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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1-12 in the reply filed on October 20, 2025 is acknowledged.
Claim Interpretation
Content of Specification
(k) CLAIM OR CLAIMS: See 37 CFR 1.75 and MPEP § 608.01(m). The claim or claims must commence on a separate sheet or electronic page (37 CFR 1.52(b)(3)). Where a claim sets forth a plurality of elements or steps, each element or step of the claim should be separated by a line indentation. There may be plural indentations to further segregate subcombinations or related steps. See 37 CFR 1.75 and MPEP 608.01(i)-(p).
The claimed invention is defined by the positively claimed elements, the structural elements listed on separate indented lines listed in the body of the claim after the transitional phrase, “comprising”.
For claim 1, the full name for VCI should be explicitly stated prior to using abbreviations.
For claim 1, it is unclear if the claimed “plurality of valves,” and “plurality of piping” are structural elements of the VCI sensing head, or if the VCI sensing head is placed into the piping that comprises a plurality of valves. The Examiner notes that claim 1 recites the sensing head enclosed within the piping, thus for the purposes of examination, the Examiner will interpret the plurality of valves and piping as not structural elements of the claimed sensing head.
For claims 1-12, the phrase “configured to” does not impart a structural element to the claims, but instead recited the intended use of the claimed sensing head or a component of the sensing head.
For claim 2, the Examiner notes that the phrase “valve to air space” does not require a valve having access to the ambient environment, and that any space can be construed as air space.
For claim 4, the Examiner notes that the injection system is not claimed as a structural element of the VCI sensing head, thus the injection system will not be given patentable weight in claim 4.
For claims 9, 10, and 12, the Examiner notes that the claims are directed to the intended use of the measuring system.
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 1-12 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 1, it is unclear if the plurality of valves and the plurality of piping are structural elements of the VCI sensing head, or if the VCI sensing head is placed in the piping, and the piping comprises the plurality of valves. First, the Examiner notes that the phrase “plurality of piping” is unclear as the Examiner is unable to determine what Applicant regards as a plurality of piping, or what the piping is connected to with respect to the VCI sensing head. Second, the Examiner notes that it is unclear if the VCI sensing head is always in a plurality of piping, or if the VCI sensing head is placed in the piping to measure the presence of VCI. Claim 1 recites that the sensing element is “enclosed within the piping” which indicates that VCI is detected in the claimed piping. As such, it is unclear if the piping is a structural element of the VCI sensing head, or if the piping is a separate structure in which the VCI sensing head is placed to detect the presence of VCI. In light of this view, the Examiner is interpreting the plurality of piping as a separate structure that comprises a plurality of valves in which the VCI sensing head is placed to measure VCI. Claims 2-12 depend directly or indirectly from claim 1, and are also indefinite.
For claim 1, “the sensing head” at line 10 is inconsistent with the “VCI sensing head” recited at line 1. As such, it is unclear if “the sensing head” references the VCI sensing head, or a separate sensing head different from the claimed VCI sensing head.
For claim 3, it is unclear what Applicant regards as a bleeding valve and a manifold valve as the terms “bleeding” and “manifold” do not impart any structural limitations to the claimed valves. As such, the Examiner is unable to distinguish the bleeding and manifold valves from any other valves taught by the prior art. For the purposes of examination, the Examiner will regard any valves as bleeding and/or manifold valves.
For claim 5, it is unclear if the injection system is a structural element of the claimed VCI measuring system. Claim 5 is directed to a VCI measuring system “for” an injection system wherein the injection system comprises various structural elements. 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 claims 5 and 6, the claimed circular and linear portions are indefinite as the Examiner is unable to determine the metes and bounds of the term portion. It is unclear what specific part of the injection and measuring lines are referenced by the term portion. Also, the term portion is sufficiently broad so as to encompass the entirety of the injection and measuring lines, thus the Examiner is unable to determine what Applicant regards as a portion. For the purposes of examination, any prior art injection or measuring lines will be read on the claimed portions.
For claim 9, the claim is indefinite as it recites a process limitation in a claim directed to a device (MPEP 2173.05(p). The limitation of “wherein a load resistance in the chemoresistor sensor changes based on a concentration of VCI in the system” is a process limitation as it recites active steps that occur based on a change in VCI concentration. As such, the Examiner is unable to determine if infringement occurs when one makes the claimed system, or if infringement only occurs when there is a change in load resistance in the chemiresistor as recited in the claim.
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) 1-4 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 element enclosed within a pipe (paragraph 0026, figures 3 and 4 #52). The Examiner notes that the claim is being read in light of the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) in which the Examiner has interpreted the plurality of valves and plurality of piping as not being structural limitations of the claimed sensing head. The Examiner also notes that the sensing head being configured to be attached to an enclosed system is not a structural element of the device as the phrase “configured to” does not denote a structural element. Miller does not teach the device comprising a chemoresistor sensor.
Foote teaches an apparatus for fast sampling and measurement wherein a chemiresistors 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 chemiresistors 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 chemiresistor 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 claims 2 and 3, Miller teaches a plurality of valves including 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. With respect to claim 3, the Examiner notes that the claim is being read in light of the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) in which the teams “bleeding” and “manifold” do not impart structure to the valves. As such, the Examiner is reading the valves of Miller on the bleeding and manifold valves as the claim does not provide a structural limitation that distinguishes the bleeding and manifold valves from any other valves taught by the prior art.
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
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.
Conclusion
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