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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities: the word “output” in line 1 of the claim should be deleted.
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities: in line 3 of the claim, the word in should be inserted before “front.”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, the claim recites the limitation of a first sensor mounted in front of the liquid reservoir, and a second mounted behind the liquid reservoir. It is not clear as to what is meant by in front of or behind since no reference has been made for what would be the front and back. For example, does in front of mean upstream and behind mean downstream? Or since the claim is directed towards a vehicle, does the front refer to the front end of the vehicle and behind refer to the back end? Additionally, when the vehicle is in motion, it would be possible for the front and back to change depending on whether the vehicle is in reverse or not, which would change the definition of “in front” and “behind” for the sensors.
Regarding claims 11 and 19, the claims recite similar limitations to that of claim 1 with regard to the terms front and behind and are rejected for the same reasons.
All claims which depend from those above are rejected for the same reasons due to their dependency thereon.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1, 4, 5, 11 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hirakata US 2016/0236536 and Horii et al. US 2008/0236914.
Regarding claim 1, Hirakata teaches a vehicle 10 comprising a liquid reservoir (gas tank 111 and fuel cell 100 would be filled with liquid hydrogen), a first sensor 140 mounted in front of the liquid reservoir (the sensor is in the front end of the vehicle, fig. 1), a second sensor 150 mounted behind the liquid reservoir (the sensor is in the back end of the vehicle, fig. 1), a memory (paragraph 0053) storing instructions and a processor 200 configured to access the memory and receive a plurality of inputs from the first and second sensors (paragraph 0026), the processor being configured to compare a first sensor output from the first sensor to a threshold (reference concentration, paragraph 0036) and compare the second sensor output from the second sensor to a threshold and based on the determined difference between the sensor outputs and the thresholds, initiate a notification of a detected leak in the liquid reservoir (paragraph 0036). Therefore, Hirakata differs from that of the claimed invention in that the processor does not compare the first sensor signal with the second to determine the difference therebetween and a leak.
Horii discloses a vehicle and system for monitoring a leakage thereof including multiple sensors at different locations in the vehicle (paragraphs 0022-0023) in which the sensor signals are generated and a leak is determined based on the detection of hydrogen by one sensor and not the other (paragraph 0035). Therefore, a difference between the first and second sensor outputs is used to determine a leak which is output as a notification (paragraph 0079). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have combined the teachings of Horii with those of Hirakata in order to provide a determination of leakage without the need for a predetermined threshold and to better indicate a leakage location in the system based on which sensor is detecting the leak.
Regarding claim 4, Hirakata discloses the sensor as being an infrared sensor as claimed (paragraph 0026).
Regarding claim 5, Hirakata discloses the sensor as being an infrared absorption sensor which would determine a chemical concentration as claimed.
Regarding claim 11, Hirakata teaches a method of detecting a leak in a liquid reservoir of a moving vehicle 10 (gas tank 111 and fuel cell 100 would be filled with liquid hydrogen) comprising:
receiving a first sensor output from a first sensor 140 positioned in front of the liquid reservoir (the sensor is in the front end of the vehicle, fig. 1),
receiving a second sensor output from a second sensor 150 positioned behind the liquid reservoir (the sensor is in the back end of the vehicle, fig. 1),
comparing a first sensor output from the first sensor to a threshold (reference concentration, paragraph 0036) and comparing the second sensor output from the second sensor to a threshold and based on the determined difference between the sensor outputs and the thresholds, initiating a notification of a detected leak in the liquid reservoir (paragraph 0036). Therefore, Hirakata differs from that of the claimed invention in that the processor does not compare the first sensor signal with the second to determine the difference therebetween and a leak.
Horii discloses method for monitoring a leakage in a vehicle including multiple sensors at different locations in the vehicle (paragraphs 0022-0023) in which the sensor signals are generated and a leak is determined based on the detection of hydrogen by one sensor and not the other (paragraph 0035). Therefore, a difference between the first and second sensor outputs is used to determine a leak which is output as a notification (paragraph 0079). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have combined the teachings of Horii with those of Hirakata in order to provide a determination of leakage without the need for a predetermined threshold and to better indicate a leakage location in the system based on which sensor is detecting the leak.
Regarding claim 19, Hirakata teaches a computer readable storage medium with instructions stored thereon that in response to execution by at least one processor 200 cause the processor to
receive a first sensor output from a first sensor 140 positioned in front of the liquid reservoir (the sensor is in the front end of the vehicle, fig. 1),
receive a second sensor output from a second sensor 150 positioned behind the liquid reservoir (the sensor is in the back end of the vehicle, fig. 1),
compare a first sensor output from the first sensor to a threshold (reference concentration, paragraph 0036) and comparing the second sensor output from the second sensor to a threshold and based on the determined difference between the sensor outputs and the thresholds, initiating a notification of a detected leak in the liquid reservoir (paragraph 0036). Therefore, Hirakata differs from that of the claimed invention in that the processor does not compare the first sensor signal with the second to determine the difference therebetween and a leak.
Horii discloses method for monitoring a leakage in a vehicle including multiple sensors at different locations in the vehicle (paragraphs 0022-0023) in which the sensor signals are generated and a leak is determined based on the detection of hydrogen by one sensor and not the other (paragraph 0035). Therefore, a difference between the first and second sensor outputs is used to determine a leak which is output as a notification (paragraph 0079). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have combined the teachings of Horii with those of Hirakata in order to provide a determination of leakage without the need for a predetermined threshold and to better indicate a leakage location in the system based on which sensor is detecting the leak.
Claim(s) 6, 7, 14 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hirakata and Horii as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yokosawa et al. US 2006/0114113.
Regarding claims 6 and 7, the claims are directed towards calibration of sensors in a leak detection system. Hirakata and Horii do not explicitly disclose such a calibration. Yokosawa teaches a gas detection system in which a calibration operation is performed on a gas sensor (paragraph 0062) by using an environmental exposure to a target gas. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have combined the teachings of Yokosawa with those of Hirakata and Horii in order to provide calibrated leak sensors which would yield more accurate results and increase safety in the system. In combination, the sensors would be on a common scale since the calibration would be the same for each.
Regarding claims 14 and 15, the claims are directed towards calibration of sensors in a leak detection system. Hirakata and Horii do not explicitly disclose such a calibration. Yokosawa teaches a gas detection method in which a calibration operation is performed on a gas sensor (paragraph 0062) by using an environmental exposure to a target gas. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have combined the teachings of Yokosawa with those of Hirakata and Horii in order to provide calibrated leak sensors which would yield more accurate results and increase safety in the system. In combination, the sensors would be on a common scale since the calibration would be the same for each.
Claim(s) 8-10 and 16-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hirakata and Horii as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Maitre US 2023/0206703.
Regarding claim 8, Hirakata and Horii disclose the claimed invention but do not explicitly teach the transmission of the notification to a remote mission control center. Maitre teaches a system for monitoring gas leakage from a vehicle in which multiple sensors are arranged around the vehicle which can detect a leakage of a fuel or other liquid therefrom. The system transmits the leakage data to a remote unit (control unit 110) for analysis. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have combined the teachings of Maitre with those of Hirakata and Horii in order to provide an off-vehicle device for transmission of any alerts in order to warn a technician of any issues (Maitre paragraph 0029).
Regarding claims 9 and 10, Hirakata discloses using the vehicle speed to adjust the sensor output when determining a leakage in the system (paragraph 0053). Additionally, the reference concentration for determining leakage is set to 3.0% to 4.0% (paragraph 0033) which would be an uncertainty factor and the processor would be able to operate in the claimed manner since it only requires basic processing steps.
Regarding claim 16, Hirakata and Horii disclose the claimed invention but do not explicitly teach the transmission of the notification to a remote mission control center. Maitre teaches a system and method for monitoring gas leakage from a vehicle in which multiple sensors are arranged around the vehicle which can detect a leakage of a fuel or other liquid therefrom. The system transmits the leakage data to a remote unit (control unit 110) for analysis. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have combined the teachings of Maitre with those of Hirakata and Horii in order to provide an off-vehicle device for transmission of any alerts in order to warn a technician of any issues (Maitre paragraph 0029).
Regarding claims 17 and 18, Hirakata discloses using the vehicle speed to adjust the sensor output when determining a leakage in the system (paragraph 0053). Additionally, the reference concentration for determining leakage is set to 3.0% to 4.0% (paragraph 0033) which would be an uncertainty factor and the processor would be operate in the claimed manner when determining the difference.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2, 3, 12, 13 and 20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but may be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art of record fails to teach the claimed buffering of the first sensor output based in part upon a distance between the first and second sensors. The prior art does not delay the sensor outputs in any manner and doing so would allow for sensing to occur at the same location with two separate sensors in a vehicle that is moving.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Mark A. Shabman whose telephone number is (571)272-8589. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-4:30 EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Laura Martin can be reached at 571-272-2160. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MARK A SHABMAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855