DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
2. Acknowledgement is made of the preliminary amendment(s) filed 1/23/2025.
Information Disclosure Statement
3. The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 5/8/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
4. 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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 11-13 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim 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.
Claims 11-13, 16-19 recites the limitation "the output device". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Recommended recitation (Claim 11): “…an output device…”
Claims 14, 15 & 20 are rejected based on their dependency of claim 11
Double Patenting
5. The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-19 of U.S. Patent No. 12,099,047 B1. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
Regarding claims 1 & 11 U.S. Patent ‘047 discloses a housing containing a sensor, a transmitter electronically connected to the sensor, and a power source for providing power to the sensor and the transmitter, wherein the sensor contains hardware and software, the software configured to keep maintain the sensor in an off state and to turn on the sensor periodically to take measurements. [Claims 1 & 10]
Regarding claims 2, 9 & 12 U.S. Patent ‘047 discloses the sensor is one of a temperature sensor, a conductivity sensor, a pH sensor, oxygen reduction potential sensor, a liquid level sensor, at turbidity sensor, a humidity sensor, or combinations thereof. [Claims 1 and 10]
Regarding claim 3 U.S. Patent ‘047 discloses a housing, the housing containing the sensor assembly and having has a magnet on a surface thereof and attaching the sensor assembly to the aquarium, vivarium, or terrarium. [Claim 8].
Regarding claim 4 U.S. Patent ‘047 discloses the transmitter is turned on only when a measurement is to be transmitted. [Claims 1, 9 & 10]
Regarding claim 5 U.S. Patent ‘047 discloses a sensor assembly attached to the operably associated with one of an aquarium, vivarium, or terrarium, wherein the sensor assembly is configured to measure an environmental quantity within the aquarium, vivarium, or terrarium; b. an output device comprising one of a heater and/or water cooler, a water pump, and a base additive pump, the output device attached to operably associated with the aquarium, vivarium, or terrarium, and in communication with the sensor assembly and configured to control the environmental quantity; c. a main system for recording environmental data thereto; and d. a user interface, wherein the user interface communicates with the sensor assembly and the output device. [Claims 1-4]
Regarding claim 6 Patent ‘047 discloses the user interface is one of a computer, a tablet, and a mobile phone. [Claim 2]
Regarding claim 7 Patent ‘047 discloses communication between the sensor assembly, the output device, the main system, and the user interface is wireless. [Claim 3]
Regarding claim 8 Patent ‘047 discloses the user interface are provided with hardware and software for communication and control of the output device. [Claim 1]
Regarding claim 10 Patent ‘047 discloses the user interface is configured to provide a preset environmental quantity to be maintained within the aquarium, vivarium, or terrarium. [Claims 8 & 10]
Regarding claim 13 Patent ‘047 discloses the user interface entering the present environmental quantity is implemented directly on the output device or by through the user interface. [Claim 12
Regarding claim 14 Patent ‘047 discloses periodically activating the sensor is implemented to measure the environmental quantity. [ Claims 13]
Regarding claim 15 Patent ‘047 discloses the sensor takes several measurements and averages them to provide a single value. [Claim 14]
Regarding claim 16 Patent ‘047 discloses the value is transmitted to the output device if the value is not within the preset environmental quantity. [Claim 15]
Regarding claim 17 Patent ‘047 discloses the output device is periodically turning turned on or off to control the environmental quantity [Claims 1-19]
Regarding claim 18 Patent ‘047 discloses tracking an amount time of during a day when the output device is turned on. [Claim 17]
Regarding claim 19 Patent ‘047 discloses comparing the amount of time to an average amount of time the output device is on per day. [Claim 18]
Regarding claim 20 Patent ‘047 discloses notifying the user interface when the amount of time is greater than the average amount of time. [Claim 19]
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
6. 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 1-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Curtis et al (US 2017/088072 A1) in view of Hardman et al (US 8,266,465 B2).
Regarding claim 1 Curtis et al teaches a sensor [0017][0018][0026][0027], a transmitter [0034] electronically connected to the sensor [0017][0018][0026][0027],(figs. 1-5) , and a power source [0035][0041] for providing power to the sensor and the transmitter [0034], and hardware and software configured to keep the sensor in an off state and to turn on periodically to take measurements [0026][0028][0029]-[0031][0033]. Curtis et al however does not teach a sensor containing hardware and software configured to keep the sensor in an off state and to turn on periodically to take measurements. Hardman et al teaches a system for conserving battery life comprising a sensor 14 72 74 containing hardware and software configured to keep the sensor in an off state and to turn on periodically to take measurements (abstract)(col. 18 lines 20-31)(col. 26 lines 30-39).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art of power conserving sensing systems before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the power conserving system as taught by Curtis et al with a sensor that contains hardware and software configured to keep the sensor in an off state and to turn on periodically to take measurements as taught by Hardman et al for the purpose maximizing the performance of a sensor system by effectively managing / conserving power.
Regarding claim 2 Curtis et al teaches the sensor is one of a temperature sensor, a conductivity sensor, a pH sensor, oxygen reduction potential sensor, a liquid level sensor, at turbidity sensor, a humidity sensor, or combinations thereof [0027].
Regarding claim 3 Curtis et al teaches a housing containing the sensor assembly and having a magnet on a surface thereof and attaching the sensor assembly to the aquarium, vivarium, or terrarium. [0025].
Regarding claim 4 Curtis et al teaches the transmitter [0034] is turned on only when a measurement is to be transmitted [0017] [0018] [0026] [0027].
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
CN 208421588 U Integrated control system of intelligent aquarium
DE 202017005441 U1 Control unit for all types of terrarium, aquarium, paludarium
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDRE J ALLEN whose telephone number is (571)272-2174. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri. 9am-5PM.
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, Kristina M Deherrera can be reached on (303) 297-4237. 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.
/ANDRE J ALLEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855
Prosecution Insights