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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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.
Claims 1-6 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yin et al (US # 6,987,457) in view of Golden et al ( US # 10,415,609) and Kurahashi (JP 2004-340625-A).
The Yin reference discloses a plumbing fixture (304) coupled to a water supply (Col. 9, ll. 21-41); a temperature sensor (2) to generate temperature sensor data indicative of an ambient temperature around the plumbing fixture (Col. 5, II. 20-23); and a controller (10) including a battery power supply (Col. 4, II. 41-45), the controller (10) is configured to determine a first battery level of the battery power supply (Col. 5, II. 15-17), responsive to determining that the first battery level exceeds a first battery level threshold (Col. 5, II. 14-15; Col. 7, II. 49-50), the controller (10) is also configured to set a timer to a first time duration; the controller is further configured to determine a first temperature for the one or more temperature sensors based on the temperature sensor data and responsive to determining that the first temperature satisfies a first condition, the controller is also configured to cause a transmission of a first notification corresponding to the first condition to a remote computing device (Col. 6, II. 17-46). However, the Yin reference does not disclose the specific details of the temperature sensor clamp (element 306; Figures 10C-10D).
The Golden reference (Fig. 1) discloses a temperature sensor clamp comprising a first semicircular portion (106) and a first sensor housing lobe (114) and a second semicircular portion (108) and a second sensor housing lobe (116), the first and second sensor housing lobes being hingedly coupled together (Disclosed in an alternative embodiment; Col. 5, ll. 52-59)1 and defining a first bore (110) between the first and second semicircular portions to fit around the pipe structures (Col. 4, ll. 45-50), and a second bore (118, 120) between the first and second sensor housing lobes (114, 116) to house a temperature sensor configured to generate temperature sensor data (Col. 4, ll. 22-29 & 51-59) indicative of an ambient temperature around the plumbing fixture (Col. 4, ll. 38-44). The Golden reference does not expressly disclose that the sensor clamp was large enough to fit around both pipe structure AND around a test cock, but simply sizing up a temperature clamp to fit around two pipes would have been an obvious design choice (see Figures 2 & 9-11 of the Kurahashi reference).
It would have been obvious to the ordinary practioner to use a known sensor clamp (such as the one disclosed in the Golden reference) for the temperature clamp (306) of Yin, motivated by its art recognized suitability for its intended purpose.
With respect to claim 2, it would have been obvious to the ordinary practioner to reset the temperature sampling rate to a longer duration when the temperature of the water or the air was well above the freezing point.
With respect to claim 3, the temperature threshold and the time duration would have been parameters which would have been obvious to optimize through routine trial and error2.
With respect to claim 4, backflow prevention values were known, and would have been an obvious addition to the system disclosed in Yin to prevent backflow in the system.
With respect to claim 5. Installing a temperature activated switch (essentially a bimetallic thermostat) to turn on the temperature sensor only when the outside temperature dropped below a certain threshold would have been an obvious modification to make to the system of Yin to save energy.
With respect to claim 6, modifying the test cock and the sensor clamp to make it easier to attach the sensor clamp to the test cock would have been an obvious modification3 to make to the system of Yin for the same reason.
With respect to claim 8, the use of a flexible protrusion to help secure the temperature sensor in place via friction was a known way to secure removable parts and would have been an obvious modification to make to the temperature sensor claim of Golden for the same reason.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yin et al (US # 6,987,457) in view of Golden et al ( US # 10,415,609) and Kurahashi (JP 2004-340625-A), as applied to claims 1-6 above, and further in view of Goodsel et al (US # 7,014,225). Goodsel shows (Fig. 5) shows the use of a locking tab and a locking slot to fasten the two halves of the temperature sensor clamp together, and it would have been obvious to modify the temperature sensor clamp of Golden to use a tab and slot locking system, instead of the bolt shown, as this was an art recognized way to fasten shut the two halves of the clamp.
Claims 9, 10, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Golden et al ( US # 10,415,609) in view of Kurahashi (JP 2004-340625-A). The Golden reference (Fig. 1) discloses a temperature sensor clamp comprising a first semicircular portion (106) and a first sensor housing lobe (114) and a second semicircular portion (108) and a second sensor housing lobe (116), the first and second sensor housing lobes being hingedly coupled together (Disclosed in an alternative embodiment; Col. 5, ll. 52-59)4 and defining a first bore (110) between the first and second semicircular portions to fit around the pipe structures (Col. 4, ll. 45-50), and a second bore (118, 120) between the first and second sensor housing lobes (114, 116) to house a temperature sensor configured to generate temperature sensor data (Col. 4, ll. 22-29 & 51-59) indicative of an ambient temperature around the plumbing fixture (Col. 4, ll. 38-44). The Golden reference does not expressly disclose that the sensor clamp was large enough to fit around both pipe structure AND around a test cock, but simply sizing up a temperature clamp to fit around two pipes would have been an obvious design choice (see Figures 2 & 9-11 of the Kurahashi reference).
With respect to claim 10, adding another bore to accommodate a third sensor would have been an obvious modification to make to the Golden temperature clamp, as our reviewing court has held that merely duplication a part and its function would have been an obvious design choice absent some unexpected result5.
With respect to claim 12, the use of a flexible protrusion to help secure the temperature sensor in place via friction was a known way to secure removable parts and would have been an obvious modification to make to the temperature sensor claim of Golden for the same reason.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Golden et al ( US # 10,415,609) and Kurahashi (JP 2004-340625-A), as applied to claims 9, 10, & 12 above, and further in view of Goodsel et al (US # 7,014,225). Goodsel shows (Fig. 5) shows the use of a locking tab and a locking slot to fasten the two halves of the temperature sensor clamp together, and it would have been obvious to modify the temperature sensor clamp of Golden to use a tab and slot locking system, instead of the bolt shown, as this was an art recognized way to fasten shut the two halves of the clamp.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sharpe (US 2006/0026971). The Sharpe reference discloses a clamp for a temperature sensor (Figs. 2A & 2J), comprising:
a first semicircular portion (101B) and a first sensor housing lobe (Square part of housing);
a second semicircular portion (101A);
wherein the first and second semicircular portions being hingedly coupled together (para. # 0041) and defining a first bore (216) between the first and second semicircular portions (para. # 0040), wherein a second bore (unlabeled hole for the temp. sensor 201 in Fig. 2E) between the first sensor housing lobe to house a temperature sensor (201) configured to generate temperature sensor data indicative of an ambient temperature (para. # 0040-0042).
The reference does not disclose a second sensor housing lobe, but since the Sharpe reference discloses in passing sensing ambient temperature (para. # 0042), it would have been an obvious alternative embodiment to include another temperature sensor lobe on the far side of the housing to point a temperature sensor outward to sense the ambient temperature at a point distant from the wine bottle sensor to be an independent temperature reading.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The other references cited show the general state of the art.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RANDY W GIBSON whose telephone number is (571)272-2103. The examiner can normally be reached Tue-Friday 10AM-6PM.
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, Peter Macchiarolo can be reached at 571-272-2375. 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.
RANDY W. GIBSON
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2856
/RANDY W GIBSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855
1 In other words, the Golden reference suggests that placing a hinge between the two sensor housing lobes shown was an obvious design choice over making the two lobes as separate halves that could be joined together via screws or bolts.
2 See MPEP § 2144.05, subsection II.
3 See Figures 2 & 9-11 of the Kurahashi reference
4 In other words, the Golden reference suggests that placing a hinge between the two sensor housing lobes shown was an obvious design choice over making the two lobes as separate halves that could be joined together via screws or bolts.
5 In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) (Claims at issue were directed to a water-tight masonry structure wherein a water seal of flexible material fills the joints which form between adjacent pours of concrete. The claimed water seal has a "web" which lies in the joint, and a plurality of "ribs" projecting outwardly from each side of the web into one of the adjacent concrete slabs. The prior art disclosed a flexible water stop for preventing passage of water between masses of concrete in the shape of a plus sign (+). Although the reference did not disclose a plurality of ribs, the court held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced.).See, also, MPEP § 2144.04.
Prosecution Insights