Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Feb 2, 2022

2020006794 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 2, 2022)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE 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 APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 16/395,916 04/26/2019 Keun-Cheol Lee 1235-1052 CON 1012 66547 7590 02/02/2022 THE FARRELL LAW FIRM, P.C. Paul J Farrell 290 Broadhollow Road Suite 210E Melville, NY 11747 EXAMINER TRAN, THANG DUC ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2683 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 02/02/2022 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): pto@farrelliplaw.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________________ Ex parte KEUN-CHEOL LEE ____________________ Appeal 2020-006794 Application 16/395,9161 Technology Center 2600 ____________________ Before JEAN R. HOMERE, HUNG H. BUI, and JON M. JURGOVAN, Administrative Patent Judges. JURGOVAN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellant seeks review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s Final Rejection of claims 1-17, constituting the only claims pending in this application. Appeal Br. 4. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM.2 1 “Appellant” refers to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 1. 2 Our Decision refers to the Specification filed April 26, 2019 (“Spec.”); the Final Office Action mailed January 30, 2020 (“Final Act.”); the Appeal Brief filed June 8, 2020 (“Appeal Br.”); the Examiner’s Answer mailed August 6, 2020 (“Ans.”); and the Reply Brief filed September 29, 2020 (“Reply Br.”). Appeal 2020-006794 Application 16/395,916 2 CLAIMED INVENTION The claims are directed to a rule-based elimination of fire danger in a monitored device. Appeal Br. 19-22 (Claims App.). Independent claim 1 recites a method for detecting fire danger in a device and using time and operating status of a temperature controller to determine a rule to eliminate the fire danger. Id. at 19. Independent claim 8 is similar to claim 1, but is directed to an electronic device that monitors and controls another device to eliminate fire danger. Id. at 20. Independent claim 15 recites a method for determining a rule to eliminate fire danger when a device that can produce heat is added to a wireless network. Id. at 21. Claims 1, 6, and 15, reproduced below, are representative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A method for operation of an electronic device, the method comprising: detecting an operation state of at least one other device; determining, based on the operation state of the at least one other device, whether a fire danger exists in the at least one other device; in response to determining that the fire danger exists in the at least one other device, determining, based on a time and an operating status of a temperature controller, a rule to eliminate the fire danger; and controlling, based on the determined rule, the at least one other device and the temperature controller. Appeal Br. 19 (Claims App.). 6. The method of claim 1, wherein determining whether the fire danger exists in the at least one other device comprises: determining whether a use time of the at least one other device exceeds an allowed use time; and Appeal 2020-006794 Application 16/395,916 3 determining that the fire danger exists in the at least one other device in response to determining that the use time of the at least one other device exceeds the allowed use time. Appeal Br. 19-20. 15. A method for controlling a plurality of electronic devices, the method comprising: communicating, via a wireless network, by an electronic device with a first electronic device of the plurality of electronic devices; detecting addition of a second electronic device to the wireless network; monitoring operation of the added second electronic device; based on the monitored operation, determining whether the added second electronic device can produce heat; in response to determining that the added second electronic device can produce heat, determining a rule for eliminating a fire hazard of the added second electronic device; and controlling, based on the determined rule, at least one of the first electronic device and the added second electronic device to eliminate the fire hazard. Appeal Br. 21 (Claims App.). REJECTIONS (1) Claims 1-4, 7-11, and 14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based on the combination of Volodarsky (US 2006/0202848 A1, published September 14, 2006) and Piegari (Piegari et al., US 2013/0312984 A1, published November 28, 2013, hereinafter “Piegari”). Final Act. 2-16. (2) Claims 5 and 12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based on Volodarsky, Piegari, and Mittleman (Mittleman et al., Appeal 2020-006794 Application 16/395,916 4 US 2014/0085093 A1, published March 27, 2014, hereinafter “Mittleman”). Final Act. 16-17. (3) Claims 6 and 13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based on the combination of Volodarsky, Piegari, and Yang (US 2007/0030161 A1, published February 8, 2007). Final Act. 17-19. (4) Claims 15-17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based on the combination of Trundle (Trundle et al., US 2010/0289643 A1, published November 18, 2010, hereinafter “Trundle”) and Rollins (Rollins et al., US 2009/0140848 A1, published June 4, 2009, hereinafter “Rollins”). Final Act. 19-24. ANALYSIS Legal Principles Title 35, section 103(a), provides: A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 . . ., if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. The question of obviousness is resolved on the basis of underlying factual determinations including: (1) the scope and content of the prior art; (2) any differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art; (3) the level of ordinary skill in the art; and (4) where present, objective evidence of nonobviousness. Graham v. John Deere Co. of Kansas City, Appeal 2020-006794 Application 16/395,916 5 383 U.S. 1, 17-18 (1966). Claim 1 Claim 1 recites “determining, based on a time and an operating status of a temperature controller, a rule to eliminate the fire danger.” Appeal Br. 19 (Claims App.). The Examiner acknowledges that Volodarsky does not teach this limitation, but relies upon Piegari to cure this deficiency. Id. at 10-12 (citing Piegari ¶¶ 2-4, 15-21, 29-30, 48-54, Figs. 1-13); Ans. 3-4. Appellant argues that Piegari does not disclose or suggest that the determining of a rule to eliminate the fire danger is based on a time and an operating status of a temperature controller, as recited in claim 1. Appeal Br. 6 (emphases omitted); Reply Br. 4. “[T]he PTO is obligated to give claims their broadest reasonable interpretation during examination.” See In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Under a broad, but reasonable, interpretation, we agree with the Examiner that Piegari teaches the argued claim limitation. Final Act. 3-5 (citing Piegari ¶¶ 2-4, 15-21, 29-30, 48- 54, and Figs. 1-13). Piegari relates to fire prevention system 100, shown in Figure 1, which maintains a specific range of oxygen levels within an enclosed space 102, shown in Figure 2, to prevent fires. Piegari ¶ 2. Piegari’s Figure 1 is reproduced below: Appeal 2020-006794 Application 16/395,916 6 Piegari’s Figure 1 depicts fire prevention system 100 for use in an enclosed space to prevent fire. As shown in Figure 1, Piegari’s fire prevention system uses microprocessor control panel 130 connected to sensors 106, 108, 110, 112, 114, air compressors 140, 142, and nitrogen generators 150, 152 to control the oxygen content in the enclosed space 102. Id. ¶¶ 15, 19. Piegari teaches that if the air temperature sensor 110 indicates an increase in temperature, problems may exist within the enclosed space 102. Id. ¶ 19. Piegari further teaches initiating the fire prevention system 100 at a certain time (3:00PM in the example given), monitoring room temperature, and activating the nitrogen generator as the temperature rises. Id. ¶ 49. Thus, Piegari teaches that microprocessor control panel 130 is activated for a certain time and begins monitoring temperature in the controlled space 102. Pegiari’s microprocessor control panel 130 must be Appeal 2020-006794 Application 16/395,916 7 programmed in accordance with a rule so that when it is activated and the temperature reaches a certain level, the control panel 130 activates the nitrogen generators 150, 152 to reduce oxygen content in the controlled space 102. Hence, the rule to prevent fire danger is based on the time during which the control panel 130 is activated, and also the control panel’s operating status when it senses the temperature level at which the nitrogen generators 150, 152 are to be activated. Accordingly, we are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument regarding independent claim 1, and we sustain the rejection. Claims 2-5, 7-12 and 14 Appellant presents the same argument for claims 2-5, 7-12, and 14 as for claim 1. Appeal Br. 9-10. For the reasons stated, we do not find this argument persuasive. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejections of these claims. Dependent Claims 6 and 13 The Examiner relies on Yang to teach the limitations specific to claims 6 and 13. Final Act. 18 (citing Yang ¶ 15, Figs. 2, 4-5); Ans. 7. Appellant argues that none of Yang’s “working time,” “predetermined time,” or “warning signal” discloses an “allowed use time,” as recited in claim 6. Appeal Br. 12; Reply Br. 7-10. The allowed use time is the time that a device is permitted to operate before a fire danger is determined to exist. See claim 6, supra. Appellant’s argument is unpersuasive. Yang states that when the working time of an electric appliance or its temperature exceed a predetermined time or temperature level, the electric appliance enters a predetermined status, and a processor generates a warning Appeal 2020-006794 Application 16/395,916 8 signal while a logic unit deactivates the electric appliance. Yang ¶ 15, Fig. 2. Regarding fire danger, Yang states that its system is used to prevent fires due to misuse of electric appliances. Id. ¶ 42. Thus, Yang teaches identically what is recited in claims 6 and 13. The working time of Yang’s electric appliance is equivalent to the claimed “use time,” and Yang’s “predetermined time” is equivalent to the claimed “allowed use time.” Accordingly, Yang teaches the limitations recited in claims 6 and 13. Independent Claim 15 Appellant contends that the Examiner asserted that Trundle discloses each limitation of claim 15, except “detect[ing] of the changing in temperature of the surround area.” Appeal Br. 14; Reply Br. 14. Appellant argues claim 15 does not recite this feature, so the Examiner failed to set forth a prima facie case of obviousness. Appellant misapprehends the Examiner’s rejection. The Examiner did not state that detecting a change in temperature of the surrounding area was missing from claim 15, nor did the Examiner rely on Rollins to teach this feature. Final Act. 22. Instead, the Examiner set forth detecting a change in temperature of the surrounding area or environment, as one reason for combining Trundle and Rollins. Id. at 23. Accordingly, Appellant’s argument is not persuasive. Appellant next argues that the Examiner failed to address the limitation of claim 15 that recites “detecting addition of a second electronic device to the wireless network.” Appeal Br. 14; Reply Br. 14-15. We do not agree. As the Examiner notes, Rollins teaches that the “sensor 125 may Appeal 2020-006794 Application 16/395,916 9 detect the presence, absence, and/or functional status of appliances, such as a water heater, a refrigerator, an air conditioning unit, a stove, a microwave, and/or the like.” Final Act. 22-23 (citing Rollins ¶ 29); Ans. 7-8. Detecting the presence of the appliance is equivalent to determining its addition. Rollins further teaches that the network, including the sensor and appliance, may be wireless. Id. ¶ 41. Trundle also teaches use of wireless appliances. Id. ¶ 52, and Fig. 2. Accordingly, Appellant’s argument is unpersuasive. Furthermore, the Examiner found that Trundle teaches use of a zwave controller in its system. Final Act. 20; Trundle ¶¶ 39, 40. Zwave controllers were known for use in home automation, and provided functionality to add devices such as light controls and thermostats to a home automation system.3 Appellant argues that because Trundle does not teach detecting the addition of a second electronic device to a wireless network, it also does not teach monitoring operation of the added second device. Appeal Br. 15; Reply Br. 14. Because we find the combination of Trundle and Rollins was not deficient in this regard for the reasons explained, this argument, too, is unpersuasive. Appellant argues that Trundle fails to teach or suggest “based on the monitored operation, determining whether the added second electronic device can produce heat.” Appeal Br. 15-16 (emphases omitted); Reply Br. 15. As the Examiner noted, Rollins teaches that the sensor 125 may detect the functional status of appliances, such as a water heater, a stove, or a microwave. Final Act. 22-23 (citing Rollins ¶ 29). Detecting the 3 See https://youtu.be/-tGRoUd6k9I; https://manuals.fibaro.com/document/hcl-adding-device/; https://www.zwaveoutlet.com/pages/adding-and-removing-z-wave-devices; https://www.z-wave.com (last viewed 1-25-2022). Appeal 2020-006794 Application 16/395,916 10 functional status is equivalent to monitoring the appliances. The appliances are electronic in the sense they are electronically-controlled, and they have the capability to produce heat. Detecting functional status of such appliances suggests determining whether the appliances can generate heat (they can if working properly but cannot if broken or malfunctioning). Accordingly, for the reasons explained, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 15. Claims 16 and 17 Appellant argues claim 16 and claim 17 on the same basis as claim 15. Appeal Br. 17. For the reasons stated for claim 15, Appellant’s arguments are unpersuasive, and we sustain the Examiner’s rejections of claim 16 and claim 17. DECISION SUMMARY We affirm the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1-17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). In summary: Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1-4, 7-11, 14 103 Volodarsky, Piegari 1-4, 7-11, 14 5, 12 103 Volodarsky, Piegari, Mittleman 5, 12 Appeal 2020-006794 Application 16/395,916 11 6, 13 103 Volodarsky, Piegari, Yang 6, 13 15-17 103 Trundle, Rollins 15-17 Overall Outcome 1-17 No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED