DETAILED ACTION
Examiner has received and accepted the amended claims and remarks filed on 21 November 2025. These amended claims and remarks are the claims and remarks being referred to in the instant Office Action.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the Specification have been fully considered and are persuasive. The Objection to the Specification has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to Claims 26 and 39 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The Objection to Claims 26 and 39 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to Claims 21, 22, 25, 34, 35, and 38 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 112(b) Rejection of Claims 21, 22, 25, 34, 35, and 38 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to Claims 20 and 33 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 112(d) Rejection of Claims 20 and 33 has been withdrawn.
Applicant's remaining arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues since Widt does not disclose a port for introducing gas, Wetzig contradicts the disclosure of Widt. Examiner respectfully disagrees.
One cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Widt does not teach the introduction of gas and Examiner does not rely of Widt to teach the limitation. Wetzig teaches the introduction of gas [0020] and it would have been obvious modify Widt in view of Wetzig’s teachings for the benefit of increasing the sensitivity of the test by increasing the detection limit, as taught by Wetzig [0005, 0006].
Applicant further argues in the combination Wetzig does not teach a carrier gas inlet in the area of the outer frame. Examiner respectfully disagrees.
During patent examination, the pending claims must be “given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification.” See MPEP 2111.
The claim does not recite additional limitations with respect to the position of the gas inlet other than “in the area of the outer frame”. As Wetzig teaches the inlet is not centrally located (Figure 1), in the combination, the inlet is located “in the area of the outer frame”, thus meeting the instant claim limitations.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., the additional carrier has inlet directly connected to the outer frame) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Applicant further argues there is no carrier gas flow radially from the outside inward as there is a centrally located vacuum port and circumferential ports. Examiner respectfully disagrees.
First, Widt does not disclose there is no radial gas flow from the outside inward. To come to such a conclusion, more information, which Widt does not provide, would be required e.g. orifice sizes and flow rates. Additionally, if any gases in Widt are incapable of flowing towards the centrally located vacuum port, there would be no need for a centrally located vacuum port, yet there is one provided. As such, Examiner maintains the instant claim rejections.
Claim Objections
Applicant is advised that should Claim 15 be found allowable, Claim 28 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m). Similar can be said with respect to Claims 29 – 40. See prior art rejection of Claim 28 below.
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.
Claim(s) 15, 16, 18 – 26, 28, 29, and 31 - 39 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Widt (US 2003/0233866), in view of Wetzig et al. (US 2017/0268957).
Regarding Claim 15, Widt discloses a film chamber for leak testing a test specimen containing a test fluid, in at least Figure 1, wherein the film chamber comprises:
at least one vacuum port (18) connectable to a vacuum pump (35) and to a gas detector (36);
at least one flexible wall portion (5, 6) defining a film chamber volume [0008]; and
a frame (3, 4) surrounding the flexible wall portion on the outside for closing the film chamber volume [0018], wherein:
the at least one vacuum port is arranged in an area located centrally with respect to the frame and surrounded radially on the outside by the frame [0008, 0010].
Widt fails to disclose at least one gas inlet for the supply of a carrier gas is arranged in the area of the outer frame such that the carrier gas flows through the gas inlet through the film chamber volume along the flexible wall portion radially from the outside inward to the vacuum port.
Wetzig teaches at least one gas inlet (inlet of 25 in 12) (Figure 1) for the supply of a carrier gas [0020] is arranged in an outer area (Figure 1) such that the carrier gas flows through the gas inlet through the film chamber volume along a flexible wall portion (12, 14) radially from the outside inward to a vacuum port (port of 20) (Figure 1).
As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to modify Widt to include at least one gas inlet for the supply of a carrier gas is arranged in the area of the outer frame such that the carrier gas flows through the gas inlet through the film chamber volume along the flexible wall portion radially from the outside inward to the vacuum port for the benefit of increasing the sensitivity of the test by increasing the detection limit, as taught by Wetzig [0005, 0006].
Regarding Claim 16, Widt discloses the frame is designed to extend annularly around the flexible wall portion and delimits the flexible wall portion [0008] (Figure 1).
Regarding Claim 18, Widt discloses the vacuum port is arranged concentrically with respect to the frame [0008, 0010] (Figure 1).
Regarding Claim 19, Widt discloses the walls of the film chamber are designed to be entirely flexible [0019] and are clamped in the frame (Figure 2).
Regarding Claim 20, Widt discloses the vacuum port is formed adjacent to the frame (Figure 1).
Regarding Claim 21, Widt discloses the frame comprises a plurality of vacuum ports [0009].
Regarding Claim 22, Widt discloses the plurality of vacuum ports arranged along the circumference of the frame [0009].
The combination fails to expressly disclose the ports are distributed evenly at regular distances.
One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the applicant’s invention would have realized non-even distribution results in more complex flow patterns.
As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to modify the combination so that the ports are distributed evenly at regular distances for the benefit of a simplified, even flow pattern, thus preventing introduction of error.
Regarding Claim 23, Widt discloses two vacuum ports or gas inlets are formed on opposing sides of the film chamber volume [0009].
Regarding Claim 24, Widt discloses the frame has two opposing inner frame surfaces (71, 72) adjacent to the film chamber volume (Figure 2), and the two films have opposing inner film surfaces adjacent to the film chamber volume (Figure 2), the distance between the inner frame surfaces being greater than the distance between the inner film surfaces in the evacuated state of the film chamber when no test specimen is contained in the film chamber (as 5 and 6 would be sucked together in the evacuated state while 71 and 72 would have its distance maintained) (Figure 2).
Regarding Claim 25, the combination fails to expressly disclose the flexible wall portion comprises silicone, butyl rubber or EPDM; however, the intention of the references is to detect the test fluid to determine if a leak is present. Therefore, if a material is used that does absorb the test fluid, the test fluid would not arrive to the detector and a leak would not be detected.
As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to modify the combination so that the flexible wall portion comprises silicone, butyl rubber or EPDM i.e. a material that does not absorb test fluid and/or carrier gas for the benefit of ensuring the most amount of test fluid makes it to the detector so that a leak can be detected.
Regarding Claim 26, Widt discloses a method for leak testing a test specimen containing a test fluid using a film chamber according to claim 15 (see rejection of Claim 15 above), the method comprising the steps of: introducing the test specimen into the film chamber [0031]; evacuating the film chamber by means of the vacuum pump connected to the vacuum port [0032]; supplying the drawn gas mixture to the gas detector [0013]; analyzing the gas mixture for the presence of the test fluid using the gas detector [0020].
Widt fails to expressly disclose supplying the carrier gas to the film chamber via the gas inlet; drawing the gas mixture, which is formed by the carrier gas and the test fluid escaping through a leak in the test specimen, through the vacuum port and supplying the drawn gas mixture to the gas detector; and wherein the carrier gas flows through the gas inlet through the film chamber volume along the flexible wall portion radially from the outside inward or from then inside outward to the vacuum port.
Wetzig teaches supplying a carrier gas (in 26) to the film chamber via the gas inlet (Figure 1); drawing a gas mixture, which is formed by the carrier gas and a test fluid escaping through a leak in the test specimen (16), through the vacuum port and supplying the drawn gas mixture to a gas detector (22) [0024]; and wherein the carrier gas flows through the gas inlet through the film chamber volume along a flexible wall portion radially from an outside inward or from an inside outward to the vacuum port (Figure 1).
As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to modify the combination to include the steps of supplying a carrier gas to the film chamber via the gas inlet; drawing a gas mixture, which is formed by the carrier gas and a test fluid escaping through a leak in the test specimen, through the vacuum port and supplying the drawn gas mixture to a gas detector; and wherein the carrier gas flows through the gas inlet through the film chamber volume along a flexible wall portion radially from an outside inward or from an inside outward to the vacuum port for the benefit of increasing the sensitivity of the test by increasing the detection limit, as taught by Wetzig [0005, 0006].
Regarding Claim 28, structurally, the claimed inventions of Claim 15 and Claim 28 are identical. Where the claims differ i.e. swapping the locations of the vacuum port and gas inlet port does not give rise to a different invention as the ports being used for a “vacuum” or “gas inlet” are recitations of intended use and do not further limit the structure of the ports themselves. As such, since Claim 15 has been rejected, Claim 28 is similarly rejected.
Nevertheless, Examiner also considers a narrower interpretation of Claim 28:
Widt discloses a film chamber for leak testing a test specimen containing a test fluid, in at least Figure 1, wherein the film chamber comprises:
at least one vacuum port (18) connectable to a vacuum pump (35) and to a gas detector (36);
at least one flexible wall portion (5, 6) defining a film chamber volume [0008]; and
a frame (3, 4) surrounding the flexible wall portion on the outside for closing the film chamber volume [0018], the at least one vacuum port is arranged in an area located centrally with respect to the frame and surrounded radially on the outside by the frame [0008, 0010].
Widt fails to disclose at least one gas inlet for the supply of a carrier gas is arranged in an area located centrally with respect to the frame and surrounded radially on the outside by the frame; and the at least one vacuum port is arranged in the area of the outer frame such that the carrier gas flows through the gas inlet through the film chamber volume along the flexible wall portion radially from the inside outward to the vacuum port.
Wetzig teaches at least one gas inlet (inlet of 25 in 12) (Figure 1) for the supply of a carrier gas [0020] is arranged in an outer area (Figure 1) such that the carrier gas flows through the gas inlet through the film chamber volume along a flexible wall portion (12, 14) radially from the outside inward to a vacuum port (port of 20) (Figure 1).
As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to modify Widt to include at least one gas inlet for the supply of a carrier gas is arranged in the area of the outer frame such that the carrier gas flows through the gas inlet through the film chamber volume along the flexible wall portion radially from the outside inward to the vacuum port for the benefit of increasing the sensitivity of the test by increasing the detection limit, as taught by Wetzig [0005, 0006].
Nevertheless, the combination fails to expressly disclose the gas inlet and vacuum port are swapped. However, Wetzig’s apparatus works the same if the gas inlet and vacuum port are swapped as invention merely relies a carrier gas being present to draw the leakage away and into the sensor. In other words, the direction of flow itself is not critical to the function of the invention and the invention would work should flow be in the opposite direction.
As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to modify the combination so that the flow direction is swapped i.e. the at least one gas inlet for the supply of a carrier gas is arranged in an area located centrally with respect to the frame and surrounded radially on the outside by the frame; and the at least one vacuum port is arranged in the area of the outer frame such that the carrier gas flows through the gas inlet through the film chamber volume along the flexible wall portion radially from the inside outward to the vacuum port for the benefit of selecting a variation of inlet/outlet configuration easiest for connection to carrier gas source and vacuum pump.
Regarding Claim 29, Widt discloses the frame is designed to extend annularly around the flexible wall portion and delimits the flexible wall portion [0008] (Figure 1).
Regarding Claim 31, the combination renders obvious the gas inlet is arranged concentrically with respect to the frame [Widt: 0008, 0010] (Figure 1).
The combination would have been obvious for the same reasons regarding the rejection of Claim 28 above.
Regarding Claim 32, Widt discloses the walls of the film chamber are designed to be entirely flexible [0019] and are clamped in the frame (Figure 2).
Regarding Claim 33, the combination renders obvious the vacuum port is formed adjacent to the frame (Wetzig: Figure 1).
The combination would have been obvious for the same reasons regarding the rejection of Claim 28 above.
Regarding Claim 34, Widt discloses the frame comprises a plurality of vacuum ports [0009].
Regarding Claim 35, Widt discloses the plurality of vacuum ports arranged along the circumference of the frame [0009].
The combination fails to expressly disclose the ports are distributed evenly at regular distances.
One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the applicant’s invention would have realized non-even distribution results in more complex flow patterns.
As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to modify the combination so that the ports are distributed evenly at regular distances for the benefit of a simplified, even flow pattern, thus preventing introduction of error.
Regarding Claim 36, Widt discloses two vacuum ports or gas inlets are formed on opposing sides of the film chamber volume [0009].
Regarding Claim 37, Widt discloses the frame has two opposing inner frame surfaces (71, 72) adjacent to the film chamber volume (Figure 2), and the two films have opposing inner film surfaces adjacent to the film chamber volume (Figure 2), the distance between the inner frame surfaces being greater than the distance between the inner film surfaces in the evacuated state of the film chamber when no test specimen is contained in the film chamber (as 5 and 6 would be sucked together in the evacuated state while 71 and 72 would have its distance maintained) (Figure 2).
Regarding Claim 38, the combination fails to expressly disclose the flexible wall portion comprises silicone, butyl rubber or EPDM; however, the intention of the references is to detect the test fluid to determine if a leak is present. Therefore, if a material is used that does absorb the test fluid, the test fluid would not arrive to the detector and a leak would not be detected.
As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to modify the combination so that the flexible wall portion comprises silicone, butyl rubber or EPDM i.e. a material that does not absorb test fluid and/or carrier gas for the benefit of ensuring the most amount of test fluid makes it to the detector so that a leak can be detected.
Regarding Claim 39, Widt discloses a method for leak testing a test specimen containing a test fluid using a film chamber according to claim 28 (see rejection of Claim 28 above), the method comprising the steps of: introducing the test specimen into the film chamber [0031]; evacuating the film chamber by means of the vacuum pump connected to the vacuum port [0032]; supplying the drawn gas mixture to the gas detector [0013]; analyzing the gas mixture for the presence of test fluid using the gas detector [0020].
Widt fails to expressly disclose supplying a carrier gas to the film chamber via the gas inlet; drawing a gas mixture, which is formed by the carrier gas and a test fluid escaping through a leak in the test specimen, through the vacuum port and supplying the drawn gas mixture to a gas detector; and wherein the carrier gas flows through the gas inlet through the film chamber volume along a flexible wall portion radially from an outside inward or from an inside outward to the vacuum port.
Wetzig teaches supplying a carrier gas (in 26) to the film chamber via the gas inlet (Figure 1); drawing a gas mixture, which is formed by the carrier gas and a test fluid escaping through a leak in the test specimen (16), through the vacuum port and supplying the drawn gas mixture to a gas detector (22) [0024]; and wherein the carrier gas flows through the gas inlet through the film chamber volume along a flexible wall portion radially from an outside inward or from an inside outward to the vacuum port (Figure 1).
As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to modify the combination to include the steps of supplying a carrier gas to the film chamber via the gas inlet; drawing a gas mixture, which is formed by the carrier gas and a test fluid escaping through a leak in the test specimen, through the vacuum port and supplying the drawn gas mixture to a gas detector; and wherein the carrier gas flows through the gas inlet through the film chamber volume along a flexible wall portion radially from an outside inward or from an inside outward to the vacuum port for the benefit of increasing the sensitivity of the test by increasing the detection limit, as taught by Wetzig [0005, 0006].
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 17 and 27 are 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.
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 ALEXANDER MERCADO whose telephone number is (571)270-7094. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 9am - 4pm 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, Laura Martin can be reached at (571) 272-2160. 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.
ALEXANDER A. MERCADO
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2855
/ALEXANDER A MERCADO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855
Prosecution Insights