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.
Claims 1-3 and 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshinaga et al., U.S.P.G. Pub. No. 2011/0217056, in view of Suzuki, JP 2003-308948, and Orchard et al., U.S. Pat. No. 6,538,453, and further in view of Iguchi, U.S.P.G. Pub. No. 2019/0294092.
The reasoning of the rejections of claims 1-3 and 9-11 in the Office Action dated 3/2/26 are repeated herein in their entirety with the following additions:
Regarding independent claims 1 and 11, the combination of Yoshinaga et al., Suzuki, and Orchard teach using a single occurrence of the error condition to determine that an error has occurred in a temperature sensor. The combination thus fails to teach, as underlined:
determine that an abnormality other than the belt slip state occurs when a first state is detected a predetermined number of times or more.
Iguchi teaches that specific temperature sensor output may include noise, ¶ 130. Utilizing a single instance of temperature information to determine whether an error has occurred may thus lead to erroneous error detection. As such, Iguchi waits a predetermined number of times until an error condition is met to determine that an error has actually occurred, rather than merely appearing as such due to noise, ¶ 131.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill at the time of effective filing to provide determining that an abnormality other than the belt slip state occurs when a first state is detected a predetermined number of times or more. One having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing would have done so avoid noise influencing error detection.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/1/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues:
the references do not describe evaluating two separate temperature differences from two different sensors at different timings against two separate thresholds for a number of times.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., evaluating two separate temperature differences from two different sensors at different timings) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). 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).
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, 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).
The claims contain no mention of evaluating two separate temperature differences from two different sensors at different timings. The claims as presently amended merely require determining an abnormality from the amount of change in temperature sensors’ outputs “when a state is detected a predetermined number of times or more.” As indicated above, one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing would have done so to prevent the influence of noise from affecting error determinations.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SEVAN A AYDIN whose telephone number is (571)270-3209. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 9AM-6PM PT.
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.
/SEVAN A AYDIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2852
Prosecution Insights