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.
Claim 12-20 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 12 recites the limitation “the control tower” in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of examination, this limitation will be interpreted as “the communication tower” which is previously recited.
Claims 13-20 are also rejected because they depend upon the rejected claim 12.
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) 1-8, 11-17, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Petrenko (US 2003/0155467) and in view of Botura et al. (US 10,640,217).
With regards to claim 1:
Petrenko discloses (refer to Fig. 1 below and [0145]) a de-icing system (120) for mitigating the accumulation of snow and ice on components (126) of a communication tower, comprising:
a de-icing assembly (122) configured to be attached to one or more components (126) of a communication tower.
PNG
media_image1.png
776
876
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Fig. 1
Petrenko does not disclose the de-icing assembly comprising:
a backing member, and
at least one pneumatic tube disposed on a front facing of said backing member and defining an expandable chamber configured to be selectively inflated and selectively deflated;
a fastener configured to affix said backing member of said de-icing assembly to said one or more components of said communication tower; and
an air supply source, in fluid communication with said pneumatic tube, that is configured to supply inflating air to said pneumatic tube to inflate said pneumatic tube on demand.
Botura et al. discloses (refer to Fig. 2 below) a de-icing assembly (14) comprising:
a backing member (20), and
at least one pneumatic tube (36) disposed on a front facing of said backing member and defining an expandable chamber configured to be selectively inflated and selectively deflated;
a fastener (not shown) configured to affix said backing member of said de-icing assembly to said one or more components (12); and
an air supply source (connected to conduit (38), not shown), in fluid communication with said pneumatic tube, that is configured to supply inflating air to said pneumatic tube to inflate said pneumatic tube on demand (Column 4, line 41 to Column 6, line 44).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the de-icing system of Petrenko to have the de-icing assembly as disclosed by Botura et al. as an alternative design for the de-icing assembly (120) of Petrenko to provide the same expected functional result for mitigating the accumulation of snow and ice on component (airfoil, communication tower).
Petrenko, as modified, discloses the de-icing system of claim 1.
With regards to claim 2:
Petrenko, as modified, discloses (Botura et al., Column 5, line 50 to Column 6, line 44) the de-icing system of claim 1, further comprising:
a controller (computer processor, MEMS) configured to control operation of the de-icing assembly to cycle the inflation and deflation of the at least one pneumatic tube of the de-icing assembly.
PNG
media_image2.png
1620
1433
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Fig. 2
With regards to claim 3:
Petrenko, as modified, discloses (refer to Fig. 3 below) the de-icing system of claim 2, wherein said controller is in operative communication with one or more of said air supply source (air source connected to 40) or a controllable air valve disposed between said air supply source and said de-icing assembly, and is configured to activate and deactivate the air supply source or actuate the air valve between an open and closed state to cause inflating air to selective inflate or deflate the at least one pneumatic tube (36) of the de-icing assembly.
PNG
media_image3.png
807
1256
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Fig. 3
With regards to claim 4:
Petrenko, as modified, discloses the de-icing system of claim 2, further comprising:
at least one sensor (42) disposed at the communication tower and in operative communication with the controller, which sensor is configured to:
monitor one or more of an environmental condition (temperature, pressure), or condition of the deicing assembly,
send a signal to said controller indicative of a current monitored condition, and
cause said controller to trigger the initiation of cycling of inflation and deflation of the pneumatic tube of the de-icing assembly upon receipt in the controller of a signal indicating the presence of a predefined condition.
With regards to claim 5:
Petrenko, as modified, discloses the de-icing system of claim 4, wherein the at least one sensor (42) includes a temperature sensor configured to send ambient air temperature signals to the controller, wherein in response to a signal indicative of the ambient temperature at the tower being at or below 32-degrees Fahrenheit (even this temperature is not specified, but this temperature would be well known as freezing/icing temperature for skill person in the related art to be configured for triggering by the controller to activate the de-icing process), the controller triggers initiation of cycling of inflation and deflation of the pneumatic tube of the de-icing assembly.
With regards to claim 6:
Petrenko, as modified, discloses the de-icing system of claim 4, wherein the at least one sensor includes a moisture sensor (measuring humidity of air, see claim 15 of Botura et al.) configured to determine the presence at the communication tower of moisture in the form of snow or ice, wherein in response to a signal indicative of the presence of snow and ice at the communication tower, the controller triggers initiation of cycling of inflation and deflation of the pneumatic tube of the de-icing assembly.
With regards to claim 7:
Petrenko, as modified, discloses the de-icing system of claim 4, wherein the at least one sensor (42) includes a pressure sensor configured to measure pressure within the at least one pneumatic tube (38), wherein the controller is further configured to cease cycling an inflation and deflation of the pneumatic tube in response to a low pressure signal from the pressure sensor indicative that said one or more pneumatic tubes has ruptured (data that is useful to the maintenance personnel (Botura et al., Column 6, line 25 to Column 7, line 4)).
With regards to claim 8:
Petrenko, as modified, discloses the de-icing system of claim 4, wherein the at least one sensor includes a pressure sensor (42) configured to measure pressure within the at least one pneumatic tube (36), and wherein the controller is configured to trigger a cycling of the inflation and deflation of the at least one pneumatic tube in response to a signal indicating the presence of an elevated pressure that is higher than an expected threshold value, which is indicative of accumulation of one or more of heavy snow or ice on the pneumatic tube creating increased pressure therein (data that is useful to the operator and others (Botura et al., Column 6, lines 25 to Column 7, line 4)).
With regards to claim 11:
In making and/or using the modified device of Petrenko, one would necessarily perform a method for mitigating the accumulation of snow and ice on a component of a communication tower, comprising:
affixing at least one de-icing assembly to at least one component of a communication tower, the de-icing assembly having a backing member, and at least one pneumatic tube disposed on a front facing of said backing member and defining an expandable chamber configured to be selectively inflated and selectively deflated;
detecting the presence of an accumulation of one or more of snow or ice on the component of the communication tower or the at least one de-icing assembly;
periodically cycling inflation and deflation of the at least one pneumatic tube in response to a detection of the presence of one or more of snow or ice on the component of the communication tower or the de-icing assembly, causing the snow or ice to break free from, and fall off of, the component of the communication tower and pneumatic tube affixed thereto.
With regards to claim 12:
Petrenko, as modified, discloses the method of claim 11, wherein said detecting step comprises:
monitoring, by at least one sensor, one or more conditions at the position of the de-icing assembly on the communication tower;
sending a signal from the at least one sensor to a controller configured to control operation of the de-icing assembly, the signal corresponding to a current state of the condition being monitored; and
determining, by the controller, the signal meets a predefined threshold criteria indicative of the presence of one or more of snow or ice on one or more of the component of the communication tower or the de-icing assembly.
With regards to claim 13:
Petrenko, as modified, discloses the method of claim 12, wherein the at least one sensor includes one or more of a temperature sensor, a moisture sensor, a pressure sensor, or a wind sensor.
With regards to claim 14:
Petrenko, as modified, discloses the method of claim 13, wherein:
said monitoring step comprises measuring, by the temperature sensor, ambient air temperature at the location of the de-icing assembly; and
said determining step comprises determining, by the controller, that the signal received from the temperature sensor indicates that the ambient air temperature is at or below 32-degrees Fahrenheit (even this temperature is not specified, but this temperature would be well known as freezing/icing temperature for skill person in the related art to be configured for triggering by the controller to activate the de-icing process), as the predefined threshold temperature criteria indicative of the presence of snow or ice on.
With regards to claim 15:
Petrenko, as modified, discloses the method of claim 13, wherein:
said monitoring step comprises monitoring, by the moisture sensor, for the presence or absence of moisture in the form of snow or ice at the location of the de-icing assembly; and
said determining step comprises determining, by the controller, that the signal received from the moisture sensor indicates that moisture in the form of snow or ice is present at the location of the de-icing assembly (see rejected claim 6 above).
With regards to claim 16:
Petrenko, as modified, discloses the method of claim 13, wherein:
said monitoring step comprises measuring, by the pressure sensor, a pressure within the at least one pneumatic tube; and
said determining step comprises determining, by the controller, that the measured pressure within the pneumatic tube is higher than an expected threshold pressure value, indicating the presence of an accumulation of snow or ice on the pneumatic tube of the de-icing assembly (see rejected claim 8 above).
With regards to claim 17:
Petrenko, as modified, discloses the method of claim 16, further comprising:
ceasing the cycling of an inflation and deflation of the at least one pneumatic tube in response to a low pressure signal received in the controller from the pressure sensor during an inflation stage, indicative that the at least one pneumatic tube has ruptured (see rejected claim 7 above).
With regards to claim 20:
Petrenko, as modified, discloses the method of claim 12, wherein said cycling step comprises:
periodically activating, by the controller, an air supply source to supply inflating air to the pneumatic tube of the at least one de-icing assembly causing inflation thereof and expansion movement of a pneumatic tube surface on which the accumulated snow or ice has settled so as to cause the snow or ice to break free from, and fall off of, the pneumatic tube of the deicing assembly and adjacent components of the communication tower; and
periodically deactivating the air supply source causing the air present in the pneumatic tube to be evacuated or released therefrom, thereby deflating the pneumatic tube and further causing additional snow or ice to break free and fall therefrom.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9-10 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.
Claims 18 and 19 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Minh Le, whose telephone number is 571-270-3805. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday (8:30AM-5:00PM EST).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisors can be reached by phone. Kenneth Rinehart can be reached at 571-272-4881 or Craig Schneider can be reached at 571-272-3607. 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. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. 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.
/MINH Q LE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3753