Ex Parte Gordon

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 24, 2018

14736546 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 24, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/736,546 06/11/2015
44088 7590
Kaufhold Dix Patent Law
P. 0. BOX 89626
SIOUX FALLS, SD 57109
07/26/2018
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Jeanne Gordon
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
www .uspto.gov
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
SK11055 2731
EXAMINER
AKKI, MUNEAR T
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2687
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/26/2018 ELECTRONIC
Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address(es):
j ason@kaufboldlaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JEANNE GORDON
Appeal2018-001547
Application 14/736,546
Technology Center 2600
Before TERRENCE W. McMILLIN, KARA L. SZPONDOWSKI, and
SCOTT B. HOWARD, Administrative Patent Judges.
SZPONDOWSKI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C § 134(a) of the
Examiner's Final Rejection of claims 1-8, constituting all claims currently
pending in the application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We AFFIRM.
Appeal2018-001547
Application 14/736,546
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants' invention is directed to "a new vehicle temperature
warning system for preventing injury to a child from exposure to heat or
cold within a vehicle." Spec. 1:14--15. Claim 1, reproduced below with the
disputed limitations in italics, is representative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A child safety seat and temperature warning system, said
system comprising:
a child restraint including a seat and a backrest being
attached to and extending upwardly from said seat;
a processor being mounted in said child restraint;
a weight sensor being mounted within said seat and
detecting when a weight is positioned on said seat;
a heat sensor being mounted in said backrest of said child
restraint and detecting an ambient temperature adjacent to said
child restraint, said weight sensor and said heat sensor being
electrically coupled to said processor;
a vehicle including an alarm system, said processor being
in communication with said alarm system; and
said vehicle alarm system emitting sound and flashing
light when said vehicle alarm system receives a warning signal,
said warning signal being sent by said heat sensor to said
processor when said weight sensor detects a weight and said heat
sensor detects an unsuitable temperature being greater than an
upper threshold temperature.
REJECTION
Claims 1-8 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being
unpatentable over Piette (US 2009/0277190 Al; published Nov. 12, 2009),
Seibert (US 2014/0052342 Al; published Feb. 20, 2014), and Davison (US
7,567,181 Bl; issued July 28, 2009). Final Act. 2.
2
Appeal2018-001547
Application 14/736,546
ANALYSIS
Issue: Did the Examiner err in finding that the combination of Piette,
Seibert, and Davison teaches or suggests "a heat sensor being mounted in
said backrest of said child restraint," as recited in independent claim 1, and
commensurately recited in independent claim 8?
Appellant contends it would not be obvious to modify Piette' s heat
sensor in a child restraint with Davison's heat sensor placement in a child
restraint. Br. 5---6. Specifically, Appellant argues the claimed heat sensor is
mounted in a backrest of a child restraint, which "positions the sensor near
to the child but would not work with the seat and backrest being enclosed as
required in the Piette design." Br. 5. According to Appellant, the proposed
combination of Piette and Davison would "render the prior art invention
being modified unsatisfactory for its intended purpose." Br. 6.
The Examiner finds Piette teaches a heat sensor mounted in a child
restraint (Final Act. 2 (citing Piette ,r 57)), and Davison teaches a heat sensor
mounted in the backrest of the child restraint (Final Act. 3 ( citing Davison
col. 4, 11. 9--19 and Fig. 1)). Specifically, the Examiner finds Piette teaches
"a child car seat 118 comprising a temperature sensor 416 monitors the
temperature that the child 111 is subjected to." Ans. 4 (citing Piette ,r 57).
The Examiner further finds that, although Piette does not teach the "location
of the temperature sensor," Davison "shows the desired location as
claimed." Ans. 4--5 (citing Davison Fig. 1, col., 4, 11. 9-19). According to
the Examiner, it would have been obvious to combine the teachings of
Piette, Seibert, and Davison "by incorporating the teaching of Davison into
the method of Piette and Seibert for the purpose of warning a caregiver ...
3
Appeal2018-001547
Application 14/736,546
of a possibly dangerous condition[] by sending a temperature." Final Act. 3
( emphasis added).
We are not persuaded of Examiner error by Appellant's arguments
and agree with the Examiner's findings and conclusions. As cited by the
Examiner (Final Act. 2; Ans. 4), Piette describes "a temperature sensor 416
monitors the temperature that the child 111 is subjected to" and "[ s ]ince an
access hatch 104 is open during normal conditions, the temperature sensor
416 monitors the ambient temperature in the vehicle's passenger
compartment." Piette ,r 5 7. Piette further teaches the "access hatch 104 is
open in during normal conditions, but closes in order to protect a seated
child 111 when subjected to temperature extremes." Piette ,r 22. In other
words, Piette teaches normal operations consisting of monitoring the
ambient temperature surrounding the child when the access hatch is open
and acting when the temperature becomes extreme. As also cited by the
Examiner (Final Act. 3; Ans. 4--5), Davison describes a "portable child
monitor apparatus 1 OA and 1 OC comprises a seat insert 1 OA for use in an
existing seat 80," that "comprises a seat back 14" and the "temperature
sensor 20 is disposed within the seat back 14." Davison col. 4, 11. 9-12, 17-
18. In other words, Davison teaches a heat sensor located specifically in a
backrest or seat back.
Contrary to Appellant's argument that Piette's seat and backrest are
enclosed, Piette teaches the access hatch being open (not closed) during
normal operations and monitoring the temperature surrounding the child.
Appellant has not persuasively responded to the Examiner's reasoning that
the combination of Piette and Davison provides warning to a caregiver of a
possibly dangerous condition by sending a temperature.
4
Appeal2018-001547
Application 14/736,546
For at least the above reasons we sustain the Examiner's§ 103
rejection of independent claims 1 and 8. For the same reasons, we sustain
the Examiner's§ 103 rejection of claims 2-7, not argued separately. See Br.
5.
DECISION
The Examiner's decision to reject claims 1-8 is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
5