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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on September 30, 2023; January 2, 2014; and June 18, 2025 are being considered by the examiner.
Response to Amendment
Receipt is acknowledged of the Preliminary Amendment filed on September 30, 2023. Accordingly, claims 1-8 are currently pending in the application.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it is not limited to a single paragraph. Therefore, “[Selected figure] FIG. 1” should be deleted. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Interpretation
According to MPEP 2112.02: Process Claims, it is noted that “Under the principles of inherency, if a prior art device, in its normal and usual operation, would necessarily perform the method claimed, then the method claimed will be considered to be anticipated by the prior art device” (emphasis added). It is also noted in that same MPEP section that “The Federal Circuit upheld the Board’s finding that "Donley inherently performs the function disclosed in the method claims on appeal when that device is used in ‘normal and usual operation’" and found that a prima facie case of anticipation was made out” (emphasis added). Id. at 138, 801 F.2d at 1326. It was up to applicant to prove that Donley's structure would not perform the claimed method when placed in ambient light.).”
With regard to claims 5-8, these claims present an apparatus according to the method of claims 1-4. Therefore, the argument made against claims 1-4 also applies, mutatis mutandis, to claims 5-8. In addition, it is clearly seen that claims 1-4 are process claims which present a process of using the system as claimed in claims 5-8, respectively.
It is noted that the feature, “hollow members” or “a choke structure”, as recited in the claims is just a mere external supporting structure, which is not part of the claimed microwave leakage detection device; therefore, the each of these recited features has no patentable significance since it would both not have modified the operation of the claimed system and be an obvious matter of design choice.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
Claims 1, 4, 5, 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Man (CN 108375419 A).
Man teaches an intrinsic safety explosion-proof infrared microwave detector and its control system comprising:
PNG
media_image1.png
378
300
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
548
864
media_image2.png
Greyscale
With regard to claims 1 and 5, a microwave leakage detection device (FIG. 3 in view of FIG. 2, intrinsic safety type anti-explosion-based infrared microwave detector) comprising: a sensor (FIG. 3 in view of FIG. 2, microwave detecting element with an oscillator 61) with an explosion-proof structure (FIG. 3 in view of FIG. 2, intrinsic safety explosion-proof element 4) capable of detecting an increase in at least one of an electric field and a magnetic field (electromagnetic wave); and a detection unit (FIG. 3 in view of FIG. 2, microwave detection system 6) configured to detect a microwave leakage in accordance with detection of an increase in at least one of an electric field and a magnetic field by the sensor (FIG. 3 in view of FIG. 2, microwave detecting element with an oscillator 61), wherein the sensor (FIG. 3 in view of FIG. 2, microwave detecting element with an oscillator 61) is arranged, in an explosion-proof area (intrinsic safety explosion-proof design) (For more details, please read: Abstract; and paragraphs: [0008]-[0016] and [0018]-[0027]).
Man teaches all that is claimed as discussed above, but it does not specifically teach the following feature:
At a joint portion of flanges of hollow members each having a space into which microwaves are introduced, or on the outer side of a choke structure for preventing microwaves from leaking from inside to outside of the hollow members.
As discussed above, a “hollow member” or “a choke structure” as recited in the claims is not part of the claimed microwave leakage detection device; therefore, the each of these recited features has no patentable significance since it would both not have modified the operation of the claimed system and be an obvious matter of design choice to provide desirable and exemplary choices of a means to support one or more sensors of the microwave leakage detection device for detecting a microwave leakage in accordance with detection of an increase in at least one of an electric field and a magnetic field.
It is noted that the feature as recited in claims 1 and 5 upon which applicant relies (i.e., “arranging… one or more sensors…at a joint portion of flanges of hollow members… or on the outer side of a choke structure”) is just a mere rearrangement of parts and not sufficient by itself to patentably distinguish over Man. In fact, “The mere fact that a worker in the art could rearrange the parts of the reference device to meet the terms of the claims on appeal is not by itself sufficient to support a finding of obviousness. The prior art must provide a motivation or reason for the worker in the art, without the benefit of appellant’s specification, to make the necessary changes in the reference device.” Ex parte Chicago Rawhide Mfg. Co., 223 USPQ 351, 353 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter.1984). Therefore, the court held that mere rearrangement of parts has no patentable significance since it would both not have modified the operation of the device and an obvious matter of design choice (In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) and In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ7 (CCPA 1975): please see MPEP 2144.04 VI. C. Rearrangement of Parts for more details).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the intrinsic safety explosion-proof infrared microwave detector and its control system of Man to arrange, in an explosion-proof area, at a joint portion of flanges of hollow members each having a space into which microwaves are introduced, or on the outer side of a choke structure for preventing microwaves from leaking from inside to outside of the hollow members since such an arrangement is beneficial to provide desirable and exemplary choices of a means to support one or more sensors of the microwave leakage detection device for detecting a microwave leakage in accordance with detection of an increase in at least one of an electric field and a magnetic field.
With regard to claim 4, Man teaches in the step of detecting a microwave leakage, a microwave leakage is detected when an output from at least one of the one or more explosion-proof sensors is equal to an output that corresponds to object detection (in paragraph [0023] Man discloses that the microprocessor system 5 includes a microprocessor component for receiving digital signals from the microwave detection system 6 and the infrared detection system 3 (“output from at least one of the one or more explosion-proof sensors”), and combining the microwave digital signal with the infrared digital signal to detect and trigger an alarm circuit 51. The alarm circuit 51 is coupled to the alarm indicator light 24. Only when the two digital signals detect the target (“object detection”) simultaneously or successively within a short period of time can an alarm signal be issued, causing the alarm indicator light 24 to flash to indicate an alarm (emphasis added)) (For more details, please read: Abstract; and paragraphs: [0008]-[0016] and [0018]-[0027]).
With regard to claim 7, Man teaches a protective member (FIG. 2, bottom shell 1 and upper shell 2) that is provided so as to surround a detection range of the sensor (FIG. 3 in view of FIG. 2, microwave detecting element with an oscillator 61), and through which microwaves are transmitted (For more details, please read: Abstract; and paragraphs: [0008]-[0016] and [0018]-[0027]).
With regard to claim 8, Man teaches a reflective member provided around the sensor (FIG. 3 in view of FIG. 2, microwave detecting element with an oscillator 61) and configured to guide microwaves to the sensor (FIG. 3 in view of FIG. 2, microwave detecting element with an oscillator 61) (“microwave detection system 6 receives the reflected wave signal” as recited in claim 7) (emphasis added) (For more details, please read: Abstract; and paragraphs: [0008]-[0016] and [0018]-[0027]).
Claims 2 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Man in view of Lee et al. (KR 20140137134 A).
Man teaches all that is claimed as discussed in the rejections of claims 1, 4, 5, 7 and 8 above including the sensor (FIG. 3 in view of FIG. 2, microwave detecting element with an oscillator 61), but it does not specifically teach the following feature:
Each of the one or more sensors is an inductive or capacitive explosion-proof proximity sensor.
Lee et al. teaches an explosion proof proximity sensor detecting doors of equipment open or close in hazardous area comprising:
PNG
media_image3.png
626
846
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
344
468
media_image4.png
Greyscale
With regard to claims 2 and 6, a sensor is an inductive or capacitive explosion-proof proximity sensor (FIG.3, inductive proximity sensor 113 or FIG. 6, capacitive proximity sensor 150) (Paragraphs: [0021] and [0025]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the intrinsic safety explosion-proof infrared microwave detector and its control system of Man to use an inductive or capacitive explosion-proof proximity sensor as taught by Lee et al. since such an arrangement is beneficial to provide desirable and exemplary choices of explosion-proof type proximity sensors being used in hazardous areas since they offer a long service life and highly reliability, particularly in challenging industrial environments, for their operation without physical contact and having no mechanical parts, leading to a long functional life and no wear.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Man in view of Martin (JP 2004-524134 A).
It is noted that well-known directional sensors include cameras, infrared sensors, ultrasonic sensors, LiDAR sensors, and radar sensors, all of which have a limited field of view and can only sense in a specific, chosen direction.
Man teaches all that is claimed as discussed in the rejections of claims 1, 4, 5, 7 and 8 above including the sensor (FIG. 3 in view of FIG. 2, microwave detecting element with an oscillator 61), but it does not specifically teach the following feature:
The one or more sensors are directional.
Martin teaches a MATTR instrument comprising:
PNG
media_image5.png
303
374
media_image5.png
Greyscale
With regard to claim 3, a sensor (FIG. 4, PMT or CCD camera) is directional (Paragraph: [0105]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the intrinsic safety explosion-proof infrared microwave detector and its control system of Man to use a directional sensor as taught by Martin since such an arrangement is beneficial to provide desirable and exemplary choices of explosion-proof sensors since the directional sensor offers many benefits in improving accuracy, efficiency, and security. By focusing its sensing capabilities on specific, targeted areas, the directional sensor reduces interference and the processing load that comes from gathering unnecessary data to provide enhanced accuracy and resolution, faster system response times, enhanced security and reliability, and greater efficiency.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Applicant’s attention is invited to the followings whose inventions disclose similar devices.
Park (US 8,119,955 B2) teaches a device for preventing microwave leakage.
Hong (US 2010/0084260 A1) teaches an apparatus for decomposing used tires.
Gao (CN 210867635 U) teaches an explosion-proof proximity switch.
Yang et al. (CN 104595680 A) teaches an explosion-proof intelligent electromagnetic dispenser.
Kako et al. (JP 7-77332 A) teaches a heating device.
CONTACT INFORMATION
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HOAI-AN D. NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571) 272-2170. The examiner can normally be reached MON-THURS (7:00 AM - 5:00 PM).
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, LEE E. RODAK can be reached at 571-270-5628. 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.
HOAI-AN D. NGUYEN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2858
/HOAI-AN D. NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2858