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 § 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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Jia et al. (CN 208818251, hereafter referred to as Jia).
Jia teaches at least two nested, interlocking segments, comprising: a lower segment 120; an upper segment 110 disposed above, and attached to, the lower segment with an interlocking joint 112; an upper exterior surface disposed on the upper segment, and wherein the upper and lower segments define a gap disposed therebetween (see figure 1, the locking nut 130 is located in the gap); wherein the upper segment 110 comprises a first passageway 115 operable to hold a sensor probe 150; further comprising a sensor probe 150 disposed in the first passageway.
Claim(s) 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hoening et al. (U.S. 2021/0179299, hereafter referred to as Hoening).
Regarding claims 1, Hoening teaches at least two nested, interlocking segments, comprising: a lower segment 102; an upper segment 101 disposed above, and attached to, the lower segment with an interlocking joint (104, 106); an upper exterior surface disposed on the upper segment, and wherein the upper and lower segments define a gap 204 disposed therebetween.
Additionally, the recitation “a thermally-isolated sensor mount” has not been given patentable weight because it has been held that a preamble is denied the effect of a limitation where the claim following the preamble is a self-contained description of the structure not depending for completeness upon the introductory clause. Kropa v. Robie, 88 USPQ 478 (CCPA 1951).
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) 7, 8 and 10-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jia.
Regarding claim 7, Jia further teaches wherein the lower segment has a cylindrical shape and is threaded 112; wherein the upper segment has a cylindrical shape and is threaded (see figure 1)
However, Jia does not explicitly teach wherein the upper segment is screwed into the lower segment.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the device of Jia since it has been held that a mere reversal of the essential working parts of a device only involves routine skill in the art. In re Einstein, 8 USPQ 167.
Regarding claims 8 and 13, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the
art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Regarding claim 10, it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
Regarding claim 11, a change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claims 12 and 14, Jia teaches at least two nested, interlocking segments, comprising: a lower segment 120; an upper segment 110 disposed above, and attached to, the lower segment with an interlocking joint 112; an upper exterior surface disposed on the upper segment, and wherein the upper and lower segments define a gap disposed therebetween (see figure 1, the locking nut 130 is located in the gap); wherein the upper segment 110 comprises a first passageway 115 operable to hold a sensor probe 150; further comprising a sensor probe 150 disposed in the first passageway. Jia further teaches wherein the lower segment has a cylindrical shape and is threaded 112; wherein the upper segment has a cylindrical shape and is threaded (see figure 1)
However, Jia does not explicitly teach wherein the upper segment is screwed into the lower segment.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the device of Jia since it has been held that a mere reversal of the essential working parts of a device only involves routine skill in the art. In re Einstein, 8 USPQ 167.
Claim(s) 6, 9 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoening.
Hoening further teaches a pair of dovetail joints that slidingly join the lower segment to the upper segment (see para. 0026).
However, Hoening does not explicitly teach wherein the lower segment and the upper segment have a prismatic shape.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the device of Hoening since a change in the shape of a prior art device is a design consideration within the skill of the art. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Regarding claim 9, it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
Regarding claim 11, a change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3 and 5 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.
Claims 15-20 are allowed.
The closest prior art of record fails to teach the invention as set forth in claims 15-20 and the Examiner can find no teaching of the pressure sensor; nor reasons within the cited prior art or on his own to combine the elements of these references other than the applicant’s own reasoning to fully encompass the current pending claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMEL E WILLIAMS whose telephone number is (571)270-7027. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 10am-4pm.
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, John Breene can be reached at (571)272-4107. 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.
/JAMEL E WILLIAMS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855
Prosecution Insights