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 23-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CA2734357 (Seidel et al) in view of JP H10286238 (Koji et al), see translation. As to claim 23, Seidel et al disclose a method of drying a strip of sheet metal (3) with a drying apparatus including blowers 44 and 50 followed by moisture/humidity sensors 15/16 arranged for monitoring the moisture remaining on the strip or metal sheet, see page 16a and abstract. However, the specifics of the moisture/humidity sensors 15/16 are not given by Seidel et al as they are found in claim 23 but there is an indication of measuring the humidity of the metal strip by a moisture sensor 15/16. In a related humidity/moisture measuring prior art device, Koji et al disclose a method for measuring moisture on skin surface including a hollow body (1) including “a double wall” formed by a gas inlet passage 4 of the hollow body 1 with pipe body 4a inner wall and an outer wall as seen in fig. 2 cross section, and the hollow body 1 including “a central portion” (inside where nozzle hole 4b is found) facing the surface, a gas blower (inherently found connected to gas inlet passage “for blowing out a gas”) so that the blown gas exits the double wall (see dashed arrows) by the opening 4b, at least one humidity sensor (3) encompassed by the hollow body (1) and “outside” of the double wall (see fig. 1 or 2 showing humidity sensor 3 outside of the double wall of tube 4, the at least one opening creating a continuous gas curtain between the hollow body and the surface(P) towards the humidity sensor, see fig. 1 and translation. Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have included the moisture measuring device disclosed by Koji et al including blowing air onto any type of surface requiring measurement of moisture including the metal surface of Seidel et al in order to measure moisture on the metal sheet to determine remaining moisture since Seidel et al fail to provide the specifics of the moisture sensor being used and since Seidel et al also employ various similar blowers in order to dry the metal strip and require the measurement of moisture remaining on the surface in order to reduce the amount of corrosion or rust on the metal and since Koji et al indicate that such a device can measure moisture without being affected by the external environment since conventional moisture sensors are susceptible to the external environment such as wind or other blowers thereby allowing for stable data. As to claim 24, note the various “compartments” (formed by eight pipe bodies 4a) as they are depicted in figs. 2 and 5. As to claim 25, usage of eight pipe bodies 4a also guide the blown gas perpendicularly to the surface. As to claim 26, having a material of rugosity smaller than 2 mm appears to be a matter of obvious design choice obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art given that increased rugosity would hinder the blast of blown gas intensities. As to claim 27, usage of a water-repellant material is considered an obvious matter of design choice that would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing since moisture or humidity is being measured and a water repellant material would prevent the moisture from adhering to the walls. As to claim 27, note the metal strip in Seidel et al is in a rolling mill with a rolling stand 2. As to claims 28-30, note the depictions of figs. 1 and 2 of Koji et a l showing the radiuses and length and the perpendicular orientation.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 23-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. In claim 23, on lines 10-11, it is unclear how the sensor is “encompassed by the hollow body and outside of the double wall”.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 23-30 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Applicant has argued that there is no “double wall” formed by an inner and outer wall through which gas exits the double wall. Such an argument is not found persuasive because hollow body 1 is disclosed as including gas inlet passages 4 where each tube 4 includes a double wall (an inner wall and an outer wall) and includes a plurality of double walls/tubes. It is noted that the designation of “double wall” is misleading and may not be appropriate since a double wall construction suggests that the two walls are integral which has not been shown in the specification. It appears two concentric tubes are being disclosed. Please clarify how the two walls are interconnected.
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