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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 1-13 and 19 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, at line 5, recites “a program” but should instead read “the program”.
Claims 2-6 are objected to due to dependence from claim 1.
Claim 4, at line 3, recites “modules” but should instead read “module”.
Claim 6 recites “each said cabinet”, but depends from claim 1 which only recites a single cabinet, and thus should instead read “the first cabinet”.
Claim 7, at line 10, recites “in in” but should instead read “is in”.
Claims 8-13 are objected to due to dependence from claim 7.
Claim 19 recites “each said cabinet”, but depends from claim 14 which only recites a single cabinet, and thus should instead read “the first cabinet”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 7-13 and 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 7, the claim recites “said master control module in said second cabinet”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes the claim is presumed to mean “a master control module in said second cabinet”.
Regarding claims 8-13, the claims are rejected due to dependence from claim 7.
Regarding claim 12, the claim recites “said communication connectors”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes it is presumed that the claim is intended to depend from claim 14.
Regarding claim 15, the claim recites “said master control module in said second cabinet”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes the claim is presumed to mean “a master control module in said second cabinet”.
Regarding claims 16-17, the claims are rejected due to dependence from claim 15.
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.
Claim 1-12 and 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lemke (US 2019/0281664) in view of Gu (US 7,932,480) and Rooyakkers (US 2016/0224048).
As to claim 1, Lemke teaches a multi-zone temperature controller, comprising:
a plurality of control modules 322-324, each having a processor (paragraphs 45 & 51), a program (paragraphs 45 & 51), a plurality of power outputs (Fig. 3, note solid lines extending from modules 322-324), and a plurality of thermocouple inputs (Fig. 3, note dotted lines extending from modules 322-324; paragraph 48), said processor receiving temperature data from said thermocouple inputs and controlling said power outputs based on the program (paragraphs 43-51);
a first said control module 324 is a master control module (paragraph 37); and
a second said control module 322 is in communication with the first module 324, said processor in first module 324 controlling said processor in said second module 322 (Fig. 3; paragraphs 46-47).
Lemke does not explicitly teach that the temperature controller is expandable or that the control modules are identical. However, Gu teaches that it is known to utilize an expandable heater control system (col. 5, lines 39-41) having identical master and slave units for convenience and standardization (col. 13, lines 38-40). Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the invention, to modify Lemke to incorporate expandable functionality into the controller and to utilize control modules that are identical as claimed and taught by Gu because it would increase the versatility of the system in a convenient and standardized manner for the user.
Lemke, as modified, does not explicitly teach that the modules are connected to a cabinet. However, Rooyakkers teaches that it is known to mount modular units in a rack or cabinet (paragraphs 56-57). Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the invention, to further modify Lemke to incorporate a cabinet type mount as claimed and taught by Rooyakkers to facilitate ease of connection of the various control modules during assembly.
As to claim 2, Lemke is silent in regards to a second cabinet. However, it has been held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced (see MPEP 2144.04). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the invention, to utilize a second cabinet as claimed in order to increase the control capabilities of the system.
As to claim 3, the modified apparatus includes a communication backplane for allowing communication between components (Rooyakkers, paragraph 64).
As to claim 4, Lemke teaches a human interface in communication with the control modules (paragraphs 51-52).
As to claim 5, Lemke teaches independently monitoring any number of zones (paragraphs 36-37), and thus each control module is capable of monitoring and controlling six heating zones.
As to claim 6, the modified apparatus teaches use of an appropriate number of module slots (Rooyakkers, Figs. 3-4 show four+ slots; also see paragraph 56) and thus includes an embodiment having four slots as claimed. As noted above, Lemke teaches independently monitoring any number of zones (paragraphs 36-37), and thus each control module is capable of monitoring and controlling six heating zones.
As to claims 7 and 14, as discussed in the rejections above the modified system of Lemke teaches a multi-zone expandable temperature controlling comprising:
a first cabinet with a plurality of slots (Rooyakkers, paragraphs 56-57), wherein the slots include a master and slave slots (Gu, col. 13, lines 38-40) and the first cabinet is for being connected to external heaters 304 (Lemke, Fig. 3) and thermocouples (Lemke, paragraph 39);
a plurality of identical control modules in the slots (Gu, col. 13, lines 38-40), each module having a processor (Lemke, paragraphs 45 & 51), a program (Lemke, paragraphs 45 & 51), power outputs (Lemke, Fig. 3, note solid lines extending from modules 322-324), and thermocouple inputs (Lemke, Fig. 3, note dotted lines extending from modules 322-324; paragraph 48);
wherein one of the modules 324 is in the master slot and controls the other modules (Lemke, paragraph 37);
a second cabinet wherein the master control module controls the modules of the second cabinet (see rejection of claim 2 above); and
a human interface in communication with the control modules (Lemke, paragraphs 51-52).
Furthermore, since the module 324 is the primary control module (Lemke, paragraph 37), it would necessarily be used to control the operation of modules in any additional cabinets of the modified apparatus.
As to claims 8-12 and 15-20, the claims are rejected for the same reasons as discussed in the rejection above.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lemke, Gu, and Rooyakkers as applied in the rejections above, and further in view of Marze (US 2015/0042281).
As to claim 13, the modified system of Lemke does not include affixing the cabinets to a mobile cart as claimed. However, Marze teaches that it is known to provide an electronic module cabinet with a mobile cart (Figs. 1 and 3). Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the invention, to further modify Lemke to incorporate a mobile cart as claimed and taught by Marze in order to improve the portability of the system.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN BRADFORD whose telephone number is (571)270-5199. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00 - 4:00 ET.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jerry-Daryl Fletcher can be reached at (571)270-5054. 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.
/JONATHAN BRADFORD/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
/JERRY-DARYL FLETCHER/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3763