DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed on 9/4/2025 has been entered. Claims 1, 3, 4 and 6-12 remain pending in the application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 4, 6 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by United States Application Publication No. 2006/0236755, hereinafter Bujas.
Regarding claim 1, Bujas teaches an analyte permeation testing instrument (figure 1), comprising: (a) a cartridge (item 11) defining a testing chamber (figure 2) operable for engaging a test film (item 23) such that the testing chamber is sealingly separated by the test film into a first cell and a second cell (figure 2), the cartridge including at least: (1) a first plate (item 55a) defining the first cell (figure 2), (2) a second plate (item 55b) spaced in longitudinal direction from the first plate (figure 2) and defining the second cell (figure 2), (3) a clamping mechanism (paragraph [0026]) for releasable clamping engagement of the first and second plates for changing test films (intended use MPEP § 2114 (II) and is taught in paragraph [0026]), and (4) a surround (the walls of items 17 and 19) around at least one of the first cell and the second cell projecting within an interface between the first and second plates for engaging a periphery of the test film placed within the interface to compress the test film and thereby form a peripheral edge seal when the plates are clamped together (figure 2), with (i) the surround comprises of a pair of longitudinally aligned raised peripheral lips with one lip of the pair of lips projected from each of the first and second plates (figure 2), and (ii) the second plate and associated peripheral lip unitarily formed from a solid block of metal (items 55b and 17 are affixed to each other, paragraph [0026]), and (b) a sensor (item 15) for sensing a target analyte in fluid communication with the second cell (intended use MPEP § 2114 (II) and is taught in paragraph [0028]).
Regarding claim 3, Bujas teaches wherein the peripheral lips each have a rounded longitudinal facing exposed edge (figure 1A).
Regarding claim 4, Bujas teaches wherein the first plate and associated peripheral lip are unitarily formed from a solid block of metal (items 55a and 19 are affixed to each other, paragraph [0026]).
Regarding claim 6, Bujas teaches wherein the clamping mechanism is a plurality bolts slidably engaged through orifices in one of the first and second plates and threadably engaged within corresponding orifices in the other of the first and second plates, the orifices circumscribing the surround (paragraph [0026] and figure 1A).
Regarding claim 11, Bujas teaches wherein the sensor is a water vapor sensor (paragraph [0009]).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bujas in view of CN 113390773, hereinafter Ji.
Regarding claim 7, Bujas teaches all limitations of claim 1; however, Bujas fails to teach the clamping mechanism is an electromechanical actuator.
Ji teaches a device for the detection of permeability of a textile in which the lifting mechanism uses servo motors, screw rods and a controller (Ji, item 17) to separate and clamp the detecting table so that it saves the trouble of manual fixing by manpower (Ji, page 3, paragraph 2).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have utilized servo motors and controller of Ji to control the clamping mechanism of Bujas because it would save the trouble of manual fixing by manpower (Ji, page 3, paragraph 2).
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bujas and Ji as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of ES 2739685, hereinafter Hecht.
Regarding claim 8, Bujas and Ji teach all limitations of claim 7; however, they fail to teach a compression sensor and the control unit for sensing and controlling the compression force of the one plate against the other plate.
Hecht teaches a device for the controlling of clamps in which pressure or force sensors are utilized it a clamp to control the driving force of the clamp (Hecht, page 9, paragraph 6).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have added a compression sensor because it would allow for the device to control the driving force of the clamp (Hecht, page 9, paragraph 6).
Claim(s) 9 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bujas in view of United States Application Publication No. 2021/0131939, hereinafter Hara.
Regarding claim 9, Bujas teaches all limitations of claim 1; however, Bujas fails to teach the sensor is an oxygen sensor.
Hara teaches an apparatus for evaluating gas barrier properties in which a mass analysis apparatus is utilized for the detection of various gas species which pass through the test film (Hara, paragraph [0130]) which allows the measurement of trace amounts of water vapor with a sensitivity of ppm or greater (Hara, paragraph [0100]).
Examiner further finds that the prior art contained a device/method/product (i.e., a mass analysis apparatus) which differed from the claimed device by the substitution of component(s) (i.e., a tritium detector) with other component(s) (i.e., a mass analysis apparatus), and the substituted components and their functions were known in the art as above set forth. An ordinarily skilled artisan at the time of invention could have substituted one known element with another (i.e., a tritium detector with a mass analysis apparatus), and the results of the substitution (i.e., detecting gases) would have been predictable.
Therefore, pursuant to MPEP §2143 (I), Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan at the time of invention to substitute the tritium detector of reference Bujas with a mass analysis apparatus of reference Hara, since the result would have been predictable.
Further, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have utilized a mass analysis apparatus instead of the tritium detector of Bujas because it would allow for the measurement of trace amounts of water vapor with a sensitivity of ppm or greater (Hara, paragraph [0100]).
The mass analysis apparatus is considered to be an oxygen sensor as the mass analysis apparatus is capable of detecting oxygen based upon mass and therefore would read on the instant claim.
Regarding claim 10, Bujas teaches all limitations of claim 1; however, Bujas fails to teach the sensor is an carbon dioxide sensor.
Hara teaches an apparatus for evaluating gas barrier properties in which a mass analysis apparatus is utilized for the detection of various gas species which pass through the test film (Hara, paragraph [0130]) which allows the measurement of trace amounts of water vapor with a sensitivity of ppm or greater (Hara, paragraph [0100]).
Examiner further finds that the prior art contained a device/method/product (i.e., a mass analysis apparatus) which differed from the claimed device by the substitution of component(s) (i.e., a tritium detector) with other component(s) (i.e., a mass analysis apparatus), and the substituted components and their functions were known in the art as above set forth. An ordinarily skilled artisan at the time of invention could have substituted one known element with another (i.e., a tritium detector with a mass analysis apparatus), and the results of the substitution (i.e., detecting gases) would have been predictable.
Therefore, pursuant to MPEP §2143 (I), Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan at the time of invention to substitute the tritium detector of reference Bujas with a mass analysis apparatus of reference Hara, since the result would have been predictable.
Further, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have utilized a mass analysis apparatus instead of the tritium detector of Bujas because it would allow for the measurement of trace amounts of water vapor with a sensitivity of ppm or greater (Hara, paragraph [0100]).
The mass analysis apparatus is considered to be an oxygen sensor as the mass analysis apparatus is capable of detecting carbon dioxide based upon mass and therefore would read on the instant claim.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 9/4/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding applicant’s argument Bujas doesn’t teach longitudinally aligned and longitudinally raised peripheral lips projecting from each of a upper and lower parts into the interface between the parts, with at least one of the peripheral lips unitarily formed with the part from which it projects for engaging the periphery of a test film positioned between the parts to form a peripheral edge seal when the parts are clamped together is not found persuasive. The claim doesn’t positively recite the test film and test film in Bujas is interpreted as items 23 and 29. The peripheral lips of Bujas would therefore contact the test film and seals the parts together as described in the claim as the o-ring is interpreted as part of the test film.
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 MATTHEW D KRCHA whose telephone number is (571)270-0386. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7am-5pm.
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, Elizabeth Robinson can be reached at (571)272-7129. 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.
/MATTHEW D KRCHA/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1796