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 Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed May 13, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant has amended independent claim 1 to recite a plurality of valves coupled to the sensing device, and a plurality of piping coupled to the plurality of valves, and argued that the combination of Miller in view of Foote do not meet the claim limitations. The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
In considering the amendments to claim 1, the Examiner notes that the plurality of valves are only required to be coupled to the sensing device, and the piping is coupled to the valves. The claim does not require the valves and piping to be connected to any specific structural element of the sensing device, nor does it require any specific configuration between the sensing device, valves, or piping. As such, the Examiner contends that reference to Miller meets the claim limitations in that it teaches a sensing device comprising a gas sensor, a data acquisition board, a valve, and a plurality of piping coupled to the sensing device (paragraph 0020). Again, the Examiner notes that “coupled” does not require the valves or piping to be connected to any specific element in any specific arrangement, thus reference to Miller meets the claim limitations. Applicant has also argued that the sensing device of Miller does not function in the manner of the claimed sensing device. The Examiner notes that Applicant’s arguments regarding the functioning of the prior art device are not persuasive as the claims are directed to a device, and not its intended use. The Examiner acknowledges that reference to Miller does not teach a chemoresistor, and relies on reference to Foote who teaches chemoresistors as suitable sensors for measuring chemical components of gases, vapors, and liquids. Foote teaches that it is advantageous to utilize a chemoresistor as a means of verifying the correct type and amount of a desire component, or to verify the absence of an undesired component thereby providing sufficient motivation to combine the references. Therefore, in light of the teachings of the prior art, and the arguments provided here, the Examiner contends that the limitations of claims 1-4 are taught by the combination of references cited below, thus the rejection is maintained.
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 5 and 9 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.
For claim 5, it is unclear if the term “comprising” references the VCI measuring system or the injection system. The Examiner notes that the claim does not explicitly recite the VCI measuring system comprising one or more injection lines, one or more measuring lines, and an injection manifold as the claim can reasonably be interpreted as the injection system comprising the injection and measuring lines. As such, the Examiner is unable to determine if the injection lines, measuring line, and injection manifold are elements of the VCI sensing system, or the injection system. Claims 6-12 depend directly or indirectly from claim 5 and are also indefinite.
For claim 9, the phrase “chemoresistor sensor comprises a load resistance that is variable changes based on a concentration of VCI in the system” is unclear, and appears to be a typographical error. The Examiner requests Applicant amend claim 9 so that the phrase in question is clear.
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) 1, 2, and 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miller (US 2022/0161080) in view of Foote (US 2015/0101392).
Regarding claim 1, Miller teaches a protective device (paragraph 0019) comprising a sensing device comprising a sensing element including a gas sensor (paragraphs 0020, 0026, figures 3 and 4#52), a data acquisition board (paragraph 0025), and a flexible transmission wire coupled to the sensing element and the data acquisition board (paragraph 0025, figures 3 and 4 #50). Miller also teaches the sensing device comprising a valve coupled to the sensing device (paragraphs 0020-0022, figure 3 #43) and a pipe insert (piping, paragraphs 0020-0020) wherein the pipe insert is coupled to the valve. Miller also teaches the sensing element enclosed within a pipe (paragraph 0026, figures 3 and 4 #52). Miller does not explicitly teach a plurality of valves and a plurality of piping; however, the Examiner is reading this limitations as a duplication of parts which would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2144.04 VI B). The MPEP states that the mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance absent a new and unexpected result. Providing a sensing device having a plurality of valves and piping coupled to the sensing device would not alter the sensing of the chemoresistor, thus the Examiner contends that the instant disclosure does not provide any new and unexpected results regarding the plurality of valves and piping. Miller does not teach the device comprising a chemoresistor sensor.
Foote teaches an apparatus for fast sampling and measurement wherein a chemoresistors and metal oxide gas sensors are taught as suitable sensors for measuring chemical components of gases, vapors, and liquids (paragraph 0053). Foote teaches that it is advantageous to utilize chemoresistors as a means of verifying that the correct type and amount of a desired component is present, or to verify the absence of an undesired component (paragraph 0053).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Miller wherein a chemoresistor is utilized in order to verify the correct type and amount of a desired component, or to verify the absence of an undesired component as taught by Foote.
Regarding claim 2, Miller teaches a valve to sensor and a valve to air space (paragraphs 0030, 0031). The Examiner notes that the space within the pipe represents the claimed valve to sensor and valve to air space as opening the valve allows for access to the sensor, and the space within the pipe.
Regarding claim 4, the Examiner notes that the injection system is not a structural element of the VCI sensing head, and therefore is not given patentable weight in the claim.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 3 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 5-12 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art of record does not teach or suggest a VCI measuring system comprising the VCI sensing head recited in claim 1, one or more injection lines, one or more measuring lines, and an injection manifold as recited in the claims. Additionally, the prior art does not teach or suggest a VCI sensing head comprising a plurality of valves including a valve to sensor, valve to air space, a bleeding valve, and a manifold valve as recited in claim 3.
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 DWAN A GERIDO whose telephone number is (571)270-3714. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 10-6.
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, Lyle Alexander can be reached at (571) 272-1254. 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.
/DWAN A GERIDO/Examiner, Art Unit 1797 /LYLE ALEXANDER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1797
Prosecution Insights