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 .
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.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 8, 10 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jarolics, US 4,772,454 in view of Padden et al., US 5,319,986.
Regarding claim 1, Jarolics teaches a system utilizing the probe seen in the Fig. for extracting a gas sample from a gas flow. See Jarolics Fig., col. 1, ll. 5–7. The system reads on the “apparatus.”
The system comprises some type of manifold, which is the ductwork that holds the probe. While Jarolics is silent as to the exact structure of the ductwork, Padden teaches a sampler with a magazine system comprising a magazine system 10 (the “manifold”) defining a “gas flow channel” (from conduit 30 through a sampler tube 14 to end space 20 and then to outlet tube 32) that is configured to convey a gaseous substance from an inlet 28 (the “first inlet”) defined on an interior surface (the “surface”) of the magazine system 10. See Padden Fig. 1, col. 2, ll. 21–44. The magazine system 10 holds a plurality of sampler tubes 14, with each sampler tube 14 being similar to the probe of Jarolics. Id. The magazine system 10 is beneficial because it is able to hold a plurality of sampler tubes 14, thereby increasing sampling capacity.
PNG
media_image1.png
490
724
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to provide the probe of Jarolics in the magazine system 10 of Padden to increase sampling capacity.
With this modification, the probe of Jarolics reads on the “at least one integrated flow regulating component.” It is removably received within a space 12 of the magazine system of Padden (the space 12 reads on the “second inlet defined on the surface of the manifold”—the space 12 is defined on the interior surface of the magazine system 10). See Padden Fig. 1, col. 2, ll. 12–17, col. 4, ll. 46–50. The inlet 28 of Padden (the “first inlet”) is different from the space 12 (the “second inlet”), as claimed.
The probe of Jarolics comprises an outlet duct 8 (including the physical structure), which reads on the “flow regulating component.” See Jarolics Fig., col. 2, ll. 1–17. The outlet duct 8 defines an “orifice” at the left-hand end (the “first end of the flow regulating component”). Id.
The probe also comprises a filter 5 (the “filtering element”) attached to the left-hand end of the outlet duct 8, and defining a cavity 7 (the “cavity”) fluidly coupled with the “orifice.” See Jarolics Fig., col. 2, ll. 1–17. While Jarolics is silent as to the filter 5 being “removably attached” to the left-hand end of the outlet duct 8, it would have been obvious for the filter 5 to be removably attached to the left-hand end of the outlet duct 8 because the reference says that the probe can either have an integral structure or can be composed of several, separable parts. Id. at col, 2, ll. 5–7. The filter 5 leads to the open space inside the outlet duct 8 (the open space reads on the “interior channel of the at least one integrated flow regulating component). Id. at Fig., col, 2, ll. 1–17. The filter 5 is disposed upstream with respect to the orifice because fluid being sampled flows through gas inlet 1 through the filter 5 and then through outlet duct 8. Id.
PNG
media_image2.png
450
783
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Jarolics teaches that the filter 5 (the “filtering element”) is at least partially contained within a filter compartment 4 (the “body of the at least one integrated flow regulating component”).
Regarding claim 4, Jarolics teaches that the “cavity” is capable of abutting the orifice, at least in the situation where the filter 5 is removed from the probe and turned around so that the cavity abuts the orifice at the left-hand end of the outlet duct 8. See MPEP 2114 (functional claim language that is not limited by a specific structure covers all devices that are capable of performing the function). Note that the claim fails to specify that the cavity actually abuts the orifice.
Regarding claim 8, Jarolics teaches that the filter 5 (the “filtering element”) comprises a substantially cylindrical member, as seen in the Fig.
Regarding claim 10, Jarolics teaches that the probe (the “at least one integrated flow regulating component”) comprises a metal. See Jarolics col. 1, ll. 65–67.
Regarding claim 21, Jarolics teaches that the filter 5 is configured to filter the gaseous substance. See Jarolics col. 2, ll. 1–17.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jarolics, US 4,772,454 in view of Padden et al., US 5,319,986 and in further view of Li et al., US 2016/0349154 A1.
Regarding claim 6, Jarolics as modified teaches the limitations of claim 1, as explained above.
Jarolics as modified differs from claim 6 because it is silent as to the system comprising a gas detecting apparatus. But the system is used to sample relatively hot gases. See Jarolics col. 1, ll. 5–7. Also, Li teaches an apparatus for sampling syngas comprising a sample container having a pressure gauge and thermometer, which are useful for displaying real-time working pressure and fluid temperature measurements. See Li [0028]. It would have been obvious to include the pressure gauge and thermometer of Li with the system of Jarolics as modified to allow a user to monitor the pressure and temperature of the system. With this modification, the pressure gauge and/or thermometer read on the “gas detecting apparatus.”
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jarolics, US 4,772,454 in view of Padden et al., US 5,319,986 and in further view of Templeton et al., US 6,306,620 B1.
Regarding claim 7, Jarolics as modified teaches the limitations of claim 1, as explained above.
Jarolics as modified differs from claim 7 because it is silent as to the diameter of the “orifice” at the downstream end of the outlet duct 8. Therefore, the reference fails to provide enough information tot each the “orifice” has a diameter of 0.2 to 2 mm, as claimed.
But Templeton teaches a gas collection device with a tube having a diameter of about 1 mm. See Templeton col. 16, ll. 62–67, col. 9, ll. 1–19. It would have been obvious for the “orifice” of Jarolics to have a diameter of about 1 mm because this is a suitable dimension for an outlet tube in a gas collection device.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jarolics, US 4,772,454 in view of Padden et al., US 5,319,986 and in further view of Steigert, US 2004/0006956 A1.
Regarding claim 9, Jarolics as modified teaches the limitations of claim 1, as explained above.
Jarolics as modified differs from claim 9 because it is silent as to the filter 5 (the “filtering element”) comprising at least one of a textile or plastic material. But the filter 5 can be made of a sintered metal. See Jarolics col. 2, ll. 8–11. Also, Steigert teaches a filter material made from sinterable powders such as metal and/or plastics. See Steigert [0013]. It would have been obvious to make the filter 5 of Jarolics from the filter material of Steigert because this would merely represent the selection of a known material based on the suitability of its intended use. See MPEP 2144.07.
Claims 11, 12, 14, 18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jarolics, US 4,772,454.
Regarding claim 11, Jarolics teaches a probe, which reads on the claimed “integrated flow regulating component.” See Jarolics Fig., col. 2, ll. 1–17.
The probe comprises an outlet duct 8 (including the physical structure), which reads on the “flow regulating component.” See Jarolics Fig., col. 2, ll. 1–17. The outlet duct 8 defines an “orifice” at the left-hand end (the “first end of the flow regulating component”). Id.
The probe also comprises a filter 5 (the “filtering element”) attached to the left-hand end of the outlet duct 8, and defining a cavity 7 (the “cavity”) fluidly coupled with the “orifice.” See Jarolics Fig., col. 2, ll. 1–17. While Jarolics is silent as to the filter 5 being “removably attached” to the left-hand end of the outlet duct 8, it would have been obvious for the filter 5 to be removably attached to the left-hand end of the outlet duct 8 because the reference says that the probe can either have an integral structure or can be composed of several, separable parts. Id. at col, 2, ll. 5–7.
The filter 5 leads to the open space inside the outlet duct 8 (the open space reads on the “interior channel of the at least one integrated flow regulating component). See Jarolics Fig., col, 2, ll. 1–17.
The filter 5 is disposed upstream with respect to the orifice because fluid being sampled flows through gas inlet 1 through the filter 5 and then through outlet duct 8. See Jarolics Fig., col. 2, ll. 1–17. The probe is capable of being removably received within an opening on a surface of a manifold, as claimed, because the probe could be inserted into a manifold. See MPEP 2114 (functional claim language that is not limited to a specific structure covers all device that are capable of performing the recited function).
PNG
media_image2.png
450
783
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 12, Jarolics teaches that the filter 5 (the “filtering element”) is at least partially contained within a filter compartment 4 (the “body of the at least one integrated flow regulating component”).
Regarding claim 14, Jarolics teaches that the “cavity” is capable of abutting the orifice, at least in the situation where the filter 5 is removed from the probe and turned around so that the cavity abuts the orifice at the left-hand end of the outlet duct 8. See MPEP 2114 (functional claim language that is not limited by a specific structure covers all devices that are capable of performing the function). Note that the claim fails to specify that the cavity actually abuts the orifice.
Regarding claim 18, Jarolics teaches that the filter 5 (the “filtering element”) comprises a substantially cylindrical member, as seen in the Fig.
Regarding claim 20, Jarolics teaches that the probe (the “at least one integrated flow regulating component”) comprises a metal. See Jarolics col. 1, ll. 65–67.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jarolics, US 4,772,454 in view of Templeton et al., US 6,306,620 B1.
Regarding claim 17, Jarolics as modified teaches the limitations of claim 1, as explained above.
Jarolics as modified differs from claim 17 because it is silent as to the diameter of the “orifice” at the downstream end of the outlet duct 8. Therefore, the reference fails to provide enough information tot each the “orifice” has a diameter of 0.2 to 2 mm, as claimed.
But Templeton teaches a gas collection device with a tube having a diameter of about 1 mm. See Templeton col. 16, ll. 62–67, col. 9, ll. 1–19. It would have been obvious for the “orifice” of Jarolics to have a diameter of about 1 mm because this is a suitable dimension for an outlet tube in a gas collection device.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jarolics, US 4,772,454 in view of Steigert, US 2004/0006956 A1.
Regarding claim 19, Jarolics as modified teaches the limitations of claim 1, as explained above.
Jarolics as modified differs from claim 19 because it is silent as to the filter 5 (the “filtering element”) comprising at least one of a textile or plastic material. But the filter 5 can be made of a sintered metal. See Jarolics col. 2, ll. 8–11. Also, Steigert teaches a filter material made from sinterable powders such as metal and/or plastics. See Steigert [0013]. It would have been obvious to make the filter 5 of Jarolics from the filter material of Steigert because this would merely represent the selection of a known material based on the suitability of its intended use. See MPEP 2144.07.
Response to Arguments
35 U.S.C. 112(b) Rejections
The Examiner withdraws the previous 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections of claims 4 and 14 in light of the amendments.
35 U.S.C. 103 Rejections
The Applicant argues that Jarolics in view of Padden fails to teach the limitation of:
at least one integrated flow regulating component removably received within a second inlet defined on the surface of the manifold, wherein the first inlet is different from the second inlet” (emphasis added)
Instead, it is argued that the space 12 of Padden is not defined on any surface of the magazine system 10 (the magazine system 10 reads on the claimed “manifold”). See Applicant Rem. filed June 10, 2026 (“Applicant Rem.”) 6–7.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The space 12 of Padden is defined on an inner surface of the magazine system 10, with the inner surface reading on the claimed “surface.”
The Applicant’s arguments with respect to Templeton and Steigert are unpersuasive because they are to the above limitation—“at least one integrated flow regulating component removably received within a second inlet defined on the surface of the manifold”—but this limitation is addressed by Padden (and not Templeton or Steigert).
The Applicant also argues it would not have been obvious to provide the probe of Jarolics in the magazine system 10 of Padden. See Applicant Rem. 9–10. Instead, it is argued that the purpose of Padden is to collect multiple samples that can be transported for later analysis while the purpose of Jarolics is to extract hot, dusty gas. Id.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The probe of Jarolics is intended to collect a sample because it is used for extracting a sample from a gas flow of a gaseous fluid, such as flue gas. See Jarolics col. 1, ll. 5–7. The probe comprises a filter material that is able to absorb material, such as dust, from gas flowing through the probe. Id. at Fig., col. 2, ll. 11–17. Dust can be desorbed from the filter material in situ by feeding compressed air into the filter for cleaning purposes. Id. at col. 2, ll. 14–17. Likewise, the magazine 10 of Padden is for sampling a gas using tubes 14, 18 that containing an absorbent filter 74 made of a non-specific material. See Padden Fig. 1, col. 4, ll. 32–39. Samples may be desorbed from the material 74 at the laboratory without ever removing the sampling tubes 14, 18 from the magazine. Id. at col. 4, ll. 40–43.
Therefore, it is not impermissible hindsight to use the probe of Jarolics in the magazine system 10 of Padden because the probe and the sampling tubes are both used in gas sampling and can both be desorbed in situ. Padden is non-specific about the type of material used for the filter 74 so long as it can absorb desired contents from gas while allowing those contents to be desorbed. As such, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in using the probe of Jarolics with Padden because the filter 5 of Jarolics can absorb a component from a gaseous fluid (e.g., dust) with the filter 5 being able to desorb this component.
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 T. BENNETT MCKENZIE whose telephone number is (571)270-5327. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 7:30AM-6:00PM.
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, Jennifer Dieterle can be reached at 571-270-7872. 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.
T. BENNETT MCKENZIE
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1776
/T. BENNETT MCKENZIE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1776
Prosecution Insights