THERMAL COMFORT MEASURING SYSTEM

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 . Status of Claims This Office action is in response to correspondence received August 16, 2026. Claims 1-19 are amended. Claim 20 is canceled. Claim 21 is newly added. Claims 1-19 and 21 are pending and have been examined. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a): (a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention. The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112: The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention. Claims 1-19 and 21 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. In the independent claims that do not refer back to an independent claim (claim 1, 21) the following is amended new matter: PNG media_image1.png 195 716 media_image1.png Greyscale The following is cited as support: PNG media_image2.png 339 716 media_image2.png Greyscale However, a careful search of the specification has not found a summation of each of the six sides divided by a summation of six projected area factors (an averaging). Nor is this inherent in the equations. On the contrary, C_tr is described generally in terms of flux without taking a sum of the six sides: PNG media_image3.png 159 740 media_image3.png Greyscale This equation has no sum. Same on page 11, the equations are only described in terms of one sensor. The extent of the disclosure is that the flux (through one 2d surface) is divided by a difference between T_air and T_sensor. It is nowhere in the original disclosure. Therefore it has no support. To overcome this rejection, Applicant must either amend and explain precisely where each amended element is found in the original disclosure, or must otherwise explain where these amendments are taught (each element of the amendment). Claims 10 and 12 are independent claims but they recite the limitations of claim 1 and therefore incorporate the new matter. Dependent claims likewise rejected for being dependent on the independent claims. For all amendments filed (before and continuing), Examiner requests a two column chart showing where the support is for each amendment. On the left hand side, the amendment, on the right hand, the precise language copied in (not a paraphrase). Therefore this will be avoided in the future. Therefore, claims 1-19 and 21 are rejected under 35 USC 112. Prior Art Made of Record The following prior art is considered relevant to Applicant’s disclosure: The Engineering ToolBox: Overall Heat Transfer Coefficient, archived February 22, 2020, available at: < https://web.archive.org/web/20200222231022/https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/overall-heat-transfer-coefficient-d_434.html > Teaches a heat transfer coefficient equation for multiple sides. Page 1. Physics StackExchange, “Calculating heat loss to surroundings from a cube suspended in air?” published Jan 2020, available at: <https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/522904/calculating-heat-loss-to-surroundings-from-a-cube-suspended-in-air> Teaches on the last page using a fourier heat transfer equation which is a sum of the three directions. Response to Arguments 35 USC 112 B Overcome due to amendment. Objection Overcome due to amendment 35 USC 103 Applicant argues that Hirano operates on opposite principles incompatible in combination. Applicant then finds elements of Hirano in order to argue this, despite Hirano being cited only for the arrangement of sensor. Notably Applicant does not argue against the plain position of the examiner that Hirano teaches six sensors on the xyz axes. There is nothing preventing one ordinarily skilled in the art from taking part of Hirano, (“six” versus “five”) and using that to combine with motivation to the primary reference. Hirano supplies the six directions of sensing that Applicant claims as inventive, building off of Applicant’s five sensors (missing one on the bottom for where the stand was placed). In other words, Hirano shows that having six sensors on 3 axes is not inventive, and moreover is doing it for the same reason that Applicant claims, sensing ambient temperature. Whatever the complete operation of Hirano requires, Hirano’s teaching of six sensors is merely an arrangement of parts in directions, the parts of which are nearly entirely taught by Applicant’s previous invention. This is an invention of “adding one” and by arguing extra elements from Hirano that is beyond the rejection as written, is unpersuasive. With respect, Hirano shows that one can add one more sensor, nearly the entirety of what Applicant is claiming over Applicant’s own art, at least, before the amendment. Applicant’s arguments do not respond to the rejection as written. Notable is that Hirano teaches the same sensors in each direction, just like the five sensors taught by Applicant’s original sensor cube. The rejection would be maintained if the claims were unamended. Applicant then makes another argument that there is no “structural modification” taught and this is unpersuasive as Hirano teaches six sensors arranged, this is replacement of one for another, the sixth side of Applicant’s sensor cube being replaced by Applicant’s sensor, just six of them as taught by Hirano. As Applicant’s claims leave out any structure that holds the sensor cube aloft, this substitution teaches what applicant claims. (In other words, the instant combination teaches the new cube, which has no stand or stick holding it up in the claims). In other words, substituting one sensor for the side that used to be the stand. See KSR, (B) Simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results; See MPEP 2143. The structural modification is taught by Hirano, having six as opposed to five. The substitution is what was formerly in Applicant’s stand side. “one known element for another” One element is essentially just structure, a blank where a stand can be screwed in; the other element is another sensor exactly like the sensors on the other five sides of the cube. The motivation was included. Therefore, the arguments are unpersuasive as they do not address the rejection as written and understood under the guidance, here cited by Examiner. The arguments against Williamson are similarly deficient. This is simple substitution, and where one can be substituted several can be substituted. No argument or legal basis has been supplied to suggest otherwise. See Id. Applicant then cites the new matter as overcoming which it does but it is new matter. Likewise for the other reference arguments. Applicant makes a windspeed argument but this is not in the claims and therefore this is not persuasive. 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. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RICHARD W. CRANDALL whose telephone number is (313)446-6562. The examiner can normally be reached M - F, 8:00 AM - 5:00 PM. 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, Anita Coupe can be reached at (571) 270-3614. 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. /RICHARD W. CRANDALL/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3619