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 .
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.
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.
Claim 19 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. In claim 19, line 3, the phrase “the neck tube” lacks positive antecedent basis.
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 15, 16, 21, and 24-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Schrettenbrunner (EP 19747273 A1). The Schrettenbrunner reference discloses an apparatus for determining and/or monitoring temperature of a medium in a containment (Abs.), comprising a measuring insert (22), in which at least one temperature sensor is arranged (Abs.), and
a protective tube (20), which serves for contacting the medium and for accommodating the measuring insert,
wherein the apparatus further comprises at least one diagnostic unit, which includes at least a first electrode (34,36) of a first material, which first electrode is located, at least partially, in an internal volume of the apparatus (Fig. 1).
With respect to claim 16, a “neck tube” (24) is shown (Fig. 2).
With respect to claim 21, there is an “O-ring” (30) for sealing.
With respect to claims 24 & 25, a “securement” (26) in the form of a screwed “nut” secures the diagnostic unit.
With respect to claim 26, see Fig. 1.
Claims 15, 17, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Madhukar (EP 2176724-B1). The Madhukar reference discloses an apparatus for determining and/or monitoring temperature of a medium in a containment (“The invention relates to a device for determining and / or monitoring at least one process variable, with at least one housing. For example, the process variable is temperature, level, density, flow, viscosity, or pH.”), comprising a measuring insert (Figs. 1 & 2), in which at least one temperature sensor is arranged (1), and
a protective tube (2), which serves for contacting the medium and for accommodating the measuring insert (Fig. 1),
wherein the apparatus further comprises at least one diagnostic unit (5, 6), which includes at least a first electrode (4) of a first material, which first electrode is located, at least partially, in an internal volume of the apparatus (“Through application in the process, through aging processes or damage, it may happen that the protection unit 2 no longer completely isolated, but for example, takes damage or tears off, for example. In order to detect such a process or state of the leak, the evaluation unit 5 evaluates the measurement signals of the two temperature sensors 1, 4 and compares them with the stored temperature profile or evaluates the measurement signals based on the profile. If changes in the two measuring signals occur, or if the measuring signals of the two sensors 1, 4 differ more than a pre-definable deviation from the temperature profile, the evaluating unit 5 generates a corresponding signal, e.g.: an alarm. Alternatively, the evaluation unit 5 controls the resulting difference between the two temperatures resulting from the measurement signals. If the medium 10 enters the protection unit 2, it may, depending on the design and arrangement of the temperature sensors 1, 4 come into direct contact with them, whereby the temperature readings no longer agree with the stored temperature profile or deviate from it. The difference between the temperature values may become larger or smaller due to the breakage or generally the damage of the protection unit 2. The evaluation unit 5 detects such a deviation and triggers, if necessary, a corresponding alarm or a corresponding signal. In another, safety-related design, the process itself is also shut down.”).
Claims 15, 17, 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Irrgang (US PG Pub # 2018/0364110). The Irrgang reference discloses an apparatus for determining and/or monitoring temperature of a medium in a containment (Abs.), comprising a measuring insert (Fig. 1), in which at least one temperature sensor (5) is arranged, and
a protective tube (3), which serves for contacting the medium and for accommodating the measuring insert (para. # 0060),
wherein the apparatus further comprises at least one diagnostic unit (7), which includes at least a first electrode (6) of a first material, which first electrode is located, at least partially, in an internal volume of the apparatus (para. # 0062-0064).
With respect to claims 17 & 18, see Figure 1.
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 15-25, 27, and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barben et al (EP 0441659 A1) in view of Irrgang (US PG Pub # 2018/0364110). The Barben reference discloses an apparatus for determining and/or monitoring a medium in a containment (Fig. 1), comprising a measuring insert, in which at least one sensor (10) is arranged, and
a protective tube (24), which serves for contacting the medium and for accommodating the measuring insert,
wherein the apparatus further comprises at least one diagnostic unit, which includes at least a first electrode (12,18) of a first material, which first electrode is located, at least partially, in an internal volume of the apparatus (Fig. 1).
The Barben reference does not disclose that the sensor (10) is a temperature sensor, but the Irrgang reference shows that it was known to place a temperature sensor inside of the kind of protective housing (24) shown in Barben for monitoring a medium without the sensor being directly exposed to said medium (and Barben mentions in passing the inclusion of a temperature sensor (32) in an alternative embodiment shown in Fig. 3), so it would have been obvious to the ordinary practioner to change the pH sensor (10) to a temperature sensor if the application called for temperature measurement of the medium.
With respect to claim 16, the Barben reference shows (Fig. 1) a neck between elements 16 & 20.
With respect to claims 17 & 18, see Figure 1 of Barben.
With respect to claim 19, extending electrodes 12 & 18 of Barben into the “neck” would have been an obvious design choice to increase the sensitivity of the leakage detector.
With respect to claim 20, Barben mentions placing a dry salt such as NaCl into the tube.
With respect to claim 21, obviously the tube is sealed, as the point of the invention is to seal the internal electronics from the medium being sensed.
With respect to claims 22-23, one of the two electrodes (12,18) is made from zinc, and the other is silver, and the tube is glass.
With respect to claims 24 & 25, obviously some means for securing the tube into place would be necessary in order for it to be operative, and the three different types of securing mentioned in claim 25 were common in the art, and would have been obvious to try motivated by their art recognized suitability for their intended use.
With respect to claim 27, this seems to be stating an obvious truism.
With respect to claim 28, the housing is, alternatively, filled with a dry salt.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Any other reference cited but not applied show the general state of the art.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RANDY W GIBSON whose telephone number is (571)272-2103. The examiner can normally be reached Tue-Friday 10AM-6PM.
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, Peter Macchiarolo can be reached at 571-272-2375. 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.
RANDY W. GIBSON
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2856
/RANDY W GIBSON/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855