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 .
Drawings
The drawings were received on 07/23/2025. These drawings are acceptable.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
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 1-3 and 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Specifically, line 2 of claim 1 recites “coil outlet temperature,” however, the as-filed specification does not describe a coil outlet temperature surface thermocouple. For the purpose of this office action, the limitation will be treated as if it recited a COT surface thermocouple. Claims 2-3 and 5-7 are rejected due to their respective dependence on claim 1.
Claims 1-3 and 5-7 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. Specifically, line 10 of claim 1 recites “range of (15°,90°), however, the range required is unclear. For the purpose of this office action, the limitation will be interpreted in a manner consistent with the description of paragraph [0025] of the as-filed specification which states the inclined angle is 15-90 degrees. Claims 2-3 and 5-7 are rejected due to their respective dependence on claim 1.
Claim 7 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 7 recites “conforms to Chinese standards for protection and explosion protection,” however, the standards referred to are not specified. Additionally, standards, whether domestic or international, can change over time, therefore, rendering the claim indefinite.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
Claims 1-3 and 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sun et al. (CN 112629693 A – see attached machine translation) in view of Wu et al. (CN 102507032 A – see attached machine translation, hereinafter referred to as Wu ‘032).
Regarding claim 1, Sun discloses a thermocouple ([n0001]) comprising: a contact type connecting component (5 in Fig. 2), a sleeve (4 in Fig. 2), a connecting sealing component (2 in Fig. 2), a clamping sleeve component (3 in Fig. 2), a temperature measuring component (1 in Fig. 2) and a junction box ([n0025]); a whole body of the contact type connecting component is in an inclined angle, wherein the inclined angle is in a range of 15-90 degrees ([n0025]); a contact temperature sensing component connected to a sleeve via concentric welding of a countersunk hole or connecting an internal thread ([n0008]); the sleeve and the contact type connecting component are in concentric non-bending connection ([n0008]); the sleeve comprises two sections ([n0026]); the two sections are connected through the connecting sealing component to form a sealing cavity ([n0026]); and the sleeve is connected with the clamping sleeve component ([n0026] discloses connection with 3); the clamping sleeve component is disposed between the sleeve and the junction box ([n0026]; 3 in relation to 4 and 8), and the temperature measuring component is configured to be mounted or removed by tightening or loosening the clamping sleeve component ([n0028]); wherein the temperature measuring component is mounted in the sleeve ([n0028]), and a measuring point at the end of the temperature measuring component is through an inner hole inclined surface of the contact type connecting component ([n0028]).
Sun does not explicitly disclose the thermocouple is a coil outlet temperature surface thermocouple.
Wu ‘032 discloses a thermocouple used as a coil outlet temperature thermocouple ([0004]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to form the thermocouple of Sun such that it is a coil outlet temperature thermocouple, as disclosed by Wu ‘032, because as evidenced by Wu ‘032, the use of a thermocouple as a coil outlet temperature thermocouple amounts to the use of a known component in the art for its intended purpose to achieve an expected result, and one of ordinary skill would have a reasonable expectation of success when forming the thermocouple of Sun such that it is a coil outlet temperature thermocouple based on the teaching of Wu ‘032.
The limitation “welded” is directed to the manner in which the apparatus is made, and it is noted that said limitations are not given patentable weight in the product claims. Even though a product-by-process is defined by the process steps by which the product is made, determination of patentability is based on the product itself and does not depend on its method of production. In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 227 USPQ 964 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
With regard to the limitations “surface thermocouple,“ “wherein the COT surface thermocouple is arranged on a surface of a furnace tube of an ethylene cracking furnace; the contact type connecting component is completely in contact and welded with the surface of the furnace tube,” “the temperature measuring component is configured to be mounted or removed by tightening or loosening the clamping sleeve component,” and “a measuring point at the end of the temperature measuring component is in direct contact with the surface of the furnace tube through an inner hole inclined surface of the contact type connecting component,” the limitations are directed to the manner in which the apparatus is intended to be used, and a recitation directed to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be used does not distinguish the claimed apparatus from the prior art, if the prior art has the capability to so perform. See MPEP 2111.02, 2112.01 and 2114-2115.
Regarding claim 2, modified Sun discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above. Modified Sun further discloses the contact type connecting component is an arc-shaped curved surface (Sun - [n0027]).
With regard to the limitation “according to the outer diameter of the furnace tube and a given installation space, so that the contact type connecting component is completely fitted with the surface of the furnace tube,” the limitation is directed to the manner in which the apparatus is intended to be used, and a recitation directed to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be used does not distinguish the claimed apparatus from the prior art, if the prior art has the capability to so perform. See MPEP 2111.02, 2112.01 and 2114-2115.
Regarding claim 3, modified Sun discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above. Modified Sun further discloses the contact type connecting component and one of the two sections of the sleeve are at least partially wrapped in an insulation layer (Sun – [n0010]), and an exposed part of the one of the two sections of the sleeve outside the insulation layer has a length of 50 mm (Sun – [n0010]).
With regard to the limitation “on the furnace tube of the cracking furnace,” the limitation is directed to the manner in which the apparatus is intended to be used, and a recitation directed to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be used does not distinguish the claimed apparatus from the prior art, if the prior art has the capability to so perform. See MPEP 2111.02, 2112.01 and 2114-2115.
Regarding claim 5, modified Sun discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above. Modified Sun further discloses the clamping sleeve component comprises a sealing double clamping sleeve with internal threads (Sun – [n0028], [n0030]).
Regarding claim 6, modified Sun discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above. Modified Sun further discloses the contact type connecting component is made of stainless-steel bar material (Sun – [n0030]).
With regard to the limitation “designed and finished according to the diameter of the furnace tube and the given installation space,” the limitation is directed to the manner in which the apparatus is made, and it is noted that said limitations are not given patentable weight in the product claims. Even though a product-by-process is defined by the process steps by which the product is made, determination of patentability is based on the product itself and does not depend on its method of production. In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 227 USPQ 964 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Regarding claim 7, modified Sun discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above. Modified Sun further discloses the junction box conforms to national standards for protection and explosion protection, an electrical interface of the junction box uses ½” NPT, 3/4” NPT, and the junction box has a built-in terminal block (Sun – [n0030]).
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu et al. (CN 215178220 – see attached machine translation, hereinafter referred to as Wu ’220) in view of Sun et al. (CN 112629693 A – see attached machine translation) and further in view of Wu et al. (CN 102507032 A – see attached machine translation, hereinafter referred to as Wu ‘032).
Regarding claim 1, Wu ‘220 discloses a thermocouple ([n0001]) comprising: a contact type connecting component (23, 24 in Fig. 1), a sleeve ([n0029]; 12 and 13 in Fig. 2), a connecting sealing component ([n0023]; a connection necessarily exists between 12 and 13 in Fig. 2, and this connection satisfies the limitation “connecting sealing component), a clamping sleeve component ([n0024]; sealing rotation mechanism; flange 7), a temperature measuring component (8 in Fig. 3) and a junction box (1 in Fig. 2); a whole body of the contact type connecting component is in an inclined angle, wherein the inclined angle is in a range of 15-90 degrees (angle below thermocouple assembly 23, 24 as depicted in Fig. 1); the contact type connecting component is welded to the sleeve ([n0028] discloses the straight sleeve 12 is welded to the flange 9); the sleeve and the contact type connecting component are in concentric non-bending connection (12 in relation to 24 in Figures 1 and 2); the sleeve comprises two sections ([n0029]; 12 and 13 in Fig. 2); the two sections are connected through the connecting sealing component to form a sealing cavity ([n0023]; a connection necessarily exists between 12 and 13 in Fig. 2, and this connection satisfies the limitation “connected through a connecting sealing component to form a sealing cavity); and the sleeve is connected with the clamping sleeve component ([n0004] discloses the other end of the upper connecting pipe is connected to one end of the straight sleeve through a sealing rotation mechanism); the clamping sleeve component is disposed between the sleeve and the junction box ([n0004], [n0024]; 4, 5, 6, 7 in relation to 1 and 12 in Figures 2 and 3), and the temperature measuring component is configured to be mounted or removed by tightening or loosening the clamping sleeve component ([n0023] - [n0026]); wherein the temperature measuring component is mounted in the sleeve ([n0023]), and a measuring point at the end of the temperature measuring component is through an inner hole inclined surface of the contact type connecting component ([n0035]; thermocouple base tube 23 in Fig. 1).
While Wu ‘220 does disclose the straight sleeve 12 is welded to the flange 9 ([n0028]), Wu ‘220 does not explicitly disclose the contact type connecting component is connected with the sleeve in a concentric welding counter bore or a connecting internal thread.
Sun discloses a thermocouple and further discloses a contact temperature sensing component connected to a sleeve via concentric welding of a countersunk hole or connecting an internal thread ([n0008]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to connect the contact type connecting component of Wu ‘220 with the sleeve via concentric welding of a countersunk hole or connecting an internal thread, as disclosed by Sun, because as evidenced by Sun, connecting a contact type connecting component to a sleeve via concentric welding of a countersunk hole or connecting an internal thread amounts to the use of known methods in the art for connecting a contact type connecting component to a sleeve, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success when connecting the contact type connecting component and sleeve of Wu ‘220 via concentric welding of a countersunk hole or connecting an internal thread based on the teaching of Sun.
It is further noted that if the depiction of Fig. 1 of Wu ‘220 does not disclose a whole body of the contact type connecting component is in an inclined angle, wherein the inclined angle is in a range of 15-90 degrees, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to form the whole body of the contact type connecting component of Wu ‘220 such that the inclined angle is in a range of 15-90 degrees because such a modification would involve a mere change in configuration. It has been held that a change in configuration of shape of a device is obvious, absent persuasive evidence that a particular configuration is significant. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Modified Wu ‘220 does not explicitly disclose the thermocouple is a coil outlet temperature surface thermocouple.
Wu ‘032 discloses a thermocouple used as a coil outlet temperature thermocouple ([0004]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to form the thermocouple of modified Wu ‘220 such that it is a coil outlet temperature thermocouple, as disclosed by Wu ‘032, because as evidenced by Wu ‘032, the use of a thermocouple as a coil outlet temperature thermocouple amounts to the use of a known component in the art for its intended purpose to achieve an expected result, and one of ordinary skill would have a reasonable expectation of success when forming the thermocouple of modified Wu ‘220 such that it is a coil outlet temperature thermocouple based on the teaching of Wu ‘032.
The limitation “welded” is directed to the manner in which the apparatus is made, and it is noted that said limitations are not given patentable weight in the product claims. Even though a product-by-process is defined by the process steps by which the product is made, determination of patentability is based on the product itself and does not depend on its method of production. In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 227 USPQ 964 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
With regard to the limitations “surface thermocouple,” “wherein the COT surface thermocouple is arranged on a surface of a furnace tube of an ethylene cracking furnace; the contact type connecting component is completely in contact and welded with the surface of the furnace tube,” “the temperature measuring component is configured to be mounted or removed by tightening or loosening the clamping sleeve component,” and “a measuring point at the end of the temperature measuring component is in direct contact with the surface of the furnace tube through an inner hole inclined surface of the contact type connecting component,” the limitations are directed to the manner in which the apparatus is intended to be used, and a recitation directed to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be used does not distinguish the claimed apparatus from the prior art, if the prior art has the capability to so perform. See MPEP 2111.02, 2112.01 and 2114-2115.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-3 and 5-7 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 TAMIR AYAD whose telephone number is (313) 446-6651. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:30am - 5pm EST.
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, Jeff Barton can be reached at (571) 272-1307. 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.
/TAMIR AYAD/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1726