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 1-13, 17, 18, 21, 24 and 26 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) and Dobeck et al. 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, note the outlet 122 of Kubinski et al on the downstream side of fig. 2 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 13, the placement of the outlet of Kubinski et al appears to be 90 degrees from the inlet as depicted in fig. 2, note the 90 degree angle formed near reference numeral 92 and it is noted that no frame of reference for the 90 degree angle i.e. about an axis such that in the cross-section depicted in fig. 2, the outlet 122 appears to be 90 degrees from the inlets 120. As to claim 17, the Tian et al main body 11 is in the form of a conduit or pipe. As to claims 18, 21 and 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, the placement of the outlet of Kubinski et al appears to be 90 degrees from the inlet as depicted in fig. 2, note the 90 degree angle formed near reference numeral 92 and it is noted that no frame of reference for the 90 degree angle i.e. about an axis such that in the cross-section depicted in fig. 2, the outlet 122 appears to be 90 degrees from the inlets 120 and further, the inlets having different diameters in Kubinski et al are taught as allowing for selective tuning of the sample, see par [25].
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 1-13, 17, 18, 21, 24 and 26 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 filed 1/2/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant has argues that Kubinski et al includes different diameter inlets as recited to “tune” the sample as opposed for stratification. However, such an argument is not found persuasive since the different diameter inlets would operate to stratify as well as tune the sample and as there is no special operation recited with the same different sized inlets. Further, Kubinski et al very clearly disclose varying the size, number and position of the inlets based on the target species to be collected and the sensor allowing for the embodiment variations as mere matters of design choice, see par[25-26]. As to claim to the argument pertaining to claim 24 that the outlet is not disposed at a position approximately 90 degrees from the inlets, it is noted again that there is no frame of reference in the claim as to where the 90 degrees is being measured from. In the fig. 2 Kubinski depiction, the 90 degrees is evident from the left corner near item 92. It appears the applicant is measuring the 90 degrees from the central axis of the conduit. However, this has not been specified in the claim language.
Conclusion
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/SPE, Art Unit 2855