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.
Terminal Disclaimer
The terminal disclaimer (TD) filed on 05/22/2026 disclaiming the terminal portion of any patent granted on this application which would extend beyond the expiration date of US patent No. 11965804 has been reviewed and is accepted. The terminal disclaimer has been recorded.
Response to Amendment / Arguments
The response and amendments, filed 05/22/2026, has been entered. Claims 1-20 are pending upon entry of this Amendment. The previous objections and double patenting rejections are withdrawn due to amendment and also filed TD. Applicant’s arguments regarding the prior art rejections of claims have been fully considered :
On page 12 of Remarks, Applicant is arguing that Liebeskind is directed towards "leaks" within a sealed enclosure, not to ambient. Furthermore, operating fans to artificially create pressure runs directly contrary to Liebeskind's intended purpose - controlling off gassing and there is no motivation for combining Liebeskind with Moix Olive.
Response:
Based on MPEP 2111, during patent examination, the pending claims must be given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Also based on MPEP 2111.02, the intended use or a standard process isn't enough if the prior art product has the same structure.
In this case, first of all: Examiner has to rely on the broadest reasonable interpretation and the limitation is broadly claiming using claimed invention for internal area of a device, and as claimed: this device comprises a display assembly comprising an electronic display. Claim does not further limit any claimed limitation to limit the internal area structure as a part of or inside the electronic display. Therefore, claim is broadly interpreted to use the system for a display assembly comprising an electronic display. Unlike allowed claim 5, which the claimed system is further limited to some modification and feature that directly is related to the electronic display, there is no single limitation to stop broadly interpreting the system used for a display assembly comprising an electronic display. Under BRI ,The only requirement for this limitation is knowing a leak detecting for a display assembly comprising an electronic display, and Liebeskind reads on this limitation as broadly as can reasonable be interpreted. Secondly: there is no limitation to relate the operation of fans to the electronic display. It is just broadly claiming a leak detection system for a device that can comprise an electronic display, no limiting fans to defining it inside the electronic display. Finally, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). And in this case, the claim only requires using a leak testing system for a device which comprising an electronic display. Therefore, Liebeskind reads on this limitation as broadly as can reasonable be interpreted and the argument is not persuasive.
On page of 13 of Remarks, Applicant is arguing that Office's allegation that checking/re-checking is "common knowledge" is unsupported and thereby legally insufficient.
Response:
"check everything again and again" aspect is actually the key feature of ANY closed-loop controller. In fact, all HVAC differential pressure controllers, Cleanroom pressure controller are the strongest examples because they continuously execute a loop like this: while (system is operating) measure differential pressure; compare to target; adjust fan speed; measure differential pressure again; and repeat it again. One specific example to support the Examiner’s notice is US20070275651A1, which clearly1 recite: a variable-speed fan, a motor controller, a differential-pressure transducer that measures the pressure difference, a closed-loop controller that receives the differential-pressure measurement, and varies the fan speed based on the measured differential pressure to maintain the desired pressure. Therefore, the argument is not persuasive.
On pages 13-14 of Remarks, Applicant is arguing that Germagian does so for thermal management purposes, no protocol for temporarily increasing fan speed as a leak confirmation step, nor any teaching of conditioning alert generation on a second
differential pressure reading taken after a temporary fan speed increase.
Response:
one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
In this case the rejection is not only relying on Germagian to teach this limitation, as cited in this action the prior art (Moix Olive and Germagian) included each element claimed, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference, it is based on obviousness over the combination of Moix Olive and Germagian, Moix Olive teaches using differential pressure to check the leaks and Germagian teaches 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, and neither reference provides any indication that their combination would not have yielded a predictable result, the combination of arts meet the claimed limitations. Therefore, the argument is not persuasive.
On pages 14 of Remarks, Applicant is arguing that The Examiner has assembled the claimed invention by extracting individual elements from three distinct technical domains - aspirating fire detection (Moix Olive), vacuum microelectronics (Liebeskind), and server/enclosure cooling (Germagian) – and combining them to reconstruct the claimed electronic display leak detection system. This reconstruction is possible only with the benefit of the claimed invention itself as a roadmap. Without that roadmap, there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation in any of the three references that would have directed a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine them in the manner claimed.
Response:
it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). The examiner finds the aforementioned argument unpersuasive, because the known specific knowledge is separated from the claimed limitation, instead it was determined that applying that knowledge to the claimed method would have been obvious to POSITA. The prior arts naturally fit together. Moix Olive Leak detection is based on differential pressure and comparing it with acceptable range to determine leakage, Liebeskind teaches leak detection for a device comprising electronic display, therefore using a leak detection for any device as long as the claim is not distinguish any feature of electronic device does not have patentable weight. Germagian teaches the limitation of which controller command to increase fan speed to maintaining required pressure differentials . A POSITA knows pressure differential readings can be vary and unreliable, would a POSITA looking at Moix Olive and Germagian together is motivated to increase fans speed and monitor it again to provide a more reliable basis for determining whether a leak actually exist? Examiner found it a Yes. The motivation is :confirming the leak determination by measuring after adjusting fan speed to establish an appropriate pressure differential. Therefore, the argument is not persuasive.
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”2 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”3 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 KOCH4, 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.
Allowable Subject Matter
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.
Claims 6-7 depend on claim 5.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 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 At least see the claims in this patent application
2 Prior art of record
3 Prior art of record
4 Prior art of record
Prosecution Insights