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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because all the characters in parenthesis should be deleted. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
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 1-12 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 1 recites the limitation "at least one main unit" in line 5. Claim 2 recites the limitation "at least one main unit" in line 4. Claim 3 recites the limitation "at least one main unit" in line 3. Claim 9 recites the limitation "at least one main unit" in line 3. Claim 10 recites the limitation "at least one main unit" in line 2. Claim 12 recites the limitation "the main units" in line 2. There are insufficient antecedent bases for these limitations in the claims.
The claims are generally narrative and indefinite, failing to conform with current U.S. practice. They appear to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document and are replete with grammatical and idiomatic errors.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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 person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-5, 7-9, 11 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Castonguay (US 11,618,664).
Castonguay discloses the following claimed features:
Regarding claim 1, a system (Figures 1-4 and 8) for monitoring and regulating restaurant equipment and monitoring the condition of tap piping (12) wherein it includes at least one main unit (800) comprising a main processor, wherein at least one sensor (17) selected from a group consisting of a probe thermometer, ultrasonic flowmeter, mechanical flowmeter, thermometer, pressure sensor is connected to the main unit, wherein at least one main unit (800) is connected to a processing unit (802) comprising a database, wherein the processing unit is designed to process data from individual main units and to store (804) and access stored data and is provided with remote data management and visualisation tools (column 10, lines 1-60).
Regarding claim 2, wherein an additional sensor/actuator (302) selected from a group consisting of a hygrometer, thermostatic controller, barrel tapping detector and relay for switching appliances is connected to at least one main unit (Figure 6; column 8, lines 24-67).
Regarding claim 3, wherein pump, valve and automatic sanitation switches (14, 20) are connected to at least one main unit (800) (Figure 4).
Regarding claim 4, wherein it is provided with a backup power supply (it’s well known in the art to have a backup power supply source).
Regarding claim 5, wherein the ultrasonic flow meter is provided with a sensor (17) for automatically detecting the sanitation of the tap piping performed (column 3, lines 53-63).
Regarding claim 7, wherein at least one master unit is provided with a system for remotely updating the firmware of the unit and/or connected sensors supporting this functionality (column 10, lines 27-60).
Regarding claim 8, wherein it is provided with means for automating and/or diagnosing and/or controlling connected actuators (Figure 6; column 8, lines 24-67).
Regarding claim 9, wherein at least one of the sensors (17) connectable to at least one main unit (800) is provided with means (16) for reading data from the sensor, without explicitly providing support on the main unit side (column 3, lines 53-63).
Regarding claim 11, wherein the main unit (800) and the processing unit (802) are provided with tools for remotely adjusting the range of functionality of the system (Figure 8).
Regarding claim 12, wherein the main units (800) are provided with an internal storage for storing the measured values at the time of a connection failure and for sending them to the processing unit (column 10, lines 27-60).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Castonguay (US 11,618,664) in view of Cosentino et al (US 12,325,647).
Castonguay discloses the claimed invention except for reciting the ultrasonic flowmeter is provided with automatic counting of sanitation sponges, insertable into the tap piping.
Cosentino et al teach the ultrasonic flowmeter is provided with automatic counting of sanitation sponges, insertable into the tap piping (column 7, lines 1-35).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have the ultrasonic flowmeter provided with automatic counting of sanitation sponges, insertable into the tap piping, as taught by Cosentino et al into Castonguay, for the purpose of tracking fluid velocity and volume.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Castonguay (US 11,618,664) in view of Hershberger et al (US 9,221,667).
Castonguay discloses the claimed invention except for reciting at least one main unit is provided with a device for encrypting the transmitted data, and the processing unit is provided with a device for verifying the identity of individual main units; and vice versa, these are provided with a device for verifying the identity of the processing unit.
Hershberger et al teach at least one main unit is provided with a device for encrypting the transmitted data, and the processing unit is provided with a device for verifying the identity of individual main units; and vice versa, these are provided with a device for verifying the identity of the processing unit (column 4, lines 25-54).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have at least one main unit is provided with a device for encrypting the transmitted data, and the processing unit is provided with a device for verifying the identity of individual main units; and vice versa, these are provided with a device for verifying the identity of the processing unit, as taught by Hershberger into Castonguay, for the purpose of transmitting data securely and obtaining a wireless RFID device.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AN H DO whose telephone number is (571)272-2143. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 7:00am-4:00pm.
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, Ricardo Magallanes can be reached on 571-272-5960. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/AN H DO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2853
Prosecution Insights