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 .
Examiner Comment
This Office Action replaces the previous Office Action which inadvertently did not address the newly added claims.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Claims 1-7 in the reply filed on 3/4/26 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Applicants have elected Species A1, Figures 1-3, with claims 1-7 and 21-30 reading on them.
Claims 8-9 are withdrawn from consideration.
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.
Claim 23 is 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.
Re Claim 23, which depends from Claim 2, it is unclear if the controller is the same for both claims in light of the language “further comprising.”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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) 1-4, 6, 22, and 24-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by SHAW et al. (WO 2011/098773).
Re Claim 1, SHAW et al. teaches a system comprising: a sensor element (photosensor 1011); a mechanical transducer 108 to vibrate the sensor element; and a heating element 106 to provide localized heat to the sensor element; wherein the heating element and the mechanical transducer operate in concert to raise a temperature of the sensor element and vibrate the sensor element to dislodge contaminants from a surface of the sensor element (intended use expected capable of being met as the claimed parts are taught).
Re Claim 2, SHAW et al. teaches a housing 101 with a mounting surface; a controller 1012 to actuate the transducer and heating element, and the sensor and transducer appear to be mounted to the mounting surface (plane of page, Fig. 1).
Re Claims 3-4, the sensor, heater, and transducer are at least partially integrated in a single integrated circuit. See Fig. 1 with the black lines (wires) showing them all connected.
Re Claims 6 and 25, the controller 1012 is taught and a source of compressed fluid 107, 109 is taught to deliver fluid to the surface of the sensor element and at least indirectly the housing.
Re Claim 22, the heating element is expected to provide heat to the housing.
Re Claim 24, the controller 1012 is expected to actuate the transducer and activate the heating element.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-6, 21-25 and 27-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SHAW et al. (WO 2011/098773).
SHAW et al. is relied upon as applied to the claims above.
In the event that these claims are not considered to be anticipated because the operation in concert is not found to be explicitly taught or the mounting of the sensor and transducer is not considered to be explicitly taught by SHAW et al., they are rejected as obvious because Fig. 1 at least makes obvious using both at the same time, and the surface (plane of the page) appears to have both 108 and 1011 mounted on the same apparatus.
Similarly, regarding Claims 3-4, it is both expected and obvious that the sensor, heater, and transducers are integrated in the same circuit as shown in Fig. 1 and thus if not found to be anticipated they are rejected as obvious over SHAW et al.
Re Claim 5, it is unclear whether the active surface of sensor 1011, is angled toward downward with respect to gravity. Claim 5 is rejected as unpatentable over SHAW et al. because it has been held that rearrangement of parts is considered to require only ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2144.04 (VI-B)), and in doing so the sensor would still perform its expected and predictable function of sensing while being able to be cleaned.
Re Claims 21 and 28, the housing details are not clear but it is expected and at least obvious for a housing to house the parts and surround parts (“house” them). Thus, it is considered obvious to modify the device of SHAW et al. and to provide the housing as a housing surrounding the parts, and define a test chamber to protect the parts. Re Claim 27, allowing air flow via inlet and outlet is considered obvious in devices with heaters to prevent overheating of parts.
Re Claim 23, duplication of parts is considered to require only ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2144.04 (VI-B)) and at least duplicating the housing to provide additional support does not appear to provide any unexpected results.
Re Claims 29-30, a speaker is a known equivalent of the taught transducer to accomplish the same known and predictable results of providing vibrations and is thus considered to be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7 and 26 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Re Claim 7, while a sensor including a photodiode and LED is known for fire detection, it does not appear to be taught or made obvious to have the heating element apply heat to leads of the at least one LED, especially because the heater as taught in SHAW et al. is used to assist in removing the contaminants. Re Claim 26, the mesh housing does not appear to be taught or made obvious.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON Y KO whose telephone number is (571)270-7451. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:00-6:00.
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, Michael Barr can be reached at 571-270-1414. 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.
JASON Y. KO
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1711
/JASON Y KO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1711
Prosecution Insights