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 § 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, 2, 10 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hines (US 4860602 A).
Regarding Claim 1, Hines discloses an apparatus (Fig. 1-3; ABSTRACT) for high heat testing of a remote radio head unit (60, Fig. 3; col 2, In 51-55; col 3, In 31-41), the apparatus comprising: a chamber (10, Fig. 1, Fig. 3) comprised of at least one door (50, Fig. 1) and a plurality of walls (Fig. 1 - the walls of test chamber 10) creating an interior volume (Fig. 1, Fig. 3 - the interior volume of test chamber 10; col 3, In 20-28); at least two vents (40A-B, 42, 44, Fig. 1) attached to the chamber (10, Fig. 1, Fig. 3) such that air can enter and exit the interior volume of the chamber (col 3, In 12-19); a computer (90, Fig. 3; col 3, In 58-66; col 4, In 3-13 - distant terminal) operably coupled to an apparatus system (Fig. 3 - the wires connecting the controller 90 to the different elements; col 3, In 58-66, col 4, In 1-13); a thermometer (100, Fig. 3; col 3, In 58-66, col 4, In 1-2) secured within the chamber (10, Fig. 1, Fig. 3), wherein the thermometer (100, Fig. 3) is operably coupled to the computer (90, Fig. 3) via the apparatus system (Fig. 3 - the wires connecting the controller 90 to the different elements; col 3, In 58-66, col 4, In 1-13); at least one fan (88, Fig. 3; col 3, In 55-66) secured to at least one of the vents (40A-B, 42, 44, Fig. 1); wherein each of the at least one fan (88, Fig. 3; col 3, In 55-66) is operably coupled to the computer (90, Fig. 3) via the apparatus system (Fig. 3 - the wires connecting the controller 90 to the different elements; col 3, In 58-66, col 4, In 1-13); a plurality of electrical connections (Fig. 3 - the plurality of electrical connections within the chamber 10) and a plurality of network connections (col 3, In 28-41 - conductors for connection to the antenna under test) are housed within the chamber (10, Fig. 1, Fig. 3).
Regarding Claim 2, Hines discloses the apparatus of claim 1 further comprising at least one latch (Fig. 1 - the door latch near the handle of door 50) secured to the door (50, Fig. 1) and at least one wall (Fig. 1 - the front wall of test chamber 10) of the chamber (10, Fig. 1, Fig. 3; col 3, In 20-28).
Regarding Claim 10, Hines discloses the apparatus of claim 1 wherein the plurality of electrical connections (Fig. 3 - the plurality of electrical connections within the chamber 10) allow for a remote radio head unit (60, Fig. 3; col 2, In 51-55; col 3, In 31-41) to be operably coupled to the electrical connections and receive proper power (col 3, In 28-41).
Regarding Claim 11, Hines discloses the apparatus of claim 1 wherein the plurality of network connections (col 3, In 28-41 - conductors for connection to the antenna under test) allow for a remote radio head unit (60, Fig. 3; col 2, In 51-55; col 3, In 31-41) to be operably coupled to the computer (90, Fig. 3; col 4, In 3-13 - distant terminal) via the apparatus system through the network connections (col 3, In 28-41).
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.
Claim(s) 3-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hines in view of US 6,360,621 B1 to Eldred et al. (hereinafter "Eldred")
Regarding Claim 3, Hines discloses the apparatus of claim 1, but does not specifically teach further comprising a control panel secured to the chamber; wherein the control panel is operably coupled to the computer via the apparatus system. However, Eldred discloses an apparatus (Fig. 1; ABSTRACT) further comprising a control panel (78, Fig. 1; col 5, In 21-35) secured to a chamber (10, Fig. 1); wherein the control panel (78, Fig. 1; col 5, In 21-35) is operably coupled to a computer (col 5, In 21-35 - controller; col 5, In 66-67, col 6, In 1-7 - computer) via an apparatus system (86, Fig. 2; col 5, In 21-35, In 66-67, col 6, In 1-7). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have added the control panel of Eldred to the chamber of Hines to have accessible and easy to use control over the apparatus.
Regarding Claim 4, the modified Hines discloses the apparatus of claim 3, Eldred further discloses wherein the control panel (78, Fig. 1; col 5, In 21-35) includes at least one item selected from the group consisting of: a power button (col 5, In 21-35), a start button (col 5, In 21-35), a clock, a temperature display (col 5, In 21-35), and a plurality of lights.
Regarding Claim 5, Hines discloses the apparatus of claim 1, but does not specifically teach further comprising a screen secured to a wall of the chamber and operably coupled with the computer. However, Eldred discloses an apparatus (Fig. 1; ABSTRACT) further comprising a screen (80, Fig. 1; col 5, In 21-35) secured to a wall of a chamber (10, Fig. 1) and operably coupled with a computer (col 5, In 21-35 - controller; col 5, In 66-67, col 6, In 1-7 - computer). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have added the screen of Eldred to the chamber of Hines to have accessible and easy to use control over the apparatus.
Regarding Claim 6, Hines discloses the apparatus of claim 1, but does not specifically teach further comprising a shelf located within the chamber. However, Eldred discloses an apparatus (Fig. 1-16; ABSTRACT) further comprising a shelf (140, Fig. 5-6, Fig. 10; col 7, In 4-55) located within a chamber (10, Fig. 3). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have added the shelf of Eldred to the chamber of Hines to have maximize the effectiveness of the climatic conditioning units of the testing chamber.
Regarding Claim 7, the modified Hines discloses the apparatus of claim 6, Eldred further discloses wherein the shelf (140, Fig. 5-6, Fig. 10; col 7, In 4-55) has a plurality of apertures therethrough (154, Fig. 7; col 7, In 15-24).
Regarding Claim 8, the modified Hines discloses the apparatus of claim 6, Eldred further discloses wherein the shelf (140, Fig. 5-6, Fig. 10; col 7, In 4-55) is secured to a bracket (176, 178, 180, Fig. 11; col 7, In 45-55) which allows the shelf to be partially removed from the chamber without being disconnected from the chamber (10, Fig. 3; col 8, In 9-18).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hines in view of US 5,511,434 A to Baker et al. (hereinafter "Baker").
Regarding Claim 9, Hines discloses the apparatus of claim 1, but does not specifically teach further comprising a door sensor operably coupled to the computer via the apparatus system, wherein the door sensor determines when the door is in an open position. However, Baker discloses an apparatus (Fig. 1-1A; ABSTRACT) further comprising a door sensor (col 6, In 45-65 - microswitches) operably coupled to a computer via an apparatus system (col 6, In 45-65 - a feedback signal to the computer to detect door location), wherein the door sensor determines when a door (16, Fig. 1) is in an open position (col 6, In 45-65). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have added the microswitches of Baker to the chamber of Hines to increase the safety of the apparatus by not activating the apparatus when the doors are opened.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See the attached PTO0892 for further are relevant to test chambers.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LEWIS G WEST whose telephone number is (571)272-7859. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:00-4:00.
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, George Eng can be reached at (571) 272-7495. 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.
/LEWIS G WEST/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2699
Prosecution Insights