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 Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/29/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant’s amended claim includes the limitation “wherein impe3dence heating occurs when electric power is delivered to the tube from the source of electric power and electric current flows between the input end and the output end. The primary reference CN ‘933 already teaches heating through electric power supplied through a resistor from one end of the pipe to the other. The fact that the second pipe doesn’t have this specific arrangement is not proof of non-obviousness as one of ordinary skill in the art may take reasonable design steps. Further, Applicant’s characterization of the “problem to be solved” with respect to analogous art is unreasonably narrow, as one of ordinary skill in the art looking to arrangements for pipe heating would certainly not limit themselves to only pipe heating structures for the specific purpose of heating emissions as this is a negligible fraction of all pipe heating technologies.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4, 6-11, 13-18 and 20-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 203869933 (hereinafter CN ‘933) in view of US 3706872 (hereinafter US ‘872).
Regarding claims 1, 5, 6, 8, 9, 11, 14-16 and 18
CN ‘933 teaches: a heated continuous emission monitoring system comprising: a single tube made of a metallic heat conducting material, namely stainless steel (Figs. 1 and 2; para. 009), the tube having a length between an input end (left/right end of Fig. 1 chosen arbitrarily) of the tube and an opposite output end of the tube (opposite of end chosen as “input end”); the input end of the tube being configured for communication with a source of emissions (para. 0014; i.e. the gas in the pipe);the output end of the tube being configured for communication (para. 0014); a source of electric power (power supply connected to 4, not shown but described in ¶ [0013]); a first cable connected to an input end (e.g. right cable extending from 4), the first cable being connected between the source of electric power and the tube (Fig. 1); and, a second cable connected on an opposite end (left cable extending from 4), the second cable being connected between the source of electric power and the tube (Fig. 1). the first cable being connected to one of the input end of the tube and the output end of the tube; and, the second cable being connected to the output end of the tube when the first cable is connected to the input end of the tube, and the second cable being connected to the input end of the tube when the first cable is connected to the output end of the tube. This limitation while being set up with conditionals apparently effects the structure in the following way. The cable so named “first cable” must be on the opposite end of the tube with respect to the cable so named “second cable.” Since CN ‘933 shows this arrangement in Fig. 1 it is believed to meet this limitation. A control panel (4) in electrical communication with the source of electric power (¶[0013]) wherein the control panel is designed to control/regulate the voltage/electric power delivered by the source of electric power (¶ [0013]; designed to maintain a constant 12V and 700ma via feedback free control; note that there is nothing in the claims which requires the control panel to provide variable voltage or current, controlling at a constant value is sufficient to meet the claim language). Wherein heating occurs when electric power is delivered to the tube from the source of electric power and electric current flows between the input end and the output end (see resistance heater wrapped around tube from input to output end).
In as much as it is not inherently implied. CN ‘933 does not explicitly teach that the system comprises an emissions analyzer or that the pipe is connected at an output end to communicate specifically to an emissions gas analyzer.
However, the background of the invention of CN ‘933 is clear that this invention is for an environmental monitoring system measuring of a source of emissions by monitoring a gas parameter of an output of a pipe (para. 003 and 004) and that the pipe of the invention of CN ‘933 is meant to be used to convey uniformly heated emissions gas along the gas guiding pipe (para. 005).
As such it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use an emissions analyzer such as a “catalytic-type-gas” sensor as a measuring device connected to the output of the continuously heated pipe of Fig. 1 and 2 of CN ‘933 (paras. 002,003 and 005) as CN ‘933 has directly suggested that their invention is suitable for such, and this is the typical usage in the art, and that the heating system proposed solves temperature compensation problems over prior art heating arrangements.
CNN ‘933 also does not teach an impedance heater, but rather heating the pipe through a wound resistive wire. It is worth noting here that “impedance heating” in the art of pipes, is an art term meaning the pipe is directly heated by Alternating Current running through the pipe itself and this is considered the Broadest Reasonable Interpretation of that claim term. Thus even though a wound resistive wire can certainly heat through “impedance” it is not an “impedance heater” as would be understood by those skilled in the art.
However, as US ‘872 teaches impedance heating pipes is old and well-known (Col. 3, ll. 51-67). And that impedance heating pipes work by means of electric power to a tubing system and producing an electric current through the tube to create impedance heating of the fluid flowing through the impedance heater (Col. 3, ll. 51-67). As such it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to substitute the resistive wire heater of CNN ‘933 with a pipe impedance heater, as taught by US ‘872, as such systems are old and well-known and known to provide only the predictable result of heating a pipe to the desired temperature for the use case desired. This is KSR type “b” rejection, please see MPEP §2143.
Lastly it is noted that while US ‘872 is not in the same field of endeavor it is directed to the problem of heating industrial pipes in the same manner as Applicant’s invention. As such it is relevant analogous prior art.
Regarding the limitation “keeps a temperature of the emissions above a dew point temperature of the emissions”. This limitation has been interpreted as intended use/functional language as the dew point will depend on the usage of the analyzer and the particularly emissions fluid flowing therein. As such since the prior art is capable of meeting this function it fully meets the language interpreted as required under the guidance of MPEP §2114.
Regarding claims 3, 12 and 19
The modified CN ‘933 teaches all of the limitations as discussed above, but does not teach multiple/plurality of tubes bundled together. However, Applicant has not stated that the additional tubes solve any problem or provide any synergestic or unexpected results besides tube duplication. As such, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to duplicate the tube of the modified CNN ‘933 to provide a “bundle” of multiple tubes. Please note that it has been held that when the difference between the prior art and the claimed invention is merely a duplication of a part while retaining the same function of said part a finding of prima facie obviousness is appropriate.
Regarding claim 4
The modified CNN ‘933 teaches all of the limitations as discussed above, but fails to teach wherein the source of electric power is a transformer. The Examiner takes Official Notice that using transformers to supply AC power is old and well-known and that transformers have the known benefit of allowing a step up/down of supply voltage. It therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to further modify CN ‘933 such that the electric power supply is a transformer as the transformer would allow for the voltage to be adjusted to the desired level.
Regarding claim 7
The modified CN ‘933 teaches that the tubing system is configured for communication with a source of emissions (see rejection above). The modified CN ‘933 does not call this source a “stack” however, the term “stack” is used to mean environmental emissions through a pipe released in an industrial setting. As such from whatever source the emissions emanate may reasonable be interpreted as a “stack”.
Regarding claims 10 and 17
The modified CN ‘933 teaches all of the limitations as discussed above, but fails to show the inside of the tube and thus is silent as to whether the tube bore is an unobstructed interior bore that extends through the tube.
The Examiner takes official notice that the well-known and ubiquitous construction of a fluid conveying tube includes a bore that extends through the tube in order to allow unobstructed passage of a fluid therethrough. As such it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to make the tube with an unobstructed bore to avoid vortex formation in the tube from obstructions.
Regarding claims 13 and 20
The modified CN ‘933 further teaches the tubing system is a tube (Figs. 1 and 2), the tube has an input end and an opposite output end (see ends of tube Figs. 1 and 2), the input end of the tube is configured for communicating with a stack containing the emissions (see modification above in rejection of claim 1) and the output end of the tube is configured for communicating with the emissions analyzer (see modification in rejection of claim 1 above). Noting that as discussed in the rejection of claim 7 the source of emissions may reasonably be interpreted as a “stack”.
Regarding claims 21 and 22
The modified CNN ‘933 teaches all of the limitations as discussed above but does not specifically teach that the power source and emissions analyzer are located in the housing. However, this is nothing more than an obvious rearrangement of parts to one of ordinary skill in the art. The power source and emissions analyzer would function in exactly the same manner regardless of their location so the placement in the housing provides no critical, synergistic, or unexpected result.
Regarding claim 23
The prior art teaches all of the limitations as discussed above, but fails to teach specifically a “manual controls that enable control of a voltage produced and delivered by the source of electric power”. The Examiner takes official notice that manual controls of voltage level (e.g. a potentiometer) are old and well-known, in fact some of the oldest control articles in electrical engineering. As such it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to supply the control panel with a manual voltage control, such as a potentiometer, for the purpose of controlling the voltage delivery and therefore the total heat.
Regarding claim 24
The claim requires that the source of emissions be a “smoke stack.” However, it is noted that the source of emissions is not within the scope of the claim but merely a structure to which the emissions analyzer is “configured to” connect with. As such since the pipe is capable of this function it meets the claim language.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 WOODY A LEE JR whose telephone number is (571)272-1051. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 0800-1630.
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, Edward "Ned" Landrum can be reached at 571-272-5567. 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.
/WOODY A LEE JR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights