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 § 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.
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.
Claims 1-12, 17, 18, 21 and 26-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kramer et al (US 2014/0290329) in view of CN 205067469 (Tian et al), see translation and Kubinski et al (US 2007/0214862). As to claim 1, Kramer et al disclose an in situ probe in an industrial process including a housing (44), a probe (12) coupled to the housing at a proximal end and having a distal end configured to extend in a flue (14), the probe containing an oxygen sensing cell (measurement cell 36), electronics (board 42) disposed in the housing and coupled to the measurement cell, the electronics being configured to measure electrical characteristic of the oxygen cell and calculate an oxygen concentration value (see par [0017]), also note figs. 1-4 and par[0010] et seq. Further, it is noted that Kramer et al lack a teaching for an averaging conduit configured to be disposed about the probe in the flue having a plurality of inlets spaced at different distances from the end of the probe and at least one outlet positioned within the flue for providing an average oxygen concentration wherein the plurality of inlets include a first aperture positioned on the averaging conduit closer to the distal end of the probe than a second aperture and wherein the first and second apertures have different diameters from another to compensate for flue gas stratification. In a related prior art device, Tian et al disclose a multiple point air type gas turbine tail gas detecting and analyzing device including a gas collection device 1, with a main body 11 with a channel or groove 12 within which extends smoke probe 2 and having multiple openings 13 spaced at different distances from the distal end of the probe 2, see translation and figs. 2-5. Further, Tian et al discloses openings but fails to define them as inlets and outlets specifically. Further, in another related prior art device, Kubinski et al disclose a system and method for improving the performance of a fluid sensor for evaluating exhaust gas including a sensor assembly 36 with sensor 60 mounted within sensor boss 62 extending into an exhaust 44 having a plurality of inlets 64 for receiving exhaust gas flow 70 along with defining an outlet 66, see fig. 2 and par[20]. Further, Kubinski et al illustrate different embodiments for the inlets 140 as being of different sizes 160/162/164 which includes a first aperture (inlet 160) closer to the distal end of the probe than a second aperture (inlet 164) where the first and second apertures have different diameters from another which inherently allows for gas stratification (i.e. the gas separates into different layers due to different sized inlets) where it is indicated that the size, number and position of the inlets may be selected to tune the sample provided by the sample boss 132 as in fig. 3 and par[25]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have included in Kramer, the main body 11 or “conduit” (as applicant designates it) around the smoke probe or sensing cell since Tian et al teaches such multiple sensing points result in an average of the tail gas resulting in a more accurate assessment of the gas measurements as disclosed by Tian et al and further the conduit having openings which act as inlets of various sizes and an outlet as defined by Kubinski et al. so that substantially “all of the exhaust gas flowing through the structure flows toward the sensor 60” to provide a representative sample or cross-section of bulk flow and allows excess to outlet from the dedicated outlet as well as to allow for fine tuning of the gas as defined by Kubinski et al. As to claim 2, Kramer et al discloses a zirconia-based oxygen sensing cell, see Abstract. As to claim 3, note there are inlets on the upstream side depicted in fig. 2 of Tian et al. and on the upstream side (depicted by flow arrow 84) in figs. 1-3 of Kubinski et al. As to claims 4 and 26, note the diameter of the first aperture (inlet 160) appears to be smaller than the second aperture (inlet 164), see fig. 3 of Kubinski. However, reversal of the sizes is considered a matter of design choice since Kubinski et al teach that the size, number and position of the inlets 140 may be selected to tune the sample collected. As to claim 5, note there is a single first inlet of a first diameter and a second plurality of inlets having a second diameter smaller than the first diameter. Further, variation of the number of inlets is considered a matter of design choice given the Kubinski et al teaching that the size, number and position of inlets may be selected to tune the sample based on what is to be detected, as in par[025]. As to claim 6, note the first plurality of inlets (160) appear to be disposed nearer the proximal end of the probe than the second plurality of inlets in fi. 3 of Kubinski. As to claim 7, the reversal of the inlets sizes would have been matter of design choice since it is indicated that the size, number and position of the inlets may be selected to tune the sample provided by the sample boss 132 as in fig. 3 and par[25]. As to claims 8 and 9, there are 5 inlets spaced along the conduit in Tian et al. As to claim 9, the inlets appear to be evenly spaced in Tian et al. and fig. 2 of Kubinski et al. As to claims 10-12, 18 and 26-27, note the outlet 122 of Kubinski et al is placed on the “downstream” side of the flow which in the of flue of Kramer, would face “upwardly” since the downstream flow would be in the “upward” direction and would be based the direction of flow in a flue and further note that there is repeated references to “at least one outlet” such as in claim 1 suggesting that there could be more than one outlet placed in different places based on the type of fluid being sampled. As to claim 17 and 21, the Tian et al main body 11 is in the form of a conduit or pipe. As to claims 5 and 18, the inlets having different diameters in Kubinski et al are taught as allowing for selective tuning of the sample, see par [25]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have included different diameters for selective tuning of the sample as taught by Kubinski et al.
Claim(s) 13 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kramer et al (US 2014/0290329) in view of CN 205067469 (Tian et al), see translation and Kubinski et al (US 2007/0214862) as applied to claims 1-12, 17, 18, 21 and 26-27 above, and further in view of Jackson et al- US 2020/0041353. As to claim 24, Kramer et al disclose an in situ probe in an industrial process including a housing (44), a probe (12) coupled to the housing at a proximal end and having a distal end configured to extend in a flue (14), the probe containing an oxygen sensing cell (measurement cell 36), electronics (board 42) disposed in the housing and coupled to the measurement cell, the electronics being configured to measure electrical characteristic of the oxygen cell and calculate an oxygen concentration value (see par [0017]), also note figs. 1-4 and par[0010] et seq. Further, it is noted that Kramer et al lack a teaching for an averaging conduit/cylindrical sidewall extending within the an industrial flue with a downstream and upstream surface configured to be disposed/mounted about the probe in the flue having a plurality of inlets spaced at different distances from the end of the probe with at least two apertures having different diameters from another and at least one outlet positioned between the distal end and proximal end such that the oxygen sensing cell of the probe is positioned within the averaging conduit between the plurality of inlets and outlet where the outlet is disposed at a position 90 degrees from the inlets. In a related prior art device, Tian et al disclose a multiple point air type gas turbine tail gas detecting and analyzing device including a gas collection device 1, with a main body/pipe 11 with a channel or groove 12 within which extends smoke probe 2 and having multiple openings 13 spaced at different distances from the distal end of the probe 2, see translation and figs. 2-5. Further, Tian et al discloses openings but fails to define them as inlets and outlets specifically. Further, in another related prior art device, Kubinski et al disclose a system and method for improving the performance of a fluid sensor for evaluating exhaust gas including a sensor assembly 36 with sensor 60 mounted within sensor boss 62 extending into an exhaust 44 having a plurality of inlets 64 for receiving exhaust gas flow 70 along with defining an outlet 66 and the inlet apertures(140) have different diameters (160/162/164), see fig. 2 and par[20]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have included in Kramer, the main body 11 or “conduit” (as applicant designates it) around the smoke probe or sensing cell since Tian et al teaches such multiple sensing points result in an average of the tail gas resulting in a more accurate assessment of the gas measurements as disclosed by Tian et al and further the conduit having openings with different diameters which act as inlets and an outlet as defined by Kubinski et al. so that substantially “all of the exhaust gas flowing through the structure flows toward the sensor 60” to provide a representative sample or cross-section of bulk flow and allows excess to outlet from the dedicated outlet as defined by Kubinski et al. Furthermore, as in claims 13 and 24, the placement of the outlet of Kubinski et al appears to be 180 degrees from the inlet with respect to the central axis of the conduit as depicted in fig. 2 rather than the claimed 90 degrees. In a related prior art device, Jackson et al disclose a temperature sensor also for use in combustion gases and further includes a support tube 140 with inlet 146 positioned 90 degrees from outlets 148, see par[030] and figs. 2 and 3. It is also indicated that inlet 146 and the pair of circular outlets 148 can be either 180 degrees apart or less than 180 degrees apart. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing that the positioning of the outlet vs. the inlets in combustion flow being 90 degrees apart is known as an alternative to 180 degrees apart and other embodiments are also disclosed when monitoring combustion gases.
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kramer in view of Tian in view of Kubinski et al as applied to claims 1-12, 17, 18, 21 and 26-27 above, and further in view of Dobeck et al-US Patent # 9,291,530. As to claim 26, it is noted that Kramer and Tian et al and Kubinski et al lack a teaching for provision of an end scoop mounted to a distal end of the conduit being configured to capture a portion of the flow in the flue and direct the captured flow axially toward the oxygen sensing cell. In a related prior art device, Dobeck et al disclose an apparatus and method for sampling and analyzing exhaust gas from an exhaust pipe where the conduit 20 extends into the exhaust pipe 14 and further it is indicated that the conduit 20 can include an optional intake scoop 20a on the end of the conduit 20 for directing flow to the direction of arrow 22, see col. 2, lines 59 et seq. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have included an end scoop 20a as disclosed by Dobeck et al to the conduit of Tian et al since Dobeck et al disclose that the end scoop is embodied to help direct a portion of the exhaust gas passing through the exhaust pipe 14 in the direction of arrow 22 i.e. the axially toward the oxygen sensor 24/28.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 13, 18 and 24 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the combination of references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant's arguments filed 7/8/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant has argued that the rejection of claims 1, 18 and 24 were indicated as rejected over Kramer in view of Tian in view of Kubinski and further in view of Dobeck but no discussion was provided for Dobeck. Such an argument is not found persuasive because the rejection of claims 1, 18 and 24 did not require the Dobeck reference and the indication of Dobeck in the rejection of claims 1, 18 and 24 was merely a typographical error. The rejection of unamended claim 1 (claims 18 and 24 are amended but still do not require Dobeck) remains the same as previously indicated on 4/9/26 without the need for the Dobeck. Therefore, no discussion of Dobeck was required in the original explanation of the rejection and still remains the same as in the 4/9/26 rejection with the removal of the extra indication of Dobeck which was a typographical error. Please also note par 5 of the 4/9/26 office action which also indicated that the rejection of claims 1, 18 and 24 did not include Dobeck until the rejection of claim 25 supporting the indication that the inclusion of Dobeck was merely a typographical error in par 4 of the 4/9/26 rejection. With regard to claim 18, it is argued that the outlet is now indicated as facing upwardly, and it is further noted that upwardly merely denotes a direction of the chamber in which the flow is collected and its relative to the flow which means the downstream side of flow based on the flue orientation which requirement is met by the Kubinski et al reference. As to claim 24, please note the new grounds of rejection necessitated by amendment.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NASHMIYA FAYYAZ whose telephone number is (571)272-2192. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday.
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, Laura Martin can be reached at (571)272-2160. 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.
NF
Examiner
Art Unit 2855
/N.S.F/Examiner, Art Unit 2855
/LAURA MARTIN SWEENEY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2855
Prosecution Insights