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 .
INFORMATION DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 06 September 2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the IDS has been considered by the Examiner herein.
CLAIM STATUS
Claims 1-11 were originally filed.
Claims 1-11 are canceled.
Claims 12-22 are new.
Claims 12-22 are currently pending and have been examined herein.
INITIAL REMARKS
Applicant is reminded that in order to be entitled to reconsideration or further examination, the Applicant or patent owner must reply to the Office action. The reply by the Applicant or patent owner must be reduced to a writing which distinctly and specifically points out the supposed errors in the examiner' s action and must reply to every ground of objection and rejection in the prior Office action. The reply must present arguments pointing out the specific distinctions believed to render the claims, including any newly presented claims, patentable over any applied references. If the reply is with respect to an application, a request may be made that objections or requirements as to form not necessary to further consideration of the claims, be held in abeyance until allowable subject matter is indicated. The Applicant's or patent owner's reply must appear throughout to be a bona fide attempt to advance the application or the reexamination proceeding to final action. A general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references does not comply with the requirements of this section.
Should the Applicant believe that a telephone conference would expedite the prosecution of the instant application, Applicant is invited to call the Examiner.
CLAIM INTERPRETATION
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. § 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
Claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph1:
the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “an evaluation unit” in claim 19.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may:
amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or
present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph.
CLAIM REJECTIONS - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. § 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 12-14, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Willemin et al., US20140230525 (“WILLEMIN”).
Re claim 12, WILLEMIN discloses a method for leak testing a housing, wherein the housing has an at internal volume that is at least partially air-filled [0009], the method comprising:
changing an internal pressure in the internal volume of the housing [0041];
determining a first internal pressure and a first temperature [0041];
determining a second internal pressure and a second temperature [0041];
determining whether an absolute value of a difference between the second internal pressure and the first internal pressure, accounting for a difference between the first and second temperatures, is above a threshold value [0030-0034], [0012], [claim 15]; and
outputting a signal representing whether or not the absolute value of the different between the second internal pressure and the first internal pressure is above the threshold value [0030-0034], [0012], [claim 15]
Re claim 13, WILLEMIN discloses the method of claim 12, as shown above. WILLEMIN further discloses wherein the internal pressure is changed by changing the internal volume by a differential volume [0041]
Re claim 14, WILLEMIN discloses the method of claim 12, as shown above. WILLEMIN further discloses wherein internal pressure and temperature are repeatedly measured to determine the absolute value of a pressure difference [0030-0034]
Re claim 16, WILLEMIN discloses the method of claim 12, as shown above. WILLEMIN further wherein the first and the second temperature are an internal temperature inside the housing, are an external temperature outside the housing, or are a temperature of the housing [0030-0034]
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 15 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over WILLEMIN in view of Fayer, US20190076213 (“FAYER”).
Re claim 15, WILLEMIN discloses the method of claim 12, as shown above.
WILLEMIN fails to explicitly disclose wherein the housing is a housing of a foot switch, wherein the changing of the internal volume is performed by actuating a button or a pedal of the foot switch
However, FAYER, in the same or similar field of endeavor, teaches a foot switch with a housing, wherein the foot switch changes an internal volume of the housing by actuating a button or a pedal of the foot switch [0011-0012]
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant invention, to modify WILLEMIN to include the particular foot switch embodiment of FAYER. One would have been motivated to do so in order to provide automatic leak detection means using inexpensive materials (see at least WILLEMIN [0011]). Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provided that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, FAYER merely teaches that a pneumatic foot switch was old and well-known. Since both WILLEMIN and FAYER disclose similar features, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results.
Re claim 18, WILLEMIN discloses the method of claim 12, as shown above.
WILLEMIN fails to explicitly disclose wherein the method is performed responsive to a connection or change of a power source of the foot switch
However, FAYER, in the same or similar field of endeavor, teaches a foot switch with a housing, wherein the foot switch changes an internal volume of the housing by actuating a button or a pedal of the foot switch [0011-0012]
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant invention, to modify WILLEMIN to include the particular foot switch embodiment of FAYER. One would have been motivated to do so in order to provide automatic leak detection means using inexpensive materials (see at least WILLEMIN [0011]). Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provided that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, FAYER merely teaches that a pneumatic foot switch was old and well-known. Since both WILLEMIN and FAYER disclose similar features, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results.
Re claim 19, Applicant recites claim limitations of the same or substantially the same scope as that of claim 15. Accordingly, claim 19 is rejected in the same or substantially the same manner as claim 15.
Re claim 20, WILLEMIN/FAYER discloses the foot switch of claim 19, as shown above.
WILLEMIN fails to explicitly disclose a calotte with an inner volume that is pneumatically coupled to the inner volume of the housing or is part of the inner volume of the housing, wherein the calotte is deformable when the at least one button or the pedal is actuated
However, FAYER, in the same or similar field of endeavor, teaches a foot switch with a housing and a calotte with an inner volume that is pneumatically coupled to the inner volume of the housing or is part of the inner volume of the housing, wherein the calotte is deformable when the at least one button or the pedal is actuated [0011-0012]
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant invention, to modify WILLEMIN to include the particular foot switch embodiment of FAYER. One would have been motivated to do so in order to provide automatic leak detection means using inexpensive materials (see at least WILLEMIN [0011]). Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provided that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, FAYER merely teaches that a pneumatic foot switch was old and well-known. Since both WILLEMIN and FAYER disclose similar features, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over WILLEMIN in view of Goldstein et al., US20220061767 (“GOLDSTEIN”).
Re claim 17, WILLEMIN discloses the method of claim 12, as shown above.
WILLEMIN fails to explicitly disclose determining a humidity value inside the housing; and outputting a signal that is dependent on the determined humidity value
However, GOLDSTEIN, in the same or similar field of endeavor, teaches a foot switch with an integrated humidity sensor to determine the humidity inside a chamber [0117], [0126-0127]
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant invention, to modify WILLEMIN to include the particular humidity sensor of GOLDSTEIN. One would have been motivated to do so in order to provide automatic leak detection means using inexpensive materials (see at least WILLEMIN [0011]). Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provided that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, GOLDSTEIN merely teaches that a foot switch with an integrated humidity sensor was old and well-known. Since both WILLEMIN and GOLDSTEIN disclose similar features, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results.
Claims 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over WILLEMIN/FAYER in view of GOLDSTEIN.
Re claim 21, WILLEMIN/FAYER renders obvious the foot switch of claim 19, as shown above.
WILLEMIN fails to explicitly disclose a humidity sensor configured to detect a humidity value inside the housing
However, GOLDSTEIN, in the same or similar field of endeavor, teaches a foot switch with an integrated humidity sensor to determine the humidity inside a chamber [0117], [0126-0127]
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant invention, to modify WILLEMIN to include the particular humidity sensor of GOLDSTEIN. One would have been motivated to do so in order to provide automatic leak detection means using inexpensive materials (see at least WILLEMIN [0011]). Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provided that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, GOLDSTEIN merely teaches that a foot switch with an integrated humidity sensor was old and well-known. Since both WILLEMIN and GOLDSTEIN disclose similar features, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results.
Re claim 22, WILLEMIN/FAYER/GOLDSTEIN renders obvious the foot switch of claim 21, as shown above.
WILLEMIN further discloses wherein at least two of the at least one pressure sensor, the temperature sensor, and the humidity sensor are a single integrated component [0026]
CONCLUSION
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THOMAS M HAMMOND III whose telephone number is 571-272-2215. The Examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 0800-1700.
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 on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000. For more information about the PAIR system, see: https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair.
Respectfully,
/Thomas M Hammond III/Primary Examiner, GAU 2855
1 MPEP § 2181, subsection I
Prosecution Insights