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 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barbier (U.S. Pub. 2019/0033897) in view of KR 200413721 (copy and translation attached).
Regarding claim 1, Barbier discloses an environment data monitoring method (see pars. [0005]-[0006]), comprising:
obtaining, by a first pressure sensor P1 [0023], a first pressure [0023];
obtaining, by a second pressure sensor P2 [0023], a second pressure [0023];
calculating, by a controller 116 [0023], a first pressure difference between the first pressure and the second pressure [0025];
determining, by the controller 116, whether or not the first pressure difference reaches an alarm standard [0038]; and
sending, by the controller 116, an alarm signal (see pars. [0028] and [0040]) when the first pressure difference reaches the alarm standard (see pars. [0038] and [0040]).
Barbier does not disclose obtaining, by a magnetic sensor, a fan rotational speed; determining, by the controller, whether or not the fan rotational speed reaches an alarm standard; and sending, by the controller, an alarm signal when the fan rotational speed reaches the alarm standard.
KR 200413721 discloses obtaining, by a magnetic sensor (Hall sensor, which is a magnetic sensor: middle p. 4; top p. 6), a fan rotational speed (middle p. 4; top p. 6); determining, by the controller, whether or not the fan rotational speed reaches an alarm standard (is the actual speed abnormal: top p. 6); and sending, by the controller, an alarm signal when the fan rotational speed reaches the alarm standard (output alarm: top p. 6).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Barbier’s method to include obtaining, by a magnetic sensor, a fan rotational speed; determining, by the controller, whether or not the fan rotational speed reaches an alarm standard; and sending, by the controller, an alarm signal when the fan rotational speed reaches the alarm standard, as taught by KR 200413721.
Such a modification would provide the user/operator better information about the nature of the abnormality (when the fan is not rotating at the correct speed), and would be an application of a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results – see MPEP 2143(I)(D).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barbier (U.S. Pub. 2019/0033897) in view of KR 200413721, and further in view of Lee et al. (U.S. Pub. 2006/0018736).
Regarding claim 2, Berbier’s modified method is applied as above, but does not disclose the alarm standard includes the fan rotational speed being less than a fan rotational speed threshold.
KR 200413721 discloses the alarm standard includes the fan rotational speed being less than a fan rotational speed threshold (actual speed lower than threshold: middle p. 4; top p. 6).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify Barbier’s method so that the alarm standard includes the fan rotational speed being less than a fan rotational speed threshold, as taught by KR 200413721.
Such a modification would provide the user/operator better information about the nature of the abnormality (when the fan is not rotating at the correct speed), and would be an application of a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results – see MPEP 2143(I)(D).
Berbier’s modified method also does not disclose the first pressure difference being less than zero.
Lee discloses the first pressure difference being less than zero (Fig. 2; [0060]-[0061]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify Barbier’s method so that the first pressure difference being less than zero, as taught by Lee.
Such a modification would be an application of a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results – see MPEP 2143(I)(D).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8-19 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance. The prior art of record does not show or suggest:
“…a main antenna communicatively connected with the magnetic sensor, the first pressure sensor, and the second pressure sensor;
“a radio frequency reader electrically connected to the main antenna; and
“a controller electrically connected to the radio frequency reader…”
(as in claims 8 and 11)
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Claims 3-7 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter. The prior art of record does not show or suggest:
“…the alarm standard includes the fan rotational speed being greater than or equal to a fan rotational speed threshold and the first pressure difference being greater than zero…”
(as in claim 3, and similarly in claims 4, 5, and 7)
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06-23-2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that there is no motivation to combine the teachings of KR 200413721 with that of Barbier (as in the above rejection of claim 1). However, Barbier establishes that the alarm for the differential pressure is sent/activated when the pressure is below a threshold (see par. [0038]), at which point the fan speed would be increased [0038]. As noted above, Barbier does not include an alarm when the fan speed reaches an alarm standard. KR 200413721 teaches that if the speed of the fan drops below a certain speed, and alarm is activated/sent (see middle p. 4). Therefore, in combination, in a scenario where the pressure drops and an alarm standard is met (per Barbier), and the fan is also not operating properly (per the KR reference), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to determine and send an alarm signal regarding the failure to increase the fan speed when the pressure drops. The motivation to do so would be to diagnose and inform the operator of the failure of a fan to properly operate. Furthermore, in response to applicant's arguments against the references individually (Remarks: pp. 12-13), 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).
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 Benjamin Schmitt, whose telephone number is (571) 270-7930. The examiner can normally be reached M-F | 8:30-5:00.
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, Walter Lindsay can be reached at (571) 272-1674. 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.
/BENJAMIN R SCHMITT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2852
Prosecution Insights