Martin do(es) not specifically disclose: wherein the second range of temperatures is 385 degrees Fahrenheit to 415 degrees Fahrenheit.
However, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to provide a range of 385 degrees Fahrenheit to 415 degrees Fahrenheit, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the “optimum range” involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Here the range of temperature does not appear to be significant to the function of the thermometer, thus noting the range is absent any criticality, nor would it adversely affect the function of the thermometer of Martin.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to change the optimum range of the temperature in order to improve precision of the thermometer.
Regarding Claim 8, Martin disclose(s) the thermometer of Claim 7.
Martin do(es) not specifically disclose: wherein the first range of temperatures is below 385 degrees Fahrenheit.
However, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to provide a range to be below 385 degrees Fahrenheit, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the “optimum range” involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Here the range of temperature does not appear to be significant to the function of the thermometer, thus noting the range is absent any criticality, nor would it adversely affect the function of the thermometer of Martin.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to change the optimum range of the temperature in order to improve precision of the thermometer.
Regarding Claim 9, Martin disclose(s) the thermometer of Claim 7.
Martin do(es) not specifically disclose: wherein the first range of temperatures is above 415 degrees Fahrenheit.
However, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to provide a range to be above 415 degrees Fahrenheit, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the “optimum range” involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Here the range of temperature does not appear to be significant to the function of the thermometer, thus noting the range is absent any criticality, nor would it adversely affect the function of the thermometer of Martin.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to change the optimum range of the temperature in order to improve precision of the thermometer.
Regarding Claim 10, Martin disclose(s) the thermometer of Claim 1.
Martin do(es) not specifically disclose: wherein the second range of temperatures is representative of a temperature to achieve a Leidenfrost effect.
However, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to provide a range of a temperature to achieve a Leidenfrost effect, which is understood to be above 379 degrees Fahrenheit, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the “optimum range” involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Here the range of temperature does not appear to be significant to the function of the thermometer, thus noting the range is absent any criticality, nor would it adversely affect the function of the thermometer of Martin.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to change the optimum range of the temperature in order to improve precision of the thermometer.
Claim(s) 15-16 and 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Martin in view of Ryan et al. (US 1581812, see reference in its entirety).
With respect to independent Claim 15, Martin disclose(s):
A thermometer (Figs. 1-2) comprising:
a gauge (Fig. 4: 4) including a first indicia (see annotated Fig. 4 below), a second indicia (see annotated Fig. 4 below), a third indicia (see annotated Fig. 4 below),
a base (Fig. 1: 1);
a temperature detection member (Fig. 5: bi-metal coil sensor 12) received by the base and configured to detect a temperature of a surface upon which the base is positioned (pg. 2, lines 103-107), the temperature detection member operably connected to the gauge and configured to rotate the gauge in response to changes in the detected temperature (pg. 2, lines 103-107); and
a stationary member (Fig. 1: 2) defining a first aperture (Fig. 1: 3), the gauge configured to rotate relative to the stationary member (Fig. 1 and pg. 2, lines 103-107),
wherein in response to the temperature detection member detecting a first range of temperatures (see annotated Fig. 4 below), the gauge is configured to rotate relative to the stationary member to display the first indicia through the first aperture (Fig. 1 and pg. 2, lines 103-107),
wherein in response to the temperature detection member detecting a second range of temperatures (see annotated Fig. 4 below), the gauge is configured to rotate relative to the stationary member to display the second indicia through the first aperture (Fig. 1 and pg. 2, lines 103-107), and
wherein in response to the temperature detection member detecting a third range of temperatures (see annotated Fig. 4 below), the gauge is configured to rotate relative to the stationary member to display the third indicia through the first aperture (Fig. 1 and pg. 2, lines 103-107).
PNG
media_image2.png
261
253
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Martin does not specifically disclose: a fourth indicia, a fifth indicia, and a sixth indicia; and a second aperture; and the fourth indicia through the second aperture, and the fifth indicia through the second aperture, and the sixth indicia through the second aperture.
However, Ryan teach(es) a thermometer (Figs. 3-4) including: a fourth indicia (see annotated Fig. 4 below), a fifth indicia (see annotated Fig. 4 below), and a sixth indicia (see annotated Fig. 4 below); and a second aperture (Fig. 3: 6); and the fourth indicia through the second aperture (Fig. 3), and the fifth indicia through the second aperture (Fig. 3), and the sixth indicia through the second aperture (Fig. 3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Martin, with the teachings of Ryan, for the purpose of indicating temperature changes (pg. 1, lines 26-29).
PNG
media_image3.png
1050
1021
media_image3.png
Greyscale
With respect to Claim 16, Martin and Ryan teach(es) the thermometer of Claim 15.
Martin further disclose(s): wherein the first indica is different from the second indica and the third indica (see annotated Fig. 4 above), and the second indicia is different from the third indicia (see annotated Fig. 4 above).
With respect to Claim 18, Martin and Ryan teach(es) the thermometer of Claim 15.
Martin further disclose(s): wherein the first temperature range is less than the second temperature range (see annotated Fig. 4 above), and the third temperature range is greater than the second temperature range (see annotated Fig. 4 above).
Regarding Claim 19, Martin and Ryan disclose(s) the thermometer of Claim 18.
The combination do(es) not specifically disclose: wherein the second range of temperatures is 379 degrees Fahrenheit to 430 degrees Fahrenheit.
However, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to provide a range of 379 degrees Fahrenheit to 430 degrees Fahrenheit, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the “optimum range” involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Here the range of temperature does not appear to be significant to the function of the thermometer, thus noting the range is absent any criticality, nor would it adversely affect the function of the combined thermometer of Martin and Ryan.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to change the optimum range of the temperature in order to improve precision of the thermometer.
Regarding Claim 20, Martin and Ryan disclose(s) the thermometer of Claim 18.
The combination do(es) not specifically disclose: wherein the second range of temperatures is 385 degrees Fahrenheit to 415 degrees Fahrenheit.
However, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to provide a range of 385 degrees Fahrenheit to 415 degrees Fahrenheit, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the “optimum range” involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Here the range of temperature does not appear to be significant to the function of the thermometer, thus noting the range is absent any criticality, nor would it adversely affect the function of the combined thermometer of Martin and Ryan.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to change the optimum range of the temperature in order to improve precision of the thermometer.
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Martin and Ryan further in view of Hofer (US 4104916; see reference in its entirety).
Regarding Claim(s) 17, Martin and Ryan disclose(s) the thermometer of Claim 15.
The combination does not specifically disclose: wherein the fourth indicia is a first color, the fifth indicia is a second color, and the sixth indicia is a third color, the first, second, and third colors being different.
However, Hofer teach(es) a thermometer (Fig. 4) including: wherein the fourth indicia is a first color (Fig. 4 and col. 4, lines 17-24: 50), the fifth indicia is a second color (Fig. 4 and col. 4, lines 17-24: 52), and the sixth indicia is a third color (Fig. 4 and col. 4, lines 17-24: 54), the first, second, and third colors being different (Fig. 4 and col. 4, lines 17-24).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Martin and Ryan, with the further teachings of Hofer, for the purpose of provide a visual progression of temperature by color coding (col. 4, lines 17-24).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
The following reference(s) relate(s) to thermometers: Gordonier et al. (US 2153830); Ingersoll et al. (US 3053090); Barbier (US 2078993).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TANIA COURSON whose telephone number is (571)272-2239. The examiner can normally be reached M-F (7am-3:30pm).
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 on (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.
/TC/
31 March 2026
/KRISTINA M DEHERRERA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2855
Prosecution Insights