DETAILED ACTION
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 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.
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 .
Claim Status
Claims 6 and 8 are cancelled. Claims 1-5, 7, 9-20 are pending.
Response to Amendment
This office action is in response to communication received on 03/06/206. The response cancelled claims 6 and 8; presented amendment to claims 1, 7, 12, and 19; and introduced new claim 20. No new matter is introduced.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 6-9, with respect to the rejection of claims 1-18 under 35 USC § 112 have been fully considered and persuasive in light of the amendment made to the claims.
Applicant argues that claim 1, as amended, remains patentable over Heimberger. The examiner respectfully disagrees. Heimberger discloses a gas sensor including a transport tube fluidly connected to a sensor head and a pump 5 configured to draw measuring gas into the sensor chamber/head (see paras. [0039]- [0041]). The claimed positioning of the pump “upstream” constitutes a matter of design choice, as the relative placement of a pump within a flow path is a predictable variation that does not affect the intended function of transporting gas. Nevertheless, as illustrated in Fig. 1, the pump is positioned upstream the flow of measuring gas between transport tube and sensor head.
Applicant argues that claim 7 as amended is patentable. The examiner respectively disagrees. The provision of a drain for condensate to prevent condensate from reaching a sensor head represents a well-known and routine solution in gas transport systems. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate such a feature into Heimberger with the teaching of ‘891 to improve reliability and prevent contamination. Accordingly, claim 7 is not patentable over the prior art of record.
Applicant argues that claim 12 as amended, none of the cited references teaches a transport tube configured to connect an output of the sensor head with the test space. The examiner respectfully disagrees. Modifying Heimberger to include an output or return connection constitutes a predictable variation of known fluid routing configurations, such as recirculation or pressure balancing systems. Such modification would have been within the level of ordinary skill in the art and does not require undue experimentation. Accordingly, claim 12 is not patentable over the prior art of record.
Applicant argues that claim 19 as amended is patentable because the art is silent with respect to transporting a measuring gas through a transport tube and through a pump. The examiner respectfully disagrees. Heimberger expressly discloses transporting measuring gas via a transport line and through a pump into the sensor chamber (see paras. [0039] – [0041]). The claimed method reflects the inherent operation of the disclosed system. Accordingly, claim 19 is not patentable over the prior art of record.
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.
Claims 1, 3, 5-6, 8 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by HEIMBURGER (DE102015001443B3).
With respect to claim 1, HEIMBURGER discloses a gas sensor for detecting a gas (the atmosphere surrounding sensor 1, see Fig. 1) comprising
a sensor head (2) configured to be brought into contact with an atmosphere of a test space of a test chamber (sensor chamber 31),
wherein the gas sensor is configured to detect a measuring gas in the test space (31),
the gas sensor having a transport tube (3) fluidly connecting the test space to an input of the sensor head to transport the measuring gas from the test space to the sensor head (transport tube (3) fluidly connects the sensor chamber (31) to the atmosphere surrounding sensor 1, see Fig. 1), and
a pump (pump 5) positioned upstream a flow of the measuring gas between the transport tube (gas line 6) and the sensor head and configured to transport the measuring gas from the transport tube to the sensor head (in the housing 11 is a pump 5 arranged, the suction side 51 via a gas line 6 which are in the connecting element 4 runs, with the sensor chamber 31 connected, so when pump is activated 5, para. [0039]- [0041]).
With respect to claim 3, HEIMBURGER discloses the gas sensor according to claim 1, wherein the gas sensor is configured to detect a change in a composition of the atmosphere of the test space (Detectable gases may be about all hydrocarbons, but also carbon monoxide CO, or other gases that are transported via lines or formed in lines. The gas sensor can also be a combination of a plurality of individual sensors, that is to say a sensor array, para. [0016]).
With respect to claim 5, HEIMBURGER discloses the gas sensor according to claim 1, wherein the sensor head is configured as a reaction heat sensor or an infrared sensor (the gas sensor can be thermal or optical, Para. [0016]).
With respect to claims 19, HEIMBURGER discloses a method for detecting a gas in a test space of a test chamber for conditioning air (a gas detection device with a measuring head, which has at least one gas inlet opening, and with a sensor chamber, via the gas inlet opening a sample gas can be supplied, Abstract; see also Para. 0012), the method comprising:
bringing a sensor head of a gas sensor in contact with an atmosphere of the test space (gas detector 1 has a measuring head 3 in which a sensor chamber 31 is present, in which a gas sensor 2 is arranged, para. [0039]),
transporting a measuring gas from the test space to a sensor head of the gas sensor through a transport tube of the gas sensor (measuring gas from the environment can be drawn into the sensor chamber 31 to the gas sensor 2, para.40), and through a pump of the gas sensor (a pump 5 with a suction side 51 which is fluidically connected via the sensor chamber 31 of the measuring head 3 with the gas inlet opening 32, para. [0041] and abstract), bringing a sensor head of a gas sensor in contact with an atmosphere of the test space (see Fig. 2), and detecting the gas with the gas sensor (Para. 38).
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.
Claims 2 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HEIMBURGER in view of Haack et al. hereinafter Haack (US2020/0263911 A1).
With respect to claim 2, HEIMBURGER discloses the gas sensor according to claim 1 above. HEIMBURGER is silent about the gas sensor is configured to detect the gas in the test space at a temperature in a temperature range from −50° C to +180° C.
Haack invention related to the area of a temperature chamber comprising a temperature-insulated space discloses the temperature control device being configured to establish the temperature in a temperature range of −50° C. to +180° C within the test space (the temperature control device allows a temperature in a range of −50° C. to +180° C. to be established within the space, para. [0008]).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine HEIMBURGER’s gas sensor test space with Haack’s temperature control system. HEIMBURGER provides the gas sensor configuration but is silent on temperature range, while Haack teaches a chamber capable of controlling temperatures from −50° C. to +180° C. Since both references address controlled test environments, incorporating Haack’s broader temperature control capability into HEIMBURGER’s chamber would predictably improve environmental control and expand operating conditions, with a reasonable expectation of success.
With respect to claim 4, HEIMBURGER discloses the gas sensor according to claim 1 above. HEIMBURGER discloses the sensor detects detectable gases such as, all hydrocarbons, but also carbon monoxide CO, or also other gases which are transported via lines or are formed in lines. HEIMBURGER is silent about the gas sensor is calibrated to detect a refrigerant. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to calibrate HEIMBURGER’s gas sensor for detecting refrigerant gas. HEIMBURGER teaches a generic gas detection sensor suitable for detecting various gases, including hydrocarbons and other line-transported gases. It is well known in the art that refrigerants are routinely monitored for leaks in industrial and HVAC systems, and that gas sensors can be calibrated for specific target gases based on known sensor tuning techniques. Therefore, modifying HEIMBURGER’s general gas sensor to detect a refrigerant would have been a routine design choice using known calibration methods, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claims 7 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HEIMBURGER as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of HAACK et al. hereinafter ‘891(EP 3431891 B1).
With respect to claim 7, HEIMBURGER discloses the gas sensor according to claim 6 above. HEIMBURGER is silent about the pump and/or the transport tube is provided with a drain for condensate.
‘891 invention related to a humidifier for a test chamber discloses the pump and/or the transport tube is provided with a drain for condensate (see Figs. 1a and 1b).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide a drain for condensate in the pump and/or transport tube of HEIMBURGER in view of ‘891, as both references address gas flow systems in enclosed test environments and condensate management is a well-known requirement in such systems. Incorporating a condensate drain would have been a predictable design modification to prevent moisture accumulation, ensure accurate gas sampling, and maintain system performance, thereby yielding no unexpected results.
With respect to claim 20, HEIMBURGER discloses a method according to claim 19 above. ‘891 discloses removing condensate formed in the transport tube and/or pump from the measuring gas upon propagation of the measuring gas from the test space to the pump via a drain formed at the pump and/or transport tube to prevent the condensate from reaching the sensor head (see Figs. 1a and 1b).
Claims 9-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HEIMBURGER as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of BLUMTHAL et al. hereinafter BLUMTHAL (CA 2274417 C).
With respect to claim 9, HEIMBURGER discloses the gas sensor according to claim 1 above. HEIMBURGER is silent about the gas sensor has a fan the configured to control a temperature of the transport tube with the measuring gas by forced convection.
BLUMTHAL invention related to refrigeration enclosure discloses the gas sensor (215) has a fan (see Fig. 12) the configured to control a temperature of the transport tube with the measuring gas by forced convection (lines 13-23, page 21).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to modify HEIMBURGER to include a fan as taught by BLUMTHAL in order to actively control the temperature of the transport tube by forced convection. Doing so would predictably improve temperature regulation of the measuring gas, thereby enhancing sensor accuracy and stability, and thus represents nothing more than the predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions.
With respect to claim 10, HEIMBURGER and BLUMTHAL disclose the gas sensor according to claim 9 above. BLUMTHAL further discloses the gas sensor (225) is provided with a flow channel (230) having an end and a fan disposed at the end (axial fan, see Fig. 3), wherein the transport tube is at least partially disposed in the flow channel, and the fan is configured to establish an air flow in the flow channel (claim 1 and Fig. 12).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Heimburger with Blumthal, because both references are directed to gas sensor systems utilizing induced airflow in a flow channel to transport sample gas to a detection region. Blumthal’s axial-fan configuration merely represents a predictable design choice to achieve improved and directed airflow within the flow channel disclosed in Heimburger. As a result, incorporating Blumthal’s fan into Heimburger’s system would have been a straightforward substitution of one known airflow generation technique for another to achieve the expected benefit of controlled sampling flow.
With respect to claim 11, HEIMBURGER and BLUMTHAL disclose the gas sensor according to claim 9 above. BLUMTHAL further discloses the fan is an axial fan (axial fan, see Fig. 3).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to implement the fan of HEIMBURGER as an axial fan as disclosed by BLUMTHAL, because axial fans are well-known and commonly used in gas transport and ventilation systems to efficiently move air or gas along the axis of flow. Substituting an axial fan would have been a predictable design choice to improve airflow direction and efficiency in the gas sensor system, yielding no unexpected results.
With respect to claim 12, HEIMBURGER discloses the gas sensor according to claim 1, wherein the transport tube is configured to connect an output of the sensor head with the test space (para. [0040]).
BLUMTHAL discloses the transport tube is at least partially coil-shaped, spiral, or serpentine (spiral refrigeration enclosure, see Figs. 3 and 4).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the transport tube in a spiral configuration as disclosed by BLUMTHAL, because such geometrics are well-known for increasing tube length within a compact space, enhancing gas contact time, and facilitating temperature or humidity conditioning in controlled environments. Using a spiral tube would have been a routine and predictable design choice to optimize fluid pathway length and thermal interaction without producing any unexpected results.
With respect to claim 13, HEIMBURGER discloses the gas sensor according to claim 1 above. HEIMBURGER further discloses the transport tube is at least partially formed by a rigid tube (para. [0038]) without specifically disclosing the tube is partially formed by a metal tube.
However, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice for one of ordinary skill in the art to select a metal tube as the transport tube, as both plastic and metal are well-known rigid tube materials used for gas conveyances applications, and the selection between them would have been based on routine engineering considerations such as durability, corrosion resistance, and manufacturing preference. Substituting metal for plastic would have predictably yielded the same result.
With respect to claim 14, HEIMBURGER discloses the gas sensor according to claim 1 above. HEIMBURGER does not explicitly discloses the transport tube is formed by a plastic tube at least at an extraction point for measuring gas at the test space.
However, it would have been obvious matter of design choice for one of ordinary skill in the art to form the transport tube from plastic at least at the extraction point, since plastic tubing is a well-known and commonly used material for gas sampling applications due to its flexibility, corrosion resistance, and ease of installation. Substituting a plastic tube for other known rigid tubing materials would have been a predictable variation yielding no unexpected results.
With respect to claim 15, HEIMBURGER discloses the gas sensor according to claim 1 above. HEIMBURGER does not explicitly discloses the transport tube is formed by a plastic tube at least at a return point to the test space.
However, it would have been obvious matter of design choice for one of ordinary skill in the art to form the transport tube from plastic at least at a return point, since plastic tubing is a well-known and commonly used material for gas sampling applications due to its flexibility, corrosion resistance, and ease of installation. Substituting a plastic tube for other known rigid tubing materials would have been a predictable variation yielding no unexpected results.
Claims 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HEIMBURGER as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Reuschel et al. hereinafter Reuschel (US 20210239668 A1) and Haack.
With respect to claim 16, Heimburger teaches a gas sensor as described in Claim 1, but does not specifically teach test chamber comprising: a temperature-insulated test space configured to be sealable from an environment to hold test material, and a temperature control device configured to control a temperature of the test space, the temperature control device being configured to establish the temperature in a temperature range of −50° C. to +180° C. within the test space, the temperature control device having a heating feature and a cooling feature with a cooling circuit containing a refrigerant, a heat exchanger in the test space, a compressor, a condenser, and an expansion member.
Reuschel invention related to a test chamber, in particular a climate chamber for conditioning air discloses a test chamber (Abstract) comprising:
a temperature-insulated test space configured to be sealable from an environment to hold test material (The test chamber/a climate chamber for conditioning air, comprises a temperature-insulated test space, which is sealable against an environment and serves for receiving test material, para. [0028]), and
a temperature control device configured to control a temperature of the test space, the temperature control device being configured to establish the temperature in a temperature range of −20° C. to +180° C within the test space (a temperature control device for controlling the temperature of the test space, a temperature ranging from −20° C to +180° C, para. [0028]), the temperature control device having a heating feature (The temperature control device can comprise a heating device, para. [0029]) and a cooling feature with a cooling circuit containing a refrigerant, a heat exchanger in the test space, a compressor, a condenser, and an expansion member (the temperature control device comprising a cooling device having a cooling circuit, carbon dioxide as a cooling agent, a heat exchanger in the test space, compressors, a storage means for the cooling agent with expansion valve, para. [0028]; condenser (condensation occurs at the additional heat exchanger), para. [0025]).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Heimburger with Reuschel. Heimburger teaches a gas sensor in a controlled environment but does not describe the specific temperature-controlled chamber structure. Reuschel discloses a temperature insulated, sealable test chamber with a temperature control system. Incorporating Reuschel’s well-known climate control chamber features into Heimburger’s gas sensor environment would predictably provide a controlled temperature test space suitable for accurate gas sensing. Such modification represents the use of known chamber components for their intended purpose, yielding predictable results consistent with routine engineering design choices.
Reuschel discloses a temperature control device for controlling the temperature of the test space, a temperature ranging from −20° C to +180° C (para. [0028]). However, Reuschel is silent about the temperature control device being configured to establish the temperature in a temperature range of −50° C. to +180° C within the test space.
Haack invention related to the area of a temperature chamber comprising a temperature-insulated space discloses the temperature control device being configured to establish the temperature in a temperature range of −50° C. to +180° C within the test space (the temperature control device allows a temperature in a range of −50° C to +180° C to be established within the space, para. [0008]).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the temperature-controlled test chamber of Heimburger as modified by Reuschel with the temperature control teachings of Haack in order to expand the useable temperature range of the test space and improve environmental control during testing. Both references address temperature-insulated test chambers and controlling temperature within the test space, and therefore substituting or incorporating Haack’s broader temperature-control capability into Heimburger as modified by Reuschel chamber would be a predictable use of known techniques to achieve enhanced temperature performance, with a reasonable expectation of success.
With respect to claim 17, HEIMBURGER, Reuschel and Haack disclose the test chamber according to claim 16 above. HEIMBURGER further discloses the refrigerant is flammable and/or a hydrocarbon or a refrigerant mixture of hydrocarbons (Detectable gases may be about all hydrocarbons, para. [0016]).
With respect to claim 18, HEIMBURGER, Reuschel and Haack disclose the test chamber according to claim 16 above. Haack further discloses the test chamber comprises a ventilation system having a detector with at least the gas sensor configured to detect a refrigerant in the test space (Para. [0045]), the detector comprising at least one other gas sensor in a machine room of the test chamber, the machine room being separated from the test space in an air-tight manner (para. [0008]).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to calibrate HEIMBURGER’s gas sensor for detecting refrigerant gas. HEIMBURGER teaches a generic gas detection sensor suitable for detecting various gases, including hydrocarbons and other line-transported gases. It is well known in the art that refrigerants are routinely monitored for leaks in industrial and HVAC systems, and that gas sensors can be calibrated for specific target gases based on known sensor tuning techniques. Therefore, modifying HEIMBURGER’s general gas sensor to detect a refrigerant would have been a routine design choice using known calibration methods, with a reasonable expectation of success.
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 GEDEON M KIDANU whose telephone number is (571)270-0591. The examiner can normally be reached 8-4.
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, Kristina DeHerrera can be reached at 303-297-4237. 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.
/GEDEON M KIDANU/ Examiner, Art Unit 2855
/KRISTINA M DEHERRERA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2855 5/4/26
Prosecution Insights