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 .
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Paragraph [0002] recites the expression “stripping off old pint…” This is understood to be a typo and intended to read “paint”
Paragraph [0003] recites the expression “which does no help to enhance…” which is also understood to be a typo and should be correct to read “not”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are as follows:
“Temperature sensing element configured to sense a heating temperature” in Claim 1 which is further defined in the specifications as “the temperature sensing element 500 may also adopt an alternative electronic element having a resistance correspondingly changing with temperature.” [0043]” and as shown in Figure 3 element 500- temperature sensing element.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1 & 3-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Independent claim 1 recites a mental process in the limitation “the control module determines occurrence of temperature anomaly based on a temperature signal” This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because: there is not a particular step of the method that is carried out given the result of this determination. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the independent claim merely recites that “the control module executes a protection program” but provides no inventive step which describes what the protection step entails which may be used to meet the requirement of “significantly more.”
There is not a transformation of the hot air heating equipment to a different state, action or thing, see MPEP 2106.05(c). Furthermore, the execution of the “signal” and the “protection program” does not directly affect the state of the hot air heating equipment as no further limiting factors or outcomes are provided.
Linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, i.e. for use with hot air equipment, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(h) is not sufficient to integrate it into a practical application.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements include:
insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g)) including mere data gathering in the form of measuring “temperature rise” over time by means of the “temperature sensing elements”
The dependent claims rejected under 101, as listed above, do not integrate the exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. In Claims 3 and 4, “determines” is s further mental process. In claims 3-10, the continuation of recited steps and limitations do not transform the mental process into a different state
This rejection may be overcome by integrating the limitations of Claim 2 wherein the claim language identifies the change of state required proceeding the mental process of “determination” which is “to instruct the power supply unit to suspend power to the heating element.” As an example, the last line of the independent claim might be amended to read “…Step S300, in which the control module executes a protection program wherein the control module instructs the power supply unit to suspend power supply to the heating element.”
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 8-10 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. These claims feature the following limitations:
Claim 8: features the limitation delta T1 ranges from 2 degrees Celsius to 5 degrees Celsius; and/or the first-time interval deltat1 ranges from 2s to 4s
Claim 9 features the limitation: delta T2 ranges from 2 degrees Celsius to 5 degrees Celsius; and/or the second time interval delta t2 ranges from 2s to 4s
Claim 10 featured the limitation delta T3 ranges from 3 degrees Celsius to 6 degrees Celsius; and/or the third-time interval deltat3 ranges from 1s to 6s
These claims present an issue of indefiniteness as it is not clear from the wording, and in particular from the use of the verb ranges from as underlined above, whether or not the ranges identified above are variable or not. In other words, it is not clear from the claims whether the target value is set or varies during operation. Correction of each the above claims the following format is strongly recommended: delta T1 is between 2 degrees Celsius and 5 degrees Celsius; and/or the first-time interval deltat1 is between 2s and 4s
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 person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(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.
Claims 1-2 and 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lin (CN111219748A):
Regarding Claim 1: Lin teaches a temperature anomaly (“dry-burning” [0069]) handling method for hot air heating equipment (“control method” [0002] wherein the “controller is used to control the working state of the dry-burning protection module according to temperature rise rate and temperature acceleration” [0032] for “cooktops” [0010]) … wherein the temperature anomaly (state of “dry-burning” [0069]) handling method comprises:
Step S100, in which in a case that a temperature rise (“temperature rise
V
2
” [0062] wherein (
V
2
=
(
T
2
-
T
1
)
/
(
t
2
-
t
1
)
"
[0064]) of the temperature sensing element reaches ΔT1 (ΔT = “
(
T
2
-
T
1
)
” [0064])within a first-time interval Δt1 (Δt1 = “
(
t
2
-
t
1
)
” [0064]), the control module determines occurrence of temperature anomaly (state of “dry-burning” [0069]) based on a temperature signal fed back from the temperature sensing element, and performs step S200;
Step S200, in which the control module starts countdown (observance of time period from t2 to t3), and in a case that a temperature rise of the temperature sensing element reaches ΔT2 within a second time interval Δt2 (“(
V
3
=
(
T
3
-
T
2
)
/
(
t
3
-
t
2
)
"
[0065]), the control module determines that temperature anomaly (state of “dry-burning” [0069]) lasts based on a temperature signal fed back from the temperature sensing element (“when the temperature curve in Figure 2 and the temperature rise in Figure 4 are superimposed, if both exceed the corresponding preset threshold. The temperature at that moment is the dry-burning point” [0069]), and performs step S300;
Step S300, in which the control module executes a protection program (“stove enters the dry-burn protection mode” [0055]).
Lin (CN111219748A) does not teach the hot air heating equipment “comprising a housing, a control module, a hot air assembly disposed in the housing, a power supply unit configured to supply power, and a temperature sensing element configured to sense a heating temperature, the hot air assembly comprising an electric motor, a fan driven by the electric motor, and a heating element energized to generate heat, the electric motor driving the fan to rotate to deliver the heat generated by the heating element out of the housing via an air outlet to form a hot air flow for heating an object, the power supply unit, the electric motor, and the heating element being all controlled by the control module, the temperature sensing element being in signal connection to the control module”
However, these limitations are understood as part of the preamble and intended use. As such, they do not contribute to the patentability of the claim and are not considered here. The control method of Lin may be applicable to other types of heaters as the “dynamic monitoring of temperature changes during heating, improving the accuracy of judging ...[thermal] conditions" [0034] is useful in a wide variety of applications.
Regarding Claim 2: Lin further teaches that the protection program executed by the control module is to instruct the power supply unit to suspend power supply to the heating element (“when it is determined in S4 that the stove had entered the dry-burning protection mode, the stove will sound an alarm and shut off” [0028]).
Regarding Claim 5: Lin further teaches that the temperature sensing element is configured to sense a temperature of the heating element (the temperature sensing element is a “temperature acquisition module” [0029] which would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art to be configured to sense temperature).
Regarding Claim 6: The structural limitations as recited in Claim 6 are not part of the claimed structure which is directed to “a temperature anomaly handling method for hot air heating equipment”, the hot air heating equipment of which is understood as intended use (as outlined in the section regarding Claim 1). As such, the structure is not considered a limitation on the claim as the method of Lin is capable of use in a structure “wherein the temperature sensing element is disposed between the electric motor and the heating element” as required by the Claim.
Regarding Claim 7: As with claim 6, the structural limitations as recited in Claim 7 are directed to structure which has been interpreted as intended use (as outlined in the section regarding Claim 1. The method of Lin is capable of operating wherein “a divider element is serially connected to a power supply connected loop of the electric motor” as required by the claim.
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 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin (CN111219748A):
Regarding Claim 8 and 9: Lin does not explicitly teach that ΔT1 ranges from 2°C to 5°C; and/or, the first-time interval Δt1 ranges from 2s to 4s or that ΔT2 ranges from 2°C to 5°C; and/or, the second time interval Δt2 ranges from 2s to 4s. as required by Claims 8 and 9 respectively.
However, Lin does teach that the total time in which the method occurs is “the fixed time T in the range of 0< T< 10s” [0023]. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the time interval of delta t1 and delta t2 is ranges between 2s to 4s in order for the entire process to occur.
Claims 3 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin (CN111219748A) in view of Wilnechenko (US 20120241528 A1):
PNG
media_image1.png
810
689
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 3: Lin does not teach that the temperature anomaly handling method further comprises: step S400, in which in a case that a temperature drop of the temperature sensing element reaches ΔT3 within a third time interval Δt3, the control module determines that the temperature anomaly is resolved based on a temperature signal fed back from the temperature sensing element and instructs the power supply unit to supply power to the heating element.
However, Wilnechenko does teach a temperature anomaly handling method (method for dynamic “thermostatic control” [0018]) wherein a final step entails assessing that a temperature drop of the temperature sensing element reaches ΔT3 (Figure 8 “T < Tset”) within a third time interval Δt3 (Figure 8 “Timeout 3s” during which the invention cools after the “stove Compressor & Stove Fuel OFF” step also shown in Figure 8), the control module determines that the temperature anomaly (“fault” [0029]) is resolved based on a temperature signal (“signal” [0028]) fed back from the temperature sensing element (“temperature sensor” [0029]) and instructs the power supply unit to supply power to the heating element (Figure 8 “enable stove”.)
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to add the reignition step of Wilnechenko as the final step of the method as taught by Lin in order to allow the invention to “operate under difficult conditions [and] be reliable in operation and capable of performing at a high level in order to meet the demand of the users” [0005].
Regarding Claim 10: Lin as modified by Wilnechenko further teaches that, the third time interval Δt3 ranges from 1s to 3s (Figure 8 “Timeout 3s” during which the invention cools after the “stove Compressor & Stove Fuel OFF” step also shown in Figure 8)
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4 would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims and if amended to overcome the 101 rejections.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art of record does not teach the limitations as required by 4, and in particular that the method records a maximum actual temperature value Tmax, and in a case that the temperature drop of the temperature sensing element reaches ΔT3 from the maximum actual temperature value Tmax within the third time interval Δt3, the control module determines that the temperature anomaly is resolved based on a temperature signal fed back from the temperature sensing element as required by the limitations of Claim 4
Lin as modified by Wilnechenko discloses that the temperature sensing element (Wilnechenko “temperature sensor” [0029])has a thermal equilibrium temperature value Tp (Wilnechenko “set temperature point” [0029] Tset as shown in Figure 8), and in step S400, in a case that an actual temperature value (“actual temperature” [0029] element T as shown in Figure 8) of the temperature sensing element exceeds the thermal equilibrium temperature value Tp (Wilnechenko Figure 8 “T> Tset & not Stove Ignition”) , the control module determines that the temperature anomaly continues based on a temperature signal fed back from the temperature sensing element (“Fault” Figure 8), the control module acquires in real time the actual temperature value of the temperature sensing element (“actual temperature” [0029] element T as shown in Figure 8). Additionally, it would not be obvious to modify the invention with the above limitations as required by Claim 4.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SOLAN OLIVA whose telephone number is (571-)272-2518. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:00-3:00.
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, Ibrahime Abraham can be reached at (571) 270-8241. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-270-5569.
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.
/SOLAN OLIVA/Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/TOPAZ L. ELLIOTT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights