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 . 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 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.
Claim Objections
Claims 2-18 are objected. All dependent claims should amend with adding “,” before the first term “wherein” in their first claim line.
Appropriate action is required.
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 1-3, 8, 10, 12-17-20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moix Olive, US 20210348982 A1 in view of “Liebeskind”1 US 20030132514 A1 and Germagian, US20170045254A1.
Claim 1
Moix Olive figs.1-2 discloses:
A system for detecting and alerting to probable leaks in an assembly, the system comprising:
an internal area (container 6) partitioned from an ambient environment (via 3), a differential pressure sensor (differential pressure sensor with sensing points 9,10: ¶0019¶0039¶0044) in fluid connection with the ambient environment (via 3) and the internal area (6),
and where one or more of said differential pressure readings are outside an acceptable parameter (e.g., ¶0005¶0014¶0045¶0046):
where said differential pressure reading remain outside the acceptable parameter (¶0045¶0047): generate and transmit an electronic notification regarding the probable leak (e.g., ¶0045¶0046).
Moix Olive does not specifically teach:
the electronic display assembly comprising an electronic display,
and one or more fans located within, or fluidly connected with, the internal area which, when operated, move gas within at least the internal area; and where one or more of said differential pressure readings are outside an acceptable parameter: command a speed of the one or more fans to be temporarily increased; take an additional differential pressure reading for the electronic display assembly based on additional data received from the differential pressure sensor with and/or following the command to temporarily increase the speed of the one or more fans, and where said additional differential pressure reading remain outside the acceptable parameter: generate and transmit an electronic notification regarding the probable leak.
Regarding limitation 1
In the similar field of endeavor, Liebeskind teaches an electronic display assembly (electronic device 100/200 with field emission display e.g., ¶0026) with leak testing (increase in pressure within the testing area can be attributed to outgassing, however, such a pressure increase could also be attributed to a leak e.g., ¶0003-¶0004).
And It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Liebeskind’s electronic display assembly for Moix Olive‘s testing system . One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to apply the method for any different component, and based on MPEP 2143 (B), courts have ruled that Simple substitution of one known element (Liebeskind’s electronic display assembly) for another (Moix Olive‘s container) to obtain predictable results (leak testing) is within the purview of a skilled artisan. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421,82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Regarding limitation 2
Firstly:
Examiner also notes that it is common knowledge in the art and control systems to repeat check, act, re-check and in control theory, never it is assumed the action worked, therefore the measurements are repeated, therefore the limitation “take an additional differential pressure reading for the electronic display assembly based on additional data received from the differential pressure sensor” is obvious as It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to take an additional differential pressure reading for the electronic display assembly based on additional data received from the differential pressure sensor. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to verify that the adjustments had intended effect or not< avoid false negative or positive, and ensure safe transition.
Secondly:
In the similar field of endeavor, Germagian in e.g., figs.1-2 teaches and one or more fans 106 located within, or fluidly connected with, the internal area 102 which, when operated, move gas within at least the internal area 102; one or more non-transitory electronic storage devices 108 comprising software instructions, which when executed, configured one or more processors 108 to: monitor differential pressure readings (from 210 ¶0033) based on data received from the differential pressure sensor 210, command a speed of the one or more fans to be temporarily increased (e.g., ¶0028¶0029); with and/or following the command to temporarily increase the speed of the one or more fans (e.g., ¶0029¶0044), It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Germagian‘s fan and controller for the modified Moix Olive‘s leak testing system based on differential pressure of test container and ambient and to monitor differential pressure readings based on data received from the modified Moix Olive‘s differential pressure sensor, and one or more fans located within, or fluidly connected with, the modified Moix Olive‘s internal area which, when operated, move gas within at least the modified Moix Olive‘s internal area; and where one or more of said modified Moix Olive‘s differential pressure readings are outside an acceptable parameter: command a speed of the modified Moix Olive‘s one or more fans to be temporarily increased; take an additional differential pressure reading for the modified Moix Olive‘s electronic display assembly based on additional data received from the modified Moix Olive‘s differential pressure sensor with and/or following the command to temporarily increase the modified Moix Olive‘s speed of the one or more fans, and where said modified Moix Olive‘s additional differential pressure reading remain outside the acceptable parameter: generate and transmit an electronic notification regarding the probable leak. One of ordinary skill in the art knows controllers to control speed fans based on specific differential pressure and fans may speed up and down based on differential pressure would have been motivated to make this modification in order to provide efficient operation, ready maintenance and monitoring (¶0004 of Germagian), furthermore, based on MPEP 2143(D), courts have ruled that Simple applying a known technique (Germagian‘s controlling fan speed based on differential pressure) to a known product (the modified Moix Olive’s leak testing based on differential pressure for a container comprising electronic display assembly) to yield predictable results (alerting probable leaks), is within the purview of a skilled artisan. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421,82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Claim 2
Moix Olive in view of Liebeskind and Germagian teaches the system of claim 1, Moix Olive further teaches wherein: the acceptable parameter is a threshold (¶0045).
Claim 3
Moix Olive in view of Liebeskind and Germagian teaches the system of claim 2, but does not specifically teach wherein the threshold is a positive number between 0-10 psi, however, the skilled artisan would know too that the acceptable threshold of differential pressure would determine the possibility of leaks (e.g., Moix Olive ¶0046). The specific claimed 0-10 psi, absent any criticality, is only considered to be the “optimum” 0-10 psi disclosed by Moix Olive that a person having ordinary skill in the art would have been able to determine using routine experimentation (see In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955)) based, among other things, on the desired testing and leak sizes, manufacturing costs, etc. (see In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), and neither non-obvious nor unexpected results, i.e. results which are different in kind and not in degree from the results of the prior art, will be obtained as long as the 0-10 psi is used, as already suggested by Moix Olive. Since the applicant has not established the criticality (see next paragraph) of the 0-10 psi stated and since these ranges are in common use in similar devices in the art, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to use these values in the device of Moix Olive. Please note that the specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the claimed 0-10 psi or any unexpected results arising therefrom. Where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen dimensions or upon another variable recited in a claim, the applicant must show that the chosen dimensions are critical. In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Claim 8
Moix Olive in view of Liebeskind and Germagian teaches the system of claim 1 Liebeskind teaches wherein: the internal area is partitioned from the ambient environment in a fashion sufficient to normally seal the internal area from the ambient environment in an at least dust-tight fashion (Liebeskind teaches the internal area (inside 196) is partitioned from the ambient environment in a fashion sufficient to normally seal the internal area from the ambient environment in an at least dust-tight fashion (e.g., ¶0018 device is a sealed device, besides this is an obvious modification of any electronic equipment including Liebeskind and Moix Olive for protection of electronic components from harms of environment).
Claim 10
Moix Olive in view of Liebeskind and Germagian teaches the system of claim 8 wherein: Liebeskind teaches the internal area is partitioned from the ambient environment, at least in part, by at least one wall and at least one gasket (this is obvious over the modified system with electronic sealed display system of Liebeskind).
Claim 12
Moix Olive in view of Liebeskind and Germagian teaches the system of claim 1, Moix Olive further teaches wherein: the one or more one or more non-transitory electronic storage devices and the one or more processors are part of a controller located remote from, and in electronic communication with, the electronic display assembly (e.g., ¶0015).
Claim 13
Moix Olive in view of Liebeskind and Germagian teaches the system of claim 12 although the modification does not specifically teach further comprising: multiple additional ones of the electronic display assembly, wherein the controller is remote from, and in electronic communication with, the multiple additional ones of the electronic display assembly, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to duplicate the system for electronic display assembly, multiple additional ones of the electronic display assembly, wherein the controller is remote from, and in electronic communication with, the multiple additional ones of the electronic display assembly since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8 (1977).
Claim 14
Moix Olive in view of Liebeskind and Germagian teaches the system of claim 1 although the modification does not specifically teach wherein: the one or more one or more non-transitory electronic storage devices and the one or more processors are part of a controller local to the electronic display assembly. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to duplicate the system for non-transitory electronic storage devices and the processors and the one or more one or more non-transitory electronic storage devices and the one or more processors are part of a controller local to the electronic display assembly are part of a controller local to the electronic display assembly, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8 (1977).
Claim 15
Moix Olive in view of Liebeskind and Germagian teaches the system of claim 1 although the modified Moix Olive does not specifically teach wherein: the one or more non-transitory electronic storage devices comprises additional software instructions, which when executed, configure the one or more processors to: monitor the differential pressure readings for the electronic display assembly based on the data received from the differential pressure sensor, and only where multiple, consecutive ones of said differential pressure readings over a period of time are outside the acceptable parameter: temporarily increase the speed of the one or more fans, and take the additional differential pressure reading for the electronic display assembly. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to duplicate the system software instructions wherein: the one or more non-transitory electronic storage devices comprises additional software instructions, which when executed, configure the one or more processors to: monitor the differential pressure readings for the electronic display assembly based on the data received from the differential pressure sensor, and only where multiple, consecutive ones of said differential pressure readings over a period of time are outside the acceptable parameter: temporarily increase the speed of the one or more fans, and take the additional differential pressure reading for the electronic display assembly, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8 (1977).
Claim 16
Moix Olive in view of Liebeskind and Germagian teaches the system of claim 15 although the modified Moix Olive does not specifically teach wherein: the additional differential pressure reading comprises multiple readings based on the additional data; and the one or more non-transitory electronic storage devices comprises additional software instructions, which when executed, configure the one or more processors to: only generate and transmit the electronic notification where all of the multiple readings are outside the acceptable parameter. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to duplicate the system for differential pressure reading wherein: the additional differential pressure reading comprises multiple readings based on the additional data; and the one or more non-transitory electronic storage devices comprises additional software instructions, which when executed, configure the one or more processors to: only generate and transmit the electronic notification where all of the multiple readings are outside the acceptable parameter, since it is common knowledge in control systems repeat check and action and never stop measurements, i.e., to check the initial state, act when needed and verify the action to prevent false alarms and improve reliability and ensure safe operations.
Claim 17
Moix Olive in view of Liebeskind and Germagian teaches the system of claim 1 Moix Olive teaches wherein: the one or more non-transitory electronic storage devices comprises additional software instructions, which when executed, configure the one or more processors to cause said differential pressure readings to be made at least once every twenty-four-hour period (e.g., ¶0049).
Claim 18
Moix Olive in view of Liebeskind and Germagian teaches the system of claim 1 Moix Olive teaches wherein: the one or more non-transitory electronic storage devices comprises additional software instructions, which when executed, configure the one or more processors to: command performance of at least one of a static leakdown test and a dynamic leakdown test to confirm the probable presence of the leak before generating and transmitting the electronic notification (e.g., ¶0046). Examiner notes that doing the static and dynamic leak tests by manufacture final step in manufacturing tests are common and well-known as a part of Quality assurance system.
Claim 19
Moix Olive figs.1-2 discloses:
A method for detecting and alerting to probable leaks in an assembly, the method comprising:
monitoring, by way of a controller (¶0036), differential pressure readings (differential sensor with sensing points 9,10: ¶0019¶0039¶0044) for the assembly 6 based on data received from a differential pressure sensor (9,10: ¶0019¶0039¶0044), the differential pressure sensor (9,10: ¶0019¶0039) in fluid connection with an ambient environment (via 3) and an internal area (6) partitioned from the ambient environment (via 6,2),
following a determination, at the controller (e.g., ¶0036), that certain of said differential pressure readings (9,10: ¶0019¶0039) are outside an acceptable parameter (e.g., ¶0005¶0014¶0045¶0046):
taking, by way of the controller(¶0036), additional differential pressure readings for the electronic display assembly based on additional data received from the differential pressure sensor (e.g., ¶0045¶0047),
following a determination, at the controller, that certain of said additional differential pressure readings remain outside the acceptable parameter, generating and transmitting, by way of the controller, an electronic notification regarding the probable leak (e.g., ¶0045¶0046).
Moix Olive does not specifically teach:
the electronic display assembly comprising an electronic display,
and one or more fans located within, or fluidly connected with, the internal area which, when operated, move gas within the internal area; commanding, by way of the controller, a speed of the one or more fans to be temporarily increased; taking, by way of the controller, additional differential pressure readings for the electronic display assembly based on additional data received from the differential pressure sensor with and/or following commanding the speed of the one or more fans to be temporarily increased; following a determination, at the controller, that certain of said additional differential pressure readings remain outside the acceptable parameter, generating and transmitting, by way of the controller, an electronic notification regarding the probable leak.
Regarding limitation 1
In the similar field of endeavor, Liebeskind teaches an electronic display assembly (electronic device 100/200 with field emission display e.g., ¶0026) with leak testing (increase in pressure within the testing area can be attributed to outgassing, however, such a pressure increase could also be attributed to a leak e.g., ¶0003-¶0004).
And It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Liebeskind’s electronic display assembly for Moix Olive‘s testing system . One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to apply the method for any different component, and based on MPEP 2143 (B), courts have ruled that Simple substitution of one known element (Liebeskind’s electronic display assembly) for another (Moix Olive‘s container) to obtain predictable results (leak testing) is within the purview of a skilled artisan. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421,82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Regarding limitation 2
Firstly:
Examiner also notes that it is common knowledge in the art and control systems to repeat check, act, re-check and in control theory, never it is assumed the action worked, therefore the measurements are repeated, therefore the limitation “take an additional differential pressure reading for the electronic display assembly based on additional data received from the differential pressure sensor” is obvious as It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to take an additional differential pressure reading for the electronic display assembly based on additional data received from the differential pressure sensor. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to verify that the adjustments had intended effect or not< avoid false negative or positive, and ensure safe transition.
Secondly:
In the similar field of endeavor, Germagian in e.g., figs.1-2 teaches and one or more fans 106 located within, or fluidly connected with, the internal area 102 which, when operated, move gas within at least the internal area 102; one or more non-transitory electronic storage devices 108 comprising software instructions, which when executed, configured one or more processors 108 to: monitor differential pressure readings (from 210 ¶0033) based on data received from the differential pressure sensor 210, command a speed of the one or more fans to be temporarily increased (e.g., ¶0028¶0029); with and/or following the command to temporarily increase the speed of the one or more fans (e.g., ¶0029¶0044), It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Germagian‘s fan and controller for the modified Moix Olive‘s leak testing system based on differential pressure of test container and ambient and to monitor differential pressure readings based on data received from the modified Moix Olive‘s differential pressure sensor, and one or more fans located within, or fluidly connected with, the modified Moix Olive‘s internal area which, when operated, move gas within at least the modified Moix Olive‘s internal area; following a determination, at the modified Moix Olive‘s controller, that certain of said modified Moix Olive‘s differential pressure readings are outside an acceptable parameter: commanding, by way of the modified Moix Olive‘s controller, a speed of the one or more fans to be temporarily increased; taking, by way of the controller, additional differential pressure readings for the modified Moix Olive‘s electronic display assembly based on additional data received from the modified Moix Olive‘s differential pressure sensor with and/or following commanding the modified Moix Olive‘s speed of the one or more fans to be temporarily increased; following a determination, at the modified Moix Olive‘s controller, that certain of said additional differential pressure readings remain outside acceptable parameter, generating and transmitting, by way of the modified Moix Olive‘s controller, an electronic notification regarding the probable leak. One of ordinary skill in the art knows controllers to control speed fans based on specific differential pressure and fans may speed up and down based on differential pressure would have been motivated to make this modification in order to provide efficient operation, ready maintenance and monitoring (¶0004 of Germagian), furthermore, based on MPEP 2143(D), courts have ruled that Simple applying a known technique (Germagian‘s controlling fan speed based on differential pressure) to a known product (the modified Moix Olive’s leak testing based on differential pressure for a container comprising electronic display assembly) to yield predictable results (alerting probable leaks), is within the purview of a skilled artisan. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421,82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Claim 20
Moix Olive figs.1-2 discloses:
An assembly for detecting and alerting to probable leaks, the assembly comprising:
an internal area (6)
a differential pressure sensor (differential sensor with sensing points 9,10: ¶0019¶0039) in fluid connection with the ambient environment (via 9) and the internal area (via 10);
a controller (¶0036)
monitor differential pressure readings based on data received from the differential pressure sensor (9,10¶0039), and where one or more of said differential pressure readings are outside an acceptable parameter (e.g., ¶0005¶00140045¶0046):
monitor additional (¶0045¶0047) differential pressure readings (from 9,10) based on additional data received from the differential pressure sensor (9,10) and where at least some of said additional differential pressure readings remain outside the acceptable parameter (¶0045¶0047¶0054: generate and transmit an electronic notification to at least one remote device regarding the probable leak (¶0045¶0046).
Moix Olive does not specifically teach:
an electronic display;
normally sealed from an ambient environment in an at least dust-tight fashion;
one or more fans located within, or fluidly connected with, the internal area which, when operated, moves gas within the internal area; command a speed of the one or more fans to be temporarily increased; monitor additional differential pressure readings based on additional data received from the differential pressure sensor with or after commanding the speed of the one or more fans to be temporarily increased, and where at least some of said additional differential pressure readings remain outside the acceptable parameter: generate and transmit an electronic notification to at least one remote device regarding the probable leak.
Regarding limitation 1
In the similar field of endeavor, Liebeskind teaches an electronic display assembly (electronic device 100/200 with field emission display e.g., ¶0026) with leak testing (increase in pressure within the testing area can be attributed to outgassing, however, such a pressure increase could also be attributed to a leak e.g., ¶0003-¶0004).And It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Liebeskind’s electronic display assembly for Moix Olive‘s testing system . One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to apply the method for any different component, and based on MPEP 2143 (B), courts have ruled that Simple substitution of one known element (Liebeskind’s electronic display assembly) for another (Moix Olive‘s container) to obtain predictable results (leak testing) is within the purview of a skilled artisan. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421,82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Regarding limitation 2
Liebeskind teaches the internal area (inside 196) is partitioned from the ambient environment in a fashion sufficient to normally seal the internal area from the ambient environment in an at least dust-tight fashion (e.g., ¶0018 device is a sealed device, besides this is an obvious modification of any electronic equipment including Liebeskind and Moix Olive for protection of electronic components from harms of environment).
Regarding limitation 3
Firstly:
Examiner also notes that it is common knowledge in the art and control systems to repeat check, act, re-check and in control theory, never it is assumed the action worked, therefore the measurements are repeated, therefore the limitation “take an additional differential pressure reading for the electronic display assembly based on additional data received from the differential pressure sensor” is obvious as It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to take an additional differential pressure reading for the electronic display assembly based on additional data received from the differential pressure sensor. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to verify that the adjustments had intended effect or not< avoid false negative or positive, and ensure safe transition.
Secondly:
In the similar field of endeavor, Germagian in e.g., figs.1-2 teaches and one or more fans 106 located within, or fluidly connected with, the internal area 102 which, when operated, move gas within at least the internal area 102; one or more non-transitory electronic storage devices 108 comprising software instructions, which when executed, configured one or more processors 108 to: monitor differential pressure readings (from 210 ¶0033) based on data received from the differential pressure sensor 210, command a speed of the one or more fans to be temporarily increased (e.g., ¶0028¶0029); with and/or following the command to temporarily increase the speed of the one or more fans (e.g., ¶0029¶0044), It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Germagian‘s fan and controller for the modified Moix Olive‘s leak testing system based on differential pressure of test container and ambient and to monitor differential pressure readings based on data received from the modified Moix Olive‘s differential pressure sensor, and one or more fans located within, or fluidly connected with, the modified Moix Olive‘s internal area which, when operated, move gas within at least the modified Moix Olive‘s internal area; and where one or more of said modified Moix Olive‘s differential pressure readings are outside an acceptable parameter: command a speed of the modified Moix Olive‘s one or more fans to be temporarily increased; take an additional differential pressure reading for the modified Moix Olive‘s electronic display assembly based on additional data received from the modified Moix Olive‘s differential pressure sensor with and/or following the command to temporarily increase the modified Moix Olive‘s speed of the one or more fans, and where said modified Moix Olive‘s additional differential pressure reading remain outside the acceptable parameter: generate and transmit an electronic notification regarding the probable leak. One of ordinary skill in the art knows controllers to control speed fans based on specific differential pressure and fans may speed up and down based on differential pressure would have been motivated to make this modification in order to provide efficient operation, ready maintenance and monitoring (¶0004 of Germagian), furthermore, based on MPEP 2143(D), courts have ruled that Simple applying a known technique (Germagian‘s controlling fan speed based on differential pressure) to a known product (the modified Moix Olive’s leak testing based on differential pressure for a container comprising electronic display assembly) to yield predictable results (alerting probable leaks), is within the purview of a skilled artisan. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421,82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Claim 4 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moix Olive, US 20210348982 A1 in view of “Liebeskind” US 20030132514 A1 and Germagian, US20170045254A1 and “Keil”2 US 20170219457 A1.
Claim 4
Moix Olive in view of Liebeskind and Germagian teaches the system of claim 1 but the combination does not teach wherein: the electronic display comprises a directly backlit liquid crystal display. In the similar field of endeavor, Keil in fig.1 teaches the electronic display comprises a directly backlit liquid crystal display (¶0053). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Keil’s directly backlit liquid crystal display for the modified Moix Olive’s display. One of ordinary skill in the art would know LCD displays and have been motivated to make this modification in order to have the benefits such as being energy efficient.
Claim 9 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moix Olive, US 20210348982 A1 in view of “Liebeskind US 20030132514 A1 and Germagian, US20170045254A1 and “ Dunn, US20150009627A1.
Claim 9
Moix Olive in view of Liebeskind and Germagian teaches the system of claim 1 system of claim 8 wherein: the internal area 6 is part of a closed loop airflow pathway (see paths including 3,2, 6,7,8) but does not teach which extends about at least four sides of the electronic display. In the similar field of endeavor, Dunn in FIG. 1 teaches a closed loop cooling system for electronic display 160 which extends about at least four sides of the electronic display 160. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Dunn‘s air paths for the modified Moix Olive‘s display assembly. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to provide cooling the assembly.
Claim 11 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moix Olive, US 20210348982 A1 in view of “Liebeskind” US 20030132514 A1 and Germagian, US20170045254A1 and KOCH3, CN110441008.
Claim 11
Moix Olive in view of Liebeskind and Germagian teaches the system of claim 8, the modification does not teach wherein: the internal area is partitioned from the ambient environment, at least in part, by at least one filter. In the similar field of endeavor, KOCH teaches the internal area is partitioned from the ambient environment, at least in part, by at least one filter (e.g., ¶0056) , It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use KOCH‘s filter for the modified Moix Olive‘s internal area. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to eliminated undesired particles in the system.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1, 5, 19-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 3, 9, and 13 of U.S. Patent No. US11965804B2, here cited as ”804”. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because first: the patented claims are narrower (contain more subject matter) than the broader application claims. Thus, the scope of the patented claims overlaps the scope of the broader application claims, as they both teach one thing with different language and the patented claim is more specific and claimed application is only broader, also although the claim language is not identical they are describing the same thing (ex: : limitation of “internal area” and “testing area” of 804, “acceptable parameter” and “predetermined threshold” of “804”, “probable leak” and “likely presence of a leak” of 804 ).
18592317
US11965804B2, here as ”804”
1.A system for detecting and alerting to probable leaks in an electronic display assembly, the system comprising:
the electronic display assembly comprising an electronic display, an internal area partitioned from an ambient environment, a differential pressure sensor in fluid connection with the ambient environment and the internal area, and one or more fans located within, or fluidly connected with, the internal area which, when operated, move gas within at least the internal area;
one or more non-transitory electronic storage devices comprising software instructions, which when executed, configured one or more processors to:
monitor differential pressure readings based on data received from the differential pressure sensor, and where one or more of said differential pressure readings are outside an acceptable parameter:
command a speed of the one or more fans to be temporarily increased;
take an additional differential pressure reading for the electronic display assembly based on additional data received from the differential pressure sensor with and/or following the command to temporarily increase the speed of the one or more fans, and where said additional differential pressure reading remain outside the acceptable parameter: generate and transmit an electronic notification regarding the probable leak.
Examiner note: although claim 1 is rejected over claims 1 and 9 of 804, but alternatively claim 1 is also obvious over claim 1 of 804 and Moix olive for limitation internal area partitioned from ambient.
1.A system for detecting and alerting to likely leaks in an electronic display assembly, the system comprising:
the electronic display assembly comprising an electronic display, a testing area, a differential pressure sensor configured to detect a differential pressure between ambient air of an ambient environment and gas within the testing area, and one or more fans associated with the testing area and configured to circulate the gas within the testing area when operated;
a controller in electronic communication with the differential pressure sensor and configured to:
determine one or more differential pressure readings for the electronic display assembly based on data received from the differential pressure sensor;
generate and transmit an electronic notification where said one or more differential pressure readings are below a predetermined threshold;
temporarily increase a speed of the one or more fans; and
generate and transmit a confirmation of the likely presence of a leak where an associated one of the differential pressure readings remains below the predetermined threshold.
9. The system of claim 1 wherein:
the testing area is partitioned from the ambient air and the ambient environment.
5. The system of claim 1 wherein:
the electronic display assembly comprises an illumination device, an open loop airflow pathway, one or more fans located along the open loop airflow pathway which, when operated, move ambient air through the open loop airflow pathway, and a closed loop airflow pathway comprising the internal area, wherein said one or more fans are located along the closed loop airflow pathway and, when operated, move the gas through the closed loop airflow pathway, including through the internal area;
the one or more non-transitory electronic storage devices comprises additional software instructions, which when executed, configure the one or more processors to:
command at least one of: turn off the illumination device, turn off the one or more fans located along the open loop airflow pathway, and turn off the one or more fans located along the closed loop airflow pathway; and subsequently,
take a baseline differential pressure reading from the differential pressure sensor based on preliminary data received from the differential pressure sensor; and
the acceptable parameter comprises the baseline differential pressure reading with a margin of error.
Examiner note: although claim 1 is rejected over claims 1 and 9 of 804, but alternatively claim 1 is also obvious over claim 1 of 804 and Moix olive for limitation internal area partitioned from ambient.
3. The system of claim 1 wherein:
the electronic display assembly comprises an illumination device, an open loop airflow pathway, one or more fans associated with the open loop airflow pathway and configured to ingest, circulate, and exhaust a flow of the ambient air through the open loop airflow pathway when operated, and a closed loop airflow pathway comprising the testing area, wherein said one or more fans are associated with the closed loop airflow pathway and are configured to circulate the gas through the closed loop airflow pathway when operated;
the controller is configured to turn off the illumination device, the one or more fans associated with the open loop airflow pathway and the one or more fans associated with the closed loop airflow pathway and take a differential pressure reading from the differential pressure sensor to determine a baseline differential pressure reading; and
the predetermined threshold comprises the baseline differential pressure reading with an added margin of error.
19. A method for detecting and alerting to probable leaks in an electronic display assembly, the method comprising:
monitoring, by way of a controller, differential pressure readings for the electronic display assembly based on data received from a differential pressure sensor, where said electronic display assembly comprises an electronic display, the differential pressure sensor in fluid connection with an ambient environment and an internal area partitioned from the ambient environment, and one or more fans located within, or fluidly connected with, the internal area which, when operated, move gas within the internal area;
following a determination, at the controller, that certain of said differential pressure readings are outside an acceptable parameter:
commanding, by way of the controller, a speed of the one or more fans to be temporarily increased;
taking, by way of the controller, additional differential pressure readings for the electronic display assembly based on additional data received from the differential pressure sensor with and/or following commanding the speed of the one or more fans to be temporarily increased;
following a determination, at the controller, that certain of said additional differential pressure readings remain outside the acceptable parameter, generating and transmitting, by way of the controller, an electronic notification regarding the probable leak.
13. A method for detecting and alerting to likely leaks in an electronic display assembly, said method comprising:
taking differential pressure readings for the electronic display assembly based on data received from a differential pressure sensor at a controller, wherein the differential pressure sensor is in fluid connection with a testing area within the electronic display assembly and an ambient environment;
determining, at the controller, that at least one of the differential pressure readings is below a predetermined threshold and subsequently:
generating, at the controller, an electronic notification indicating a likely leak;
commanding, by way of the controller, performance of at least one of a static leakdown test and a dynamic leakdown test; and
determining, at the controller, that a leak remains likely present based on the results of the further testing and subsequently electronically transmitting, from the controller to at least one remote electronic device, the electronic notification.
16. The method of claim 13 wherein:
the further testing comprises:
commanding, by way of the controller, a temporary increase in a speed of one or more fans located at the testing area;
determining, at the controller, that the differential pressure readings taken with or after the temporary increase in the speed of the one or more fans remain do not change more than a predetermined amount.
20. An electronic display assembly for detecting and alerting to probable leaks, the electronic display assembly comprising:
an electronic display;
an internal area normally sealed from an ambient environment in an at least dust-tight fashion;
a differential pressure sensor in fluid connection with the ambient environment and the internal area; one or more fans located within, or fluidly connected with, the internal area which, when operated, moves gas within the internal area;
a controller comprising one or more non-transitory electronic storage devices comprising software instructions, which when executed, configured one or more processors of the controller to:
monitor differential pressure readings based on data received from the differential pressure sensor, and where one or more of said differential pressure readings are outside an acceptable parameter:
command a speed of the one or more fans to be temporarily increased;
monitor additional differential pressure readings based on additional data received from the differential pressure sensor with or after commanding the speed of the one or more fans to be temporarily increased, and where at least some of said additional differential pressure readings remain outside the acceptable parameter: generate and transmit an electronic notification to at least one remote device regarding the probable leak.
1. A system for detecting and alerting to likely leaks in an electronic display assembly, the system comprising:
the electronic display assembly comprising an electronic display, a testing area, a differential pressure sensor configured to detect a differential pressure between ambient air of an ambient environment and gas within the testing area, and one or more fans associated with the testing area and configured to circulate the gas within the testing area when operated;
a controller in electronic communication with the differential pressure sensor and configured to:
determine one or more differential pressure readings for the electronic display assembly based on data received from the differential pressure sensor;
generate and transmit an electronic notification where said one or more differential pressure readings are below a predetermined threshold;
temporarily increase a speed of the one or more fans; and
generate and transmit a confirmation of the likely presence of a leak where an associated one of the differential pressure readings remains below the predetermined threshold.
9. The system of claim 1 wherein:
the testing area is partitioned from the ambient air and the ambient environment.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-4, 8-20 are rejected over the prior art, and also double patenting.
Claims 5-7 are rejected because of double patenting, and also rejected due to dependency to a rejected claim, claim 5 has allowable subject matter.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 5, the prior art of record documents, individually or in combination, fail to anticipate or render obvious a system wherein the one or more non-transitory electronic storage devices comprises additional software instructions, which when executed, configure the one or more processors to: command at least one of: turn off the illumination device, turn off the one or more fans located along the open loop airflow pathway, and turn off the one or more fans located along the closed loop airflow pathway; and subsequently, take a baseline differential pressure reading from the differential pressure sensor based on preliminary data received from the differential pressure sensor, in conjunction with the remaining claim limitations.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Fatemeh E. Nia whose telephone number is (469)295-9187. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 am to 4:00 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, Kristina DeHerrera can be reached at (303) 297-4237. 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.
/FATEMEH ESFANDIARI NIA/Examiner, Art Unit 2855
1 Prior art of record
2 Prior art of record
3 Prior art of record