CTNF 18/959,448 CTNF 84133 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia 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 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 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 – 07-08-aia AIA (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. 07-15-aia AIA Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Jouper (US 2018/0323026 A1) . With respect to independent claim 1, Jouper teaches in Figs. 1 – 2 a heat-detection system to detect heat generated by a device, the system comprising: at least one volatile-organic-compound (VOC) sensor gas sensor 24; see VOC disclosed in paragraph [0011] mounted within the device relay 10 to detect reducing gases produced by outgassing as one or more components as disclosed in paragraph [0011] within the device approach their respective melting points, the at least one VOC sensor being coupled to a control module microcontroller 26 . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-23-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jouper and in view of Tian (CN 108802299 A, see provided a translation) . The teaching of Jouper has been discussed above. With respect to dependent claim 2, Jouper is silent with one or more fans mounted on the device to form a convection current within the device, the convection current to deliver the reducing gases to the at least one VOC sensor. Tian, a pertinent art, teaches in paragraph [0030] a exhaust fan with in the monitoring area. In view of this, it would be obvious at the time of the claimed invention was filed to modify the teaching of Jouper so as to have a fan for sending gases to at least one VOC sensor in order to efficiently monitor the device. This is in consistency with the Supreme Court Decision of the KSR. V. International Co .: Obvious to try – choosing form a finite number of predictable results . 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 3 – 12, and 14 – 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jouper and in view of Jouper2 (US 2018/0335413 A1) . The teaching of Jouper has been discussed above. With respect to dependent claim 3, Jouper is silent with at least one heat sensor mounted externally to the device, the heat sensor having an area-of-detection to detect heat emitted from at least one face of the device at one or more locations. Jouper2, a pertinent art, teaches a heat sensor in paragraph [0025] in addition to VOC sensor. In view of this, it would be obvious at the time of the claimed invention was filed to modify the teaching of Jouper so as to have the limitation of claim 3 in order to have additional fire hazard warning measures. This is in consistency with the Supreme Court Decision of the KSR. V. International Co .: applying a known technique to a known device (method or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results . With respect to dependent claim 4, Jouper is silent with an infrared-collector formed within the device configured to collect excessive heat generated by a component within the device, the excessive heat being correlated to a pre-determined temperature level, a temperature of the collected excessive heat to be measured by the at least one heat sensor. Jouper2 teaches in paragraph [0025] IR heat sensor. In view of this, it would be obvious at the time of the claimed invention was filed to modify the teaching of Jouper so as to measure the temperature of desired monitoring area in order to give a fire warning to people. This is in consistency with the Supreme Court Decision of the KSR. V. International Co .: applying a known technique to a known device (method or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results . With respect to dependent claim 5, as discussed above Jouper2 teaches a heat sensor. In view of this, it would be obvious at the time of the claimed invention was filed to modify the teaching of Jouper modified by Jouper2 in order to efficiently monitor desired area. This is in consistency with the Supreme Court Decision of the KSR. V. International Co .: Obvious to try – choosing form a finite number of predictable results . With respect to dependent claim 6, as discussed above Jouper2 teaches an IR heat sensor. In view of this, the limitation of “a number of heat sensors mounted in the device” would be obvious design choice available within the ordinary skilled art in order to monitor a plural components or areas. This is in consistency with the Supreme Court Decision of the KSR. V. International Co .: Obvious to try – choosing form a finite number of predictable results . With respect to independent claim 6, as discussed above when modified by Jouper2, Jouper modified by Jouper2 teaches a heat-detection system to detect heat generated by a device, the system comprising: at least one heat sensor mounted within the device, each of the heat sensors to detect heat emitted from at least one of a plurality of components mounted within the device; and a control module in electrical communication with the number of heat sensors, the control module being configured to collect electrical signals from the plurality of components, a level of the electrical signals corresponding to a level of temperature, the control module further being configured to make a determination when at least one of the electrical signals received from the plurality of components exceeds a corresponding pre-determined temperature level. With respect to dependent claim 7, as discussed above, the limitation of “wherein each of the at least one heat sensors has an area-of-detection to detect heat emitted from at least one of a plurality of components” would be within the ordinary skilled art as an engineering design choice in order to monitor areas or plural components. This is in consistency with the Supreme Court Decision of the KSR. V. International Co .: Obvious to try – choosing form a finite number of predictable results . With respect to dependent claim 8, Jouper teaches in paragraph [0011] wherein the control module is further configured to shut down the device based on the determination that the corresponding pre-determined temperature level has been exceeded. With respect to dependent claim 9, Jouper teaches in paragraph [0011] wherein the control module is further configured to send an alert to an operator of the device based on the determination that the corresponding pre-determined temperature has been exceeded. With respect to dependent claim 10, Jouper teaches in paragraph [0011] at least one volatile-organic-compound (VOC) sensor mounted within the device to detect reducing gases produced by outgassing as one or more components within the device approach their respective melting points, the at least one VOC sensor being coupled to the control module. With respect to dependent claim 11, as discussed above, in view of Juper2, the limitation of “at least one external heat sensor mounted externally to the device, the external heat sensor having an area-of-detection to detect heat emitted from at least one face of the device at one or more locations” would be within the ordinary skilled art as an engineering design choice in order to monitor desired monitoring areas. This is in consistency with the Supreme Court Decision of the KSR. V. International Co .: Obvious to try – choosing form a finite number of predictable results . With respect to dependent claim 12, as discussed above Jouper2 teaches an infrared-collector (IC), formed within the device, configured to collect excessive heat generated by at least one of the plurality of components within the device, the excessive heat being correlated to a pre-determined temperature level, a temperature of the collected excessive heat to be measured by the at least one heat sensor. With respect to dependent claim 14, Jouper teaches in paragraph [0011] at least one volatile-organic-compound (VOC) sensor mounted within the device to detect reducing gases produced by outgassing as one or more components within the device approach their respective melting points, the at least one VOC sensor being coupled to the control module. With respect to dependent claim 15, as discussed above in view of Jouper2, the limitation of “at least one external heat sensor mounted externally to the device, the external heat sensor having an area-of-detection to detect heat emitted from at least one face of the device at one or more locations” would be obvious within ordinary skilled art in order to have an additional safety measure. This is in consistency with the Supreme Court Decision of the KSR. V. International Co .: Obvious to try – choosing form a finite number of predictable results . With respect to dependent claim 16, as discussed above Jouper2 teaches an infrared-collector IC, formed within the device, configured to collect excessive heat generated by at least one of the plurality of components within the device, the excessive heat being correlated to a pre-determined temperature level, a temperature of the collected excessive heat to be measured by the at least one heat sensor . 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jouper modified by Jouper2 and in view of Jouper3 (US 2018/0253953 A1) . The teaching of Jouper modified by Jouper2 has been discussed above. With respect to dependent claim 13, Jouper is silent with wherein each of the at least one heat sensors comprises at least one rope comprised of a plurality of thermocouples that traverses areas within the device, each of the at least one ropes to detect heat emitted from at least one of a plurality of components mounted within the device. Jouper3, a pertinent art, teaches in paragraph [0061] thermocouple heat sensor. In view of this, it would be obvious at the time of the claimed invention was filed to Modify the teaching of Jouper modified by Jouper2 in order to monitor heat generated desired areas. This is in consistency with the Supreme Court Decision of the KSR. V. International Co .: applying a known technique to a known device (method or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results . 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jouper modified by Jouper2 and in view of Harrington (US 2010/0202491 A1) . The teaching of Jouper Modified by Jouper2 has been discussed above. With respect to dependent claim 17, Jouper is silent with wherein each of the at least one heat sensors comprises at least one linear heat-detection cable placed within the device to detect heat generated therein, the at least one linear heat-detection cable having a polymer-based thermally reactive sheathing to detect heat emitted from at least one of a plurality of components mounted within the device to detect heat generated by at least one of the plurality of components. Harrington, a pertinent art, teaches in paragraph [0002] a linear heat detector. In view of this, it would be obvious at the time of the claimed invention was filed to modify the teaching of Jouper modified by Jouper2 in order to monitor areas with a known heat detector. This is in consistency with the Supreme Court Decision of the KSR. V. International Co .: applying a known technique to a known device (method or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results . Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KIHO KIM, Ph.D. whose telephone number is (571)270-1628. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8-5 EST. 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, David Makiya can be reached at (571)272-2273. 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. KIHO KIM, Ph.D. Primary Examiner Art Unit 2884 /Kiho Kim/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2884 Application/Control Number: 18/959,448 Page 2 Art Unit: 2884 Application/Control Number: 18/959,448 Page 3 Art Unit: 2884 Application/Control Number: 18/959,448 Page 4 Art Unit: 2884 Application/Control Number: 18/959,448 Page 5 Art Unit: 2884 Application/Control Number: 18/959,448 Page 6 Art Unit: 2884 Application/Control Number: 18/959,448 Page 7 Art Unit: 2884 Application/Control Number: 18/959,448 Page 8 Art Unit: 2884 Application/Control Number: 18/959,448 Page 9 Art Unit: 2884
Prosecution Insights