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 § 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.
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.
Claims 1-10 are 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the at least one flammable compound". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The claims previously recite “at least one flammable gas”, and it is unclear if these two recitations are referring to the same thing or not.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2 and 7-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wright Jr (US 5311851).
Claim 1
A method of activating a pre-set controller, the method comprising: evaluating incident air provided to a first engine with a sensor to detect a concentration of at least one flammable gas in the incident air; determining whether the detected concentration of the at least one flammable compound is at concentration above at least a first threshold concentration; and transmitting a signal to shut down the first engine when the detected concentration is above the at least first threshold concentration (see abstract, Column 1, Lines 15-54 and Column 3, Line 4 through Column 4, Line 57).
Claim 2
The method according to claim 1, wherein evaluating incoming air to a first internal combustion engine with a sensor to detect a concentration of at least one flammable gas in the incoming air comprises identifying the at least one flammable gas (Column 3, Lines 34-38).
Claim 7
The method according to claim 1, wherein evaluating incoming air to a first internal combustion with a sensor (21) to detect a concentration of at least one flammable gas in the incoming air comprises evaluating incoming air at an air intake of the at least first internal combustion engine (Column 3, Lines 39-41).
Claim 8
The method according to claim 1, wherein determining whether the detected concentration of the at least one flammable gas is at concentration above at least a first threshold concentration comprises receiving data reporting the detected concentration from at least one sensor at a controller and comparing the detected concentration to a threshold below the concentration of flammable gas sufficient to support an overspeed condition (see abstract, Column 1, Lines 15-54 and Column 3, Lines 28-57).
Claim 9
The method according to claim 1, wherein transmitting a signal comprises sending an electronic code to an EMS controller to stop the first internal combustion engine (Column 3, Line 64 through Column 4, Line 57).
Claim 10
The method according to claim 1, wherein transmitting a signal comprises sending a signal to a valve assembly disposed on an air intake to the first internal combustion engine to stop airflow to the first internal combustion engine (Column 4, Lines 4-57).
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.
Claim(s) 3-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wright Jr. as applied to claim 1 above
In re Claims 3-6, Wright Jr discloses using a sensor (21) to detect a concentration of at least one flammable gas in the incident air (Column 3, Lines 34-38).
However Wright Jr does not explicitly disclose a sensor configuration comprising:
a multichannel array sensor
multiple sensors to characterize multiple properties of flammable vapors in the incoming air selected from a group comprising density sensors, thermal conductivity sensors, diffusion rate sensors, evaporation rate sensors chemically selective redox sensors, chemical solubility sensors and thermodynamic analysis sensors, OR
evaluating incoming air using orthogonal analysis on a MEMS detector to characterize at least one property of a flammable vapor.
The examiner notes that while Wright Jr. does not explicitly disclose these exact configurations, all of these configurations are well known means of detecting flammable vapors within the art, and therefore would have been obvious to implement for one having ordinary skill in order to more accurately determine flammable gas concentration.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SIZO BINDA VILAKAZI whose telephone number is (571)270-3926. The examiner can normally be reached 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, Phutthiwat Wongwian can be reached at 571-270-5426. 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.
/SIZO B VILAKAZI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3747