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 amendments filed 3/15/2026 are entered.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Joubert (FR 3097720 A1) in view of Kerchner (US 4191879 A).
Regarding claim 1, Joubert teaches a radiant brooder system (the assembly shown in FIG. 2) comprising: a first multistage radiant brooder (FIG. 2, radiant heating device 10) configured to emit radiant heat to a floor area to create a first temperature zone (FIG. 2, the area heated by the radiant heating device 10), the first multistage radiant brooder having a high output setting and a low output setting (“In one implementation of the radiant heating device, the control unit makes it possible to adjust the setpoint temperature”); and a processor (“a unit control for controlling the power supply of the heating body by the power supply source so as to control the temperature determined by the temperature sensor according to a set temperature”) coupled to first multistage radiant brooder, the processor configured to to receive the radiant energy data from the first…sensor; and automatically control operation of the first multistage radiant brooder between the high output setting, the low output setting, and an off setting based on the received radiant energy data from the… sensor.
Joubert fails to teach a first black body sensor positioned to gather radiant energy data within the first temperature zone.
However, Kerchner teaches a first black body sensor (FIG. 1, black body sensor 60) positioned to gather radiant energy data within the first temperature zone.
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the teachings of Joubert by making it so the temperature probe of Joubert is a black body sensor, as taught by Kerchner, with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention. At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Joubert with these aforementioned teachings of Kerchner with the motivation of employing a sensor that is specially designed for use with radiant heaters.
Claim(s) 2-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Joubert and Kerchner as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Christophel (US 3976243 A).
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Jobert and Kerchner fails to teach that a second multistage radiant brooder, the second multistage radiant brooder being positioned adjacent the first multistage radiant brooder and coupled to the processor.
However, Christophel teaches that a second multistage radiant brooder, the second multistage radiant brooder being positioned adjacent the first multistage radiant brooder and coupled to the processor (FIG. 3, the brooders 11 are all connected to the same control system).
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the teachings of Joubert by making it so the assembly includes multiple brooders (each with its own black body sensor, as in the above combination) all controlled by the same controller, as taught by Christophel, with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention. At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Joubert with these aforementioned teachings of Christophel with the motivation of employing multiple brooders to cover a larger range and accommodate the needs of different livestock.
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Joubert, Kerchner, and Christophel teaches that the processor controls the first multistage radiant brooder independently from the second multistage radiant brooder (Christophel, FIG. 3, the brooders 12 are each controlled).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Joubert, Kerchner, and Christophel teaches a second black body sensor positioned (the corresponding second sensor mentioned in the combination of claim 2) to determine radiant energy data in a second temperature zone created by the second multistage radiant brooder, the processor coupled to the second black body sensor to receive the radiant energy data therefrom, and configured to control the second multistage radiant brooder in response to the received radiant energy data from the second black body sensor (Kerchner, the black body sensor and controller operate in this combination as in above).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Joubert, Kerchner, and Christophel teaches that the first and second multistage radiant brooders form a first pair of radiant brooders, the processor being configured to control the first and second multistage radiant brooders together to collectively create the first temperature zone (Christophel, in the combination of claim 2, the brooders work to heat various zones. The two zones of two brooders may be seen as a single continuous zone).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Joubert, Kerchner, and Christophel teaches a second pair of radiant brooders, and a second black body sensor positioned to determine radiant energy data in a second temperature zone created by the second pair of radiant brooders; wherein the processor is coupled to the second black body sensor to receive the radiant energy data therefrom, and is operatively coupled to the second pair of radiant brooders to control operation of the second pair of radiant brooders independently from the first pair of radiant brooders (Christophel, FIG. 3, a second pair of brooders 12 are shown on the right hand side of the figure. As explained in the combination of claim 2, the brooders 12 each have their own black body sensor, as in the combination of claim 1, and a second independent heating zone may be defined as the area heated by the rightmost two brooders).
Claim(s) 7 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Joubert, Kerchner, and Christophel as applied to claims 2-6 above, and further in view of Wabel (US 20210088254 A1).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Jobert and Kerchner fails to teach a solar air collector integrated into a wall of a building housing the radiant brooder system, the solar air collector configured to preheat external air coming into the building using solar energy.
However, Wabel teaches a solar air collector integrated into a wall of a building housing the radiant brooder system, the solar air collector configured to preheat external air coming into the building using solar energy (FIG. 1, air heating system 100 is installed on a ceiling of a structure).
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the teachings of Joubert by making it so the assembly includes a solar air preheater, as taught by Wabel, with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention. At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Joubert with these aforementioned teachings of Wabel with the motivation of preheating the air in the structure to reduce electrical cost.
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Joubert, Kerchner, and Christophel teaches a fresh air controller (paragraph 104, the thermostat) secured proximate to the solar air collector, and further comprising an incoming air temperature sensor (paragraph 104, the remote sensor), the fresh air controller configured to control an amount of the preheated incoming external air entering the building, the processor coupled to the fresh air controller to control the operation of the fresh air controller, the processor coupled to the incoming air temperature sensor.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Joubert and Kerchner as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Wolf (US 20150136862 A1).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Jobert and Kerchner fails to teach a humidity sensor to sense humidity levels in a building housing the radiant brooder system, the processor coupled to the humidity sensor to receive the humidity levels and to control humidity within the building through controlling the first multistage brooder.
However, Wolf teaches a humidity sensor to sense humidity levels in a building housing the radiant brooder system, the processor coupled to the humidity sensor to receive the humidity levels and to control humidity within the building through controlling the first multistage brooder (paragraph 11, the system may operate using a relative humidity sensor).
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the teachings of Joubert by including a humidity sensor, as taught by Wolf, with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention. At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Joubert with these aforementioned teachings of Wolf with the motivation of increasing the breadth of data used in the heating of the space to ensure appropriate heating.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Joubert, Kerchner, and Wolf as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Siccardi (US 4278423 A).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Jobert, Kerchner, and Wolf fails to teach an outdoor temperature sensor configured to determine an ambient temperature outside a building housing the radiant brooder system, the processor coupled to the outdoor temperature sensor to receive outdoor ambient temperature data therefrom.
However, Siccardi teaches an outdoor temperature sensor configured to determine an ambient temperature outside a building housing the radiant brooder system, the processor coupled to the outdoor temperature sensor to receive outdoor ambient temperature data therefrom (col. 7, ll. 60-63, the system operates partially based on an outdoor temperature).
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the teachings of Joubert by including an outdoor temperature sensor, as taught by Siccardi, with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention. At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Joubert with these aforementioned teachings of Siccardi with the motivation of increasing the breadth of data used in the heating of the space to ensure appropriate heating.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Joubert and Kerchner as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hu (CN 205721442 U).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Jobert and Kerchner fails to teach a wind sensor configured to determine wind direction and speed outside a building housing the radiant brooder system, the processor coupled to the wind sensor to receive wind speed and direction data therefrom.
However, Hu teaches a wind sensor configured to determine wind direction and speed outside a building housing the radiant brooder system, the processor coupled to the wind sensor to receive wind speed and direction data therefrom (FIG. 1, the wind sensor 23 gives wind data to the system).
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the teachings of Joubert by including a wind sensor, as taught by Hu, with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention. At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Joubert with these aforementioned teachings of Hu with the motivation of increasing the breadth of data used in the heating of the space to ensure appropriate heating.
Claim(s) 12 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Joubert, Kerchner, and Hu as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Gervais (US 20200184329 A1).
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Jobert and Kerchner fails to teach an occupancy sensor, the occupancy sensor configured to determine an approximate number of animals located within the first temperature zone on the floor area, the processor coupled to the occupancy sensor to receive a signal corresponding to an approximate number of animals sensed thereby, the processor further configured to calculate an amount of heat required to maintain body temperatures of the determined number of animals within a pre-determined range based on environmental conditions.
However, Gervais teaches an occupancy sensor, the occupancy sensor configured to determine an approximate number of animals located within the first temperature zone on the floor area, the processor coupled to the occupancy sensor to receive a signal corresponding to an approximate number of animals sensed thereby, the processor further configured to calculate an amount of heat required to maintain body temperatures of the determined number of animals within a pre-determined range based on environmental conditions. (paragraph 37, the occupancy sensor gives occupancy data to the system).
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the teachings of Joubert by including an occupancy sensor, as taught by Gervais, with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention. At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Joubert with these aforementioned teachings of Gervais with the motivation of increasing the breadth of data used in the heating of the space to ensure appropriate heating.
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Joubert, Kerchner, Hu, and Gervais teaches that the environmental conditions comprise one or more of the air temperature within a building housing (Joubert, the system adjusts the brooder based on interior temperature) the radiant brooder system, exterior building air temperature, exterior building wind direction and speed, interior building humidity levels, or incoming air temperature.
Claim(s) 14 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Joubert and Kerchner as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Schubert (US 20140352624 A1).
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Joubert and Kerchner fails to teach that the first multistage radiant brooder comprises an emitter and a reflector, the emitter being positioned about 0.2 to 0.3 inches from the reflector.
However, Schubert teaches that the first multistage radiant brooder comprises an emitter and a reflector (FIG. 1, emitter 122 and reflector 50).
Schubert fails to teach the emitter being positioned about 0.2 to 0.3 inches from the reflector.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to make the distance between the emitter and the reflector between 0.2 and 0.3 inches, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art (the emitter and reflector are separated by a small distance), discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves (MPEP 2144.05 II. A) only routine skill in the art.
In addition, it is observed that the distance between the emitter and the reflector is a result effective variable because it affects how heat is reflected and distributed. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to make the distance between the emitter and the reflector between 0.2 and 0.3 inches, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)).
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Joubert and Kerchner fails to teach that the first multistage radiant brooder comprises an emitter and a reflector, about 70 to 80% of a surface of the emitter being positioned inside the reflector.
However, Schubert teaches that the first multistage radiant brooder comprises an emitter and a reflector (FIG. 1, emitter 122 and reflector 50).
Schubert fails to teach about 70 to 80% of a surface of the emitter being positioned inside the reflector.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to make about 70 to 80% of a surface of the emitter inside the reflector, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art (the emitter and reflector are partially contained), discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves (MPEP 2144.05 II. A) only routine skill in the art.
In addition, it is observed that the amount of the emitter contained within the reflector is a result effective variable because it affects how heat is reflected and distributed. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to make about 70 to 80% of a surface of the emitter inside the reflector, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)).
Claim(s) 16 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Joubert in view of Kerchner, Christophel, and Wabel.
Regarding claim 16, Joubert teaches a radiant brooder system (the assembly shown in FIG. 2) for heating an agricultural building (abstract), the radiant brooder system comprising: a…multistage radiant brooder (FIG. 2, radiant heating device 10), each multistage radiant brooder configured to emit radiant energy to a floor area to create a first temperature zone (FIG. 2, the area heated by the radiant heating device 10), each multistage radiant brooder having a high output setting and a low output setting (“In one implementation of the radiant heating device, the control unit makes it possible to adjust the setpoint temperature”); and a processor (“a unit control for controlling the power supply of the heating body by the power supply source so as to control the temperature determined by the temperature sensor according to a set temperature”) coupled to the pair of multistage radiant brooders and configured to receive the radiant energy data from the black body sensors; and automatically control the pair of multistage radiant brooders between the high output setting, and an off setting based on the received radiant energy data from the first …sensors.
Joubert fails to teach a pair of multistage radiant brooders; a pair of black body sensors, one each of the black body sensors being positioned to gather radiant energy data within each of the a respective first temperature zones zone of each a respective multistage radiant brooder; a solar air collector integrated into a wall of the agricultural building, the solar air collector configured to preheat external air coming into the agricultural building using solar energy.
However, Kerchner teaches a pair of black body sensors, one each of the black body sensors being positioned to gather radiant energy data within each of a respective first temperature zones zone of each a respective multistage radiant brooder (FIG. 1, black body sensor 60).
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the teachings of Joubert by making it so the temperature probe of Joubert is a black body sensor, as taught by Kerchner, with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention. At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Joubert with these aforementioned teachings of Kerchner with the motivation of employing a sensor that is specially designed for use with radiant heaters.
Kerchner fails to teach a pair of multistage radiant brooders; a solar air collector integrated into a wall of the agricultural building, the solar air collector configured to preheat external air coming into the agricultural building using solar energy.
However, Christophel teaches that a pair of multistage radiant brooders (FIG. 3, the brooders 11 are all connected to the same control system).
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the teachings of Joubert by making it so the assembly includes multiple brooders (each with its own black body sensor, as in the above combination) all controlled by the same controller, as taught by Christophel, with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention. At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Joubert with these aforementioned teachings of Christophel with the motivation of employing multiple brooders to cover a larger range and accommodate the needs of different livestock.
Christophel fails to teach a solar air collector integrated into a wall of the agricultural building, the solar air collector configured to preheat external air coming into the agricultural building using solar energy.
However, Wabel teaches a solar air collector integrated into a wall of the agricultural building, the solar air collector configured to preheat external air coming into the agricultural building using solar energy (FIG. 1, air heating system 100 is installed on a ceiling of a structure).
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the teachings of Joubert by making it so the assembly includes a solar air preheater, as taught by Wabel, with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention. At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Joubert with these aforementioned teachings of Wabel with the motivation of preheating the air in the structure to reduce electrical cost.
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Joubert, Kerchner, Christophel, and Wabel teaches that a fresh air controller (paragraph 104, the thermostat) secured proximate to the solar air collector, the fresh air controller configured control and determine an amount of the preheated incoming external air entering the building, the processor coupled to the fresh air controller to control the operation of the fresh air controller (paragraph 104).
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Joubert, Kerchner, Christophel, and Wabel as applied to claims 16 and 17 above, and further in view of Wolf (US 20150136862 A1).
Regarding claim 18, the combination of Joubert, Kerchner, Christophel, and Wabel fails to teach a humidity sensor to sense humidity levels in the building, the processor coupled to the humidity sensor to receive the humidity levels and to control humidity within the building through controlling the multistage brooders.
However, Wolf teaches a humidity sensor to sense humidity levels in the building, the processor coupled to the humidity sensor to receive the humidity levels and to control humidity within the building through controlling the multistage brooders (paragraph 11, the system may operate using a relative humidity sensor).
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the teachings of Joubert by including a humidity sensor, as taught by Wolf, with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention. At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Joubert with these aforementioned teachings of Wolf with the motivation of increasing the breadth of data used in the heating of the space to ensure appropriate heating.
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Joubert, Kerchner, Christophel, and Wolf as applied to claim 18 above, and further in view of Siccardi (US 4278423 A).
Regarding claim 19, the combination of Joubert, Kerchner, Christophel, Wabel, and Wolf fails to teach an outdoor temperature sensor configured to determine an ambient temperature outside the building, the processor coupled to the outdoor temperature sensor to receive outdoor ambient temperature data therefrom.
However, Siccardi teaches an outdoor temperature sensor configured to determine an ambient temperature outside a building housing the radiant brooder system, the processor coupled to the outdoor temperature sensor to receive outdoor ambient temperature data therefrom (col. 7, ll. 60-63, the system operates partially based on an outdoor temperature).
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the teachings of Joubert by including an outdoor temperature sensor, as taught by Siccardi, with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention. At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Joubert with these aforementioned teachings of Siccardi with the motivation of increasing the breadth of data used in the heating of the space to ensure appropriate heating.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Joubert, Kerchner, Christophel, Wabel, Wolf, and Siccardi as applied to claim 19 above, and further in view of Hu (CN 205721442 U).
Regarding claim 20, the combination of Joubert, Kerchner, Christophel, Wabel, and Wolf fails to teach a wind sensor configured to determine wind direction and speed outside the building, the processor coupled to the wind sensor to receive wind speed and direction data therefrom.
However, Hu teaches a wind sensor configured to determine wind direction and speed outside a building housing the radiant brooder system, the processor coupled to the wind sensor to receive wind speed and direction data therefrom (FIG. 1, the wind sensor 23 gives wind data to the system).
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the teachings of Joubert by including a wind sensor, as taught by Hu, with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention. At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Joubert with these aforementioned teachings of Hu with the motivation of increasing the breadth of data used in the heating of the space to ensure appropriate heating.
Claim(s) 21 and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Joubert, Kerchner, Christophel, Wabel, Siccardo, Wolf, and Hu as applied to claim 20 above, and further in view of Gervais (US 20200184329 A1).
Regarding claim 21, the combination of Joubert, Kerchner, Christophel, Wabel, Wolf, and Hu fails to teach a an occupancy sensor, the occupancy sensor configured to determine an approximate number of animals located within the first temperature zone on the floor area, the processor coupled to the occupancy sensor to receive a signal corresponding to an approximate number of animals sensed thereby, the processor further configured to calculate an amount of heat required to maintain body temperatures of the determined number of animals within a pre-determined range based on environmental conditions.
However, Gervais teaches an occupancy sensor, the occupancy sensor configured to determine an approximate number of animals located within the first temperature zone on the floor area, the processor coupled to the occupancy sensor to receive a signal corresponding to an approximate number of animals sensed thereby, the processor further configured to calculate an amount of heat required to maintain body temperatures of the determined number of animals within a pre-determined range based on environmental conditions. (paragraph 37, the occupancy sensor gives occupancy data to the system).
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the teachings of Joubert by including an occupancy sensor, as taught by Gervais, with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention. At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Joubert with these aforementioned teachings of Gervais with the motivation of increasing the breadth of data used in the heating of the space to ensure appropriate heating.
Regarding claim 22, the combination of Joubert, Kerchner, Christophel, Wabel, Wolf, and Hu, and Gervais the environmental conditions comprise one or more of the air temperature within the building (Joubert, the system adjusts the brooder based on interior temperature), exterior building air temperature, exterior building wind direction and speed, interior building humidity levels, and or incoming air temperature.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/15/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. On pages 9-12 of the remarks, the Applicant asserts that Joubert does not teach a processor configured to perform an automatic function, teaching, rather, a system that allows a user to make adjustments. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Joubert teaches “a unit control for controlling the power supply of the heating body by the power supply source so as to control the temperature determined by the temperature sensor according to a set temperature.” Additionally, the specification throughout teaches controlling the temperature to achieve a setpoint temperature. The picture painted is of a system that controls a power source in response to received temperature data, which necessitates a processor of a control system. The Examiner respectfully asserts that the specification is not teaching a system in which a temperature probe detects a temperature and displays it, and that a user must stay near the system at all times to continually adjust the power supply to keep the environment at the setpoint temperature. Rather, it teaches an automated system.
On pages 12 and 13 of the remarks, the Examiner argues that Kerchner does not teach a black body temperature sensor employed in the manner recited in the claims, rather teaching an adjustable thermistor. The Applicant respectfully notes that in the combination above, the Examiner is simply employing Kerchner to act as a more well-suited type of sensor for the system of Joubert. It is true that there are some differences in the systems of the two references, but that does not change the fact that the black body sensor 60 of Kerchner could be profitably employed in the system of Joubert.
On pages 14 and 15, the Applicant asserts that the system of Wabel differs to drastically from the system of Joubert to combine the references and teach the recitations of claim 16. The Examiner acknowledges differences in the system, but respectfully notes that both references tech heating device systems, and are therefore appropriate to combine.
Conclusion
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 WILLIAM C. WEINERT whose telephone number is (571)272-6988. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00-5:00 ET.
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, Helena Kosanovic can be reached at (571) 272-9059. 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.
/WILLIAM C WEINERT/Examiner, Art Unit 3762
/Allen R. B. Schult/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3762
Prosecution Insights