DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1 – 10 are pending in the present application.
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 .
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure.
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives.
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps.
Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length.
See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the abstract (see latest abstract filing of record on 04/21/2023) has ~204 words which is above the 150-word upper limit for an abstract.
A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
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 2-10 is 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.
Specifically, claim 2 states that “the temperature sensors are installed at unequal distances from one another.” (emphasis added);
while claim 1 from which claim 2 depends states “at least 4 temperature sensors are installed in the gas stream at equal distances from each other” (emphasis added).
It is entirely unclear how equally spaced sensors are also unequally spaced.
As best understood (please note that this combination of limitations is unclear and also these limitations are contradictory) for purpose of examination and in order to expedite prosecution this unequal spacing limitation will be considered as inclusive of all spacings as equal and unequal distance spacing together covers all possible spacings (spacing distance must be either equal or unequal).
However, positive in claim recitation of the metes and bounds applicant intends to limit by in a non-contradicting manner is required.
Claim 3 (having depending claims 4-10) recites the limitation “the housing of the process device” (emphasis added) in lines 5-6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation (the process device) in the claim.
It is unclear of the housing of the process device is intended to reference the previously recited housing (line 2 of claim 3) or if this housing of a/the process device is a separate housing.
As best understood for purpose of examination and in order to expedite prosecution this limitation will be construed as referencing the previously recited housing – i.e. “the housing”.
However, positive in claim recitation of the metes and bounds applicant intends to limit by and proper antecedent basis is required.
Further, claim 3 (having depending claims 4-10) recites the limitation “the flow of gas” (emphasis added) in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Also, it is unclear if the gas is the same as the previously recited wet gas or is a separate gas such as a cooling medium gas.
As best understood for purpose of examination and in order to expedite prosecution this limitation will be construed “a flow of gas”, “a flow of the wet gas” or the like.
However, positive in claim recitation of proper antecedent basis is required.
Further, claim 3 (having depending claims 4-10) recites the limitation “the microprocessor device” (emphasis added) in lines 4-5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
As best understood for purpose of examination and in order to expedite prosecution this limitation will be construed “a microprocessor device”.
However, positive in claim recitation of proper antecedent basis is required.
Further, claim 3 (having depending claims 4-10) recites the limitations “the inlet end of the pipe” (emphasis added) in line 5 and “the outlet of the tubular cooler”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
As best understood for purpose of examination and in order to expedite prosecution this limitation will be construed “an inlet end of the pipe” and “an outlet of the tubular cooler” respectively.
However, positive in claim recitation of proper antecedent basis is required.
Further, claim 3 recites “the microprocessor device” in line 4 and “a microprocessor unit” in line 7.
It is unclear if these microprocessors are the same structure or are intended to be separate structures.
As best understood for purpose of examination and in order to expedite prosecution based on the instant specification referencing “12” as both a microprocessor unit and a microprocessor device these recitations will be treated as the same structure and will be considered as met by a computer, processor, controller or the like.
However, positive in claim recitation of the metes and bounds applicant intends to limit by is required.
Finally, regarding claim 3:
The claim (with depending claims) is generally narrative and indefinite, failing to conform with current U.S. practice. It appears to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document and is replete with grammatical and idiomatic errors.
Applicant’s assistance in concretely defining the indefinite and unclear limitations of claim 3 such that the claim clearly and directly recites a desired structure and structural connectivity is respectfully requested.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wolpert (DE 3432261 A1; all reference to attached English Machine Translation; hereinafter Wolpert).
Regarding claim 1, Wolpert teaches a method for measuring the dew point temperature of a wet gas (abstract; [0001-02]; [0008]), consisting in continuously passing the test gas (12) into a tubular cooler (14) cooled by ambient air ([0036] “cooling fluid 16 or 116 can be … air”; see fig. 1; abstract), in which at least 4 temperature sensors (elements 20 at position at least P1-P4 giving temperature T1-T4; abstract; see fig. 1) are installed in the gas stream at equal distances from each other ([0019] “A plurality of thermocouples are arranged at equal distances along the length of the tubular conduit”; see fig. 1; see abstract “plurality of thermoelements (T1-T12) are arranged equidistantly along the line (12)” and [0030]), cooling the gas below the dew point temperature ([0019]; [0029]), transmitting signals from temperature sensors to a microprocessor device (computer; [0020]; [0031]); the dew point temperature is calculated from the abrupt change in the temperature gradient along the length of the tubular cooler ([0031]; see especially “the temperature of the gas mixture drops or decreases exponentially at the temperature values above the water dew point of the gas mixture, whereas the temperature of the gas mixture drops or decreases linearly at the temperature values below the water dew point of the gas mixture” [0031]; see also point “D”; see fig. 6; [0035]; see especially “discontinuity D present between curves E and L indicates the location of the water dew point temperature” [0035]).
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.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wolpert (DE 3432261 A1; all reference to attached English Machine Translation; hereinafter Wolpert).
Regarding claim 2, Wolpert (as best understood; see 112(b) section above) lacks direct and specific teaching that the temperature sensors are installed at unequal distances from one another.
However, Wolpert does disclose multiple configurations for the temperature sensitive portion of the device (see fig. 1 and fig. 5).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the knowledge of arranging the sensitive element(s) in multiple manners of Wolpert with unequal spacing as here. This is because one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected the spacing of the temperature sensitive locations to be one of several straightforward ways of finding the dew point by temperature change because finding the discontinuity between the curves is the desired outcome (see Wolpert at [0035] “discontinuity D present between curves E and L indicates the location of the water dew point temperature”).
Claims 3-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wolpert (DE 3432261 A1; all reference to attached English Machine Translation; hereinafter Wolpert) in view of James et al. (US 3050982; hereinafter James) and Sonander (US 6022138).
Regarding claim 3, Wolpert (as best understood; see 112(b) section above) teaches a device for measuring the dew point temperature of a wet gas (abstract; [0001-02]; [0017]), comprising a tubular cooler (14) with at least 4 temperature sensors (elements 20 at position at least P1-P4 giving temperature T1-T4; abstract; see fig. 1) installed in the pipe in the flow of gas (12; see fig. 1 showing the sensors installed in the pipe in this gas flow) connected to the microprocessor device (computer; [0020]; [0031]), and a microprocessor unit (computer; [0020]; [0031]).
Wolpert does not directly and specifically teach regarding a housing with an opening at the bottom and an opening at the top, the tubular cooler fixed in the housing in the form of a spiral from a pipe, the inlet end of the pipe being located inside the housing of the process device; a vacuum pump connected to the outlet of the tubular cooler.
However, James teaches regarding a dew point measuring apparatus (see at least title) having temperature sensors (50) and having a housing (12; see figs. 1 and 2) with an opening at the bottom (opening at 18) and an opening at the top (opening at 16), the tubular cooler fixed in the housing in the form of a spiral from a pipe (refrigerated coil/spiral 38; see fig. 1 and 2; see col. 2, ¶ at 3), the inlet end of the pipe being located inside the housing of the process device (as best understood – see 112(b) section; see figs. 1 and 2 with inlet of the pipe going into the housing 12); and a pump connected to the outlet of the tubular cooler (see col. 2, ¶ at 23 teaching that circulation via pump is known but not shown in the drawings; as best understood – see 112(b) section; see figs. 1 and 2 with the outlet of the pipe going out of the housing 12).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the dew point measurement apparatus of Wolpert with the specific knowledge of configuration and structures (pump; spiral; housing; openings; inlet/outlet) of the dew point measurement apparatus of James. This is because such structures and configuration are known to be useful in moving and cooling the gas to be measured. This is important in order to provide a more robust dew point measurement device to an end user.
Wolpert as modified by James arguably (see 112(b) section above) lacks teaching regarding that the microprocessor unit has an electrical output signal generator and that the pump is a vacuum pump.
Regardless, Sonander teaches regarding a dew point measurement apparatus (see at least title; see fig. 7) having a microprocessor with an electrical signal output (see at least col. 10, ¶ at 51 teaching “electronic circuitry 65, 66 which is electrically connected to the microprocessor 60 which, in turn, is connected to a display 61 for displaying readings … and for displaying measured dew point temperatures”) and that the pump may be a vacuum/suction pump (col. 14, ¶ at 33 teaches “there may be a suction pump (not shown) connected to the outlet 34”).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to further modify the dew point measurement apparatus having a computer of Wolpert as modified by James with the specific knowledge of using the dew point measurement apparatus having a suction/vacuum pump and connected electrical/microprocessor signal generation sent to a display of Sonander. This is because such a pump is well known for being useful in moving gasses and microprocessors with signal output are good for providing the measured data to an end user. This is important in order to move the gas and calculate/display the results of the dew point measurement.
Regarding claim 4, Wolpert as modified by James lacks direct and specific teaching that the pipe from the gas sampling point before entering the housing of the device is provided with heat insulation.
However, Sonander teaches regarding a dew point measurement apparatus (see at least title; see fig. 7) having thermal/heat insulation on the pipe/tube (57; see col. 11, ¶ at 1 teaching regarding the pipes/tubes being “covered with thermal insulation material 57 to prevent condensation occurring on the outside of the tube sections 53, 63”; see fig. 8b in view of fig. 7 showing this configuration).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to further modify the dew point measurement apparatus having a computer of Wolpert as modified by James with the specific knowledge of using the dew point measurement apparatus having thermal/heat insulation on the pipe/tube of Sonander. This is because such insulation allows for preventing condensation (see col. 11, ¶ at 1 of Sonander). This is important in order to maintain the gaseous environment.
Regarding claim 5, Wolpert lacks direct and specific teaching that the pipe is provided with an analyzed gas heater.
However, James teaches regarding a dew point measuring apparatus (see at least title) having a heater for the pipe (46; see figs. 1 and 2).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the dew point measurement apparatus of Wolpert with the specific knowledge of a heater for heating the pipe of James. This is because such heating allows for raising the temperature of the atmosphere (see James, col. 4, lines 33-37). This is important in order to provide a more robust dew point measurement device to an end user.
Regarding claim 6, Wolpert as modified by James lacks direct and specific teaching that it comprises a digital indicator.
However, Sonander teaches regarding a dew point measurement apparatus (see at least title; see fig. 7) having a digital indicator (at least display 61).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to further modify the dew point measurement apparatus having a computer of Wolpert as modified by James with the specific knowledge of using microprocessor driven display of Sonander. This is because a display allows for indicating the measurements including the dew point temperatures (see at least col. 10, lines 62-67 of Sonander). This is important in order to inform an end user of the measurements.
Regarding claim 7, Wolpert lacks direct and specific teaching that the pipe is provided with an analyzed gas heater.
However, James teaches regarding a dew point measuring apparatus (see at least title) having a heater for the pipe (46; see figs. 1 and 2).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the dew point measurement apparatus of Wolpert with the specific knowledge of a heater for heating the pipe of James. This is because such heating allows for raising the temperature of the atmosphere (see James, col. 4, lines 33-37). This is important in order to provide a more robust dew point measurement device to an end user.
Regarding claim 8, Wolpert as modified by James lacks direct and specific teaching that it comprises a digital indicator.
However, Sonander teaches regarding a dew point measurement apparatus (see at least title; see fig. 7) having a digital indicator (at least display 61).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to further modify the dew point measurement apparatus having a computer of Wolpert as modified by James with the specific knowledge of using microprocessor driven display of Sonander. This is because a display allows for indicating the measurements including the dew point temperatures (see at least col. 10, lines 62-67 of Sonander). This is important in order to inform an end user of the measurements.
Regarding claim 9, Wolpert as modified by James lacks direct and specific teaching that it comprises a digital indicator.
However, Sonander teaches regarding a dew point measurement apparatus (see at least title; see fig. 7) having a digital indicator (at least display 61).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to further modify the dew point measurement apparatus having a computer of Wolpert as modified by James with the specific knowledge of using microprocessor driven display of Sonander. This is because a display allows for indicating the measurements including the dew point temperatures (see at least col. 10, lines 62-67 of Sonander). This is important in order to inform an end user of the measurements.
Regarding claim 10, Wolpert as modified by James lacks direct and specific teaching that it comprises a digital indicator.
However, Sonander teaches regarding a dew point measurement apparatus (see at least title; see fig. 7) having a digital indicator (at least display 61).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to further modify the dew point measurement apparatus having a computer of Wolpert as modified by James with the specific knowledge of using microprocessor driven display of Sonander. This is because a display allows for indicating the measurements including the dew point temperatures (see at least col. 10, lines 62-67 of Sonander). This is important in order to inform an end user of the measurements.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PHILIP COTEY whose telephone number is (571)270-1029. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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.
/PHILIP L COTEY/Examiner, Art Unit 2855
/LAURA MARTIN/SPE, Art Unit 2855