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 .
Preliminary Amendment
Receipt is acknowledged of the preliminary amendment filed on 09/18/2024.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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.
Claims 6-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as failing to set forth 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 6, the method step of “generating an alert if the moisture level exceeds the threshold” appears to be a contingent limitation. The MPEP states that “the broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met” (see MPEP 2111.04). In this case, if the condition for generating an alert is not satisfied then the alert will not be generated. For examination purposes, the step of “generating an alert” does not need to occur if the threshold level is not exceeded.
The claim recites the method steps of “receiving an indication”, “comparing the moisture level”, and “generating an alert” without disclosing the devices for performing those steps. The claim is incomplete for omitting essential elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the elements (see MPEP § 2172.01). The omitted elements are: the devices for performing the functional steps of “receiving an indication”, “comparing the moisture level”, and “generating an alert.
Further clarification is respectfully requested.
Regarding claim 11, the claim does not disclose whether the phrase “a computer readable medium carrying processor executable instructions” refer to products that do not have a physical or tangible form, such as computer programs per se; transitory forms of signal transmission; or non-transitory forms of signal transmission. Further clarification is respectfully requested.
Claims 7-10 are rejected as being dependent on the rejected base claim
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. In this case, the claim does not appear to further limit or define the method of claim 6. Rather, the claim further limits the medium carrying instructions for carrying out the method. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
Claims 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin et al. (Pat. No. US 10,096,215) (hereafter Lin) in view of Haverman et al. (Pat. No. US 7,231,887) (hereafter Haverman).
Regarding claim 1, Lin teaches a monitoring system for a pneumatically operated door, the monitoring system comprising:
a sensor configured to monitor a pneumatic actuator (i.e., sensor 100) (see Fig. 4) of the pneumatically operated door (i.e., second test object 300) (see Fig. 4); and
a controller coupled to the sensor (i.e., monitoring module 200) (see Fig. 5) and configured to compare the level of the interior of the cylinder of the pneumatic actuator of the pneumatically operated door with a threshold (i.e., the control module 210 can determine that the first test object 400 and the second test object 300 are in the open state based on the logic-high electrical level, and that the second test object 300 has moved away from the first test object 400) (see Column 5, line 23, to Column 6, line 43) and to generate an alert if the moisture level exceeds the threshold (i.e., the second test object 300 may move relative to the first subject 400 to cause the non-electrical power operated 100 to make sound. The monitoring system senses the positional states the first test object 400 relative to the second test object 300 by the different frequencies, and send the positional states through the communication module 220 of the monitoring module 200 to the user's electronic device) (see Column 5, line 23, to Column 6, line 43);
but does not explicitly teach a dew point sensor configured to monitor a moisture level of an interior of a cylinder of a pneumatic actuator; and a controller coupled to the dew point sensor and configured to compare the moisture level of the interior of the cylinder of the pneumatic actuator with a threshold and to generate an alert if the moisture level exceeds the threshold.
Regarding the dew point sensor, Haverman teaches a dew point sensor (i.e., dew point sensor 20) (see Fig. 1) configured to monitor a moisture level of an interior of a cylinder of a pneumatic actuator (i.e., pneumatically controllable cylinder 5, 6, 7) (see Fig. 1); and
a controller coupled to the dew point sensor and configured to compare the moisture level of the interior of the cylinder of the pneumatic actuator with a threshold (i.e., the control unit first checks whether and how the compressed air system has to be set. To this end the dew point of the compressed air is determined by means of the dew point sensor 20. Then the temperature of the ambient air is determined. The dew point signal obtained from the dew point sensor 20 is expressed as a so-called dew point temperature. If the ambient temperature falls below said so-called dew point temperature, condensation occurs. A dew point limit is determined starting from the measured ambient temperature. Said limit may be equal to the ambient temperature but is preferably somewhat lower, so that an extra safety margin is incorporated) (see Column 4, lines 7-48) and to generate an alert if the moisture level exceeds the threshold (i.e., If the dew point is higher than the dew point limit, the counter is activated. This counter is deactivated and set to zero when the dew point has decreased to below the dew point limit. In case the counter reaches a predetermined limit of e.g. 2 hours, a time signal is emitted to the control unit 11 and measures have to be taken. The alarm light 21 is activated and a warning becomes visible on the control screen 22) (see Column 4, lines 7-48). In view of the teaching of Haverman, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have added a dew point sensor in order to reduce or avoid condensation and to avoid damage or failure to the operation of the device.
Regarding claim 2, Lin as modified by Haverman as disclosed above does not directly or implicitly teach that the threshold is a dew point of at least 12° C. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected a tolerable threshold for the pneumatic device. Furthermore, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art (see MPEP 2144.05 (II-A)).
Regarding claim 3, Lin as modified by Haverman as disclosed above does not directly or implicitly teach that the threshold is a dew point of at least 15° C. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected a tolerable threshold for the pneumatic device. Furthermore, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art (see MPEP 2144.05 (II-A)).
Regarding claim 4, Lin as modified by Haverman as disclosed above does not directly or implicitly teach that the threshold is a moisture content of at least 12,000 parts per million by volume. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected a tolerable threshold for the pneumatic device. Furthermore, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art (see MPEP 2144.05 (II-A)).
Regarding claim 5, Lin as modified by Haverman as disclosed above does not directly or implicitly teach that the threshold is a moisture content of at least 15,000 parts per million by volume. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected a tolerable threshold for the pneumatic device. Furthermore, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art (see MPEP 2144.05 (II-A)).
Regarding claim 6, Lin teaches a method of monitoring a pneumatically operated door, the method comprising:
receiving an indication of an interior of a cylinder (i.e., monitoring module 200 includes a receiving module 260 for receiving sounds from the non-electrical power operated sensor 100 and sending a notification signal based on whether the first sound or the second sound is made) (see Column 5, line 23, to Column 6, line 43) of a pneumatic actuator (i.e., sensor 100) (see Fig. 4) of the pneumatically operated door (i.e., second test object 300) (see Fig. 4);
comparing the level of the interior of the cylinder of the pneumatic actuator of the pneumatically operated door with a threshold (i.e., the control module 210 can determine that the first test object 400 and the second test object 300 are in the open state based on the logic-high electrical level, and that the second test object 300 has moved away from the first test object 400) (see Column 5, line 23, to Column 6, line 43); and
generating an alert if the moisture level exceeds the threshold (i.e., the second test object 300 may move relative to the first subject 400 to cause the non-electrical power operated 100 to make sound. The monitoring system senses the positional states the first test object 400 relative to the second test object 300 by the different frequencies, and send the positional states through the communication module 220 of the monitoring module 200 to the user's electronic device) (see Column 5, line 23, to Column 6, line 43);
but does not explicitly teach an indication of a moisture level of an interior of a cylinder of a pneumatic actuator; comparing the moisture level of the interior of the cylinder of the pneumatic actuator of the pneumatically operated door with a threshold; and generating an alert if the moisture level exceeds the threshold.
Regarding the moisture level, Haverman teaches receiving an indication of a moisture level (i.e., dew point sensor 20) (see Fig. 1) of an interior of a cylinder of a pneumatic actuator (i.e., pneumatically controllable cylinder 5, 6, 7) (see Fig. 1);
comparing the moisture level of the interior of the cylinder of the pneumatic actuator with a threshold (i.e., the control unit first checks whether and how the compressed air system has to be set. To this end the dew point of the compressed air is determined by means of the dew point sensor 20. Then the temperature of the ambient air is determined. The dew point signal obtained from the dew point sensor 20 is expressed as a so-called dew point temperature. If the ambient temperature falls below said so-called dew point temperature, condensation occurs. A dew point limit is determined starting from the measured ambient temperature. Said limit may be equal to the ambient temperature but is preferably somewhat lower, so that an extra safety margin is incorporated) (see Column 4, lines 7-48); and
generating an alert if the moisture level exceeds the threshold (i.e., If the dew point is higher than the dew point limit, the counter is activated. This counter is deactivated and set to zero when the dew point has decreased to below the dew point limit. In case the counter reaches a predetermined limit of e.g. 2 hours, a time signal is emitted to the control unit 11 and measures have to be taken. The alarm light 21 is activated and a warning becomes visible on the control screen 22) (see Column 4, lines 7-48). In view of the teaching of Haverman, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have added a dew point sensor in order to reduce or avoid condensation and to avoid damage or failure to the operation of the device.
Regarding claim 7, Lin as modified by Haverman as disclosed above does not directly or implicitly teach that the threshold is a dew point of at least 12° C. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected a tolerable threshold for the pneumatic device. Furthermore, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art (see MPEP 2144.05 (II-A)).
Regarding claim 8, Lin as modified by Haverman as disclosed above does not directly or implicitly teach that the threshold is a dew point of at least 15° C. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected a tolerable threshold for the pneumatic device. Furthermore, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art (see MPEP 2144.05 (II-A)).
Regarding claim 9, Lin as modified by Haverman as disclosed above does not directly or implicitly teach that the threshold is a moisture content of at least 12,000 parts per million by volume. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected a tolerable threshold for the pneumatic device. Furthermore, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art (see MPEP 2144.05 (II-A)).
Regarding claim 10, Lin as modified by Haverman as disclosed above does not directly or implicitly teach that the threshold is a moisture content of at least 15,000 parts per million by volume. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected a tolerable threshold for the pneumatic device. Furthermore, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art (see MPEP 2144.05 (II-A)).
Regarding claim 11, Haverman teaches a computer readable medium carrying processor executable instructions which when executed on a processor cause the processor to carry out a method (i.e., the position state information of the first test object 400 relative to the second test object 300 is processed into a text, video, or audio form and stored in the storage module 250 before the control module 210 sends it to the user's electronic device. When it is necessary to send the position state information to the user, the control module 210 extracts the corresponding text, video, or audio from the storage module 250, and sends it to the user's electronic device in the form of a text message, video, or audio) (see Column 6, line 44, to Column 7, line 58).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: see PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TRAN M. TRAN whose telephone number is (571)270-0307. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 11:30am - 7:00pm.
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, Laura Martin can be reached on (571)-272-2160. 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.
/Tran M. Tran/Examiner, Art Unit 2855
Prosecution Insights