DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Drawings
The replacement drawings filed 4/29/26 are approved and have been entered.
Specification
The amendment to the specification filed 4/29/26 is approved and has been entered.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 16-19, 23, 24, and 27-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DE202013002905 to Oventrop cited in the IDS filed 10/11/23 [see the attached translation].
Referring to claim 16, Oventrop discloses a coupling element (figure 4; paragraphs 5, 7, 11, 18-20) for fastening a device to a container (15), the device being configured for determining and/or monitoring a process variable including a temperature of a medium in the container (15), the coupling element comprising:
a main body (1) including a contact surface configured to enable the main body (1) to be applied to an outer surface (13) of the container (15);
wherein the main body (1) includes a bore (6) that is configured to receive a sensor element (7) of the device, the sensor element (7) being configured for determining and/or monitoring the process variable (temperature);
wherein a longitudinal axis of the bore (6) extends tangentially to the contact surface (13) (figure 4); and
wherein a longitudinal axis of the container (15) and the longitudinal axis of the bore (6) are arranged at an angle to each other.
Oventrop does not explicitly disclose the angle being at a 45° angle to each other.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Oventrop by making the angle a 45º angle in order to provide a desired angle to conduct heat to the sensor element an obtain a more accurate temperature measurement; and since the particular angle claimed by the applicant is only considered to be the optimum value of the angle disclosed by Oventrop that a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been able to determine using routine experimentation based on the desired accuracy, etc. and since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result-effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Referring to claim 17, Oventrop discloses the contact surface (13) being adapted to correspond to a surface of the container (15) (figure 4).
Referring to claim 18, Oventrop discloses that the contact surface comprises a material selected and configured such that the contact surface can be adapted to a contour of the outer surface of the container (12) (clamps onto the container (15) (figure 4; paragraphs 18-20); but does not explicitly disclose that the contact surface comprises, at least in part, a deformable or ductile material selected and configured such that the contact surface can be adapted to a contour of the outer surface of the container.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Oventrop by having the contact surface comprise, at least in part, a deformable or ductile material selected and configured such that the contact surface can be adapted to a contour of the outer surface of the container in order to resiliently clamp the device around the container, which Oventrop suggests is desirable; and since the particular type of material used to make the contact surface is only considered to be the use of a “preferred” or “optimum” material out of a plurality of well-known materials that a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been able to provide based on the intended use of applicant’s apparatus, i.e., suitability for the intended use of applicant’s apparatus. See In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960), where the courts held that a selection of a material on the basis of suitability for intended use of an apparatus would be entirely obvious.
Referring to claim 19, Oventrop discloses that the bore (6) is closed in an end region, which end region lies within a volume of the main body (1) (figure 4).
Referring to claim 23, Oventrop discloses that the container (15) is a pipeline conveying the medium (figure 4; paragraphs 1, 5, 7, 11, 18-20).
Referring to claim 24, Oventrop discloses a pipeline portion (8) arranged adjacent the contact surface, which pipeline portion is configured to guide the medium (therethrough) (figures 3, 4).
Referring to claim 27, Oventrop discloses a coupling element having all of the limitations of claim 27, as stated above with respect to claim 16, except for thermal insulation comprising a thermally insulating material that is arranged in a region of the main body facing away from the contact surface and the bore, which thermal insulation at least partially surrounds the main body, or wherein the main body consists of the thermally insulating material in the region of the main body facing away from the contact surface and the bore.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Oventrop by having the main body consist of a thermally insulating material in the region of the main body facing away from the contact surface and the bore in order to reduce heat loss from the contact surface; and since the particular type of material used to make the Min body is only considered to be the use of a “preferred” or “optimum” material out of a plurality of well-known materials that a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been able to provide based on the intended use of applicant’s apparatus, i.e., suitability for the intended use of applicant’s apparatus. See In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960), where the courts held that a selection of a material on the basis of suitability for intended use of an apparatus would be entirely obvious.
Referring to claim 28, Oventrop discloses that the main body (1) consists of a thermally conductive material (14) in a region facing the contact surface and the bore (figure 4; paragraph 20).
Referring to claim 29, Oventrop discloses the main body (1) being constructed from at least two components (1, 14) in a layered structure (figure 4; paragraph 20).
Referring to claim 30, Oventrop discloses an element having all of the limitations of claim 30, as stated above with respect to claim 16, except for the main body being fabricated, at least in part, from a sintered material or a composite material.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make (fabricate) the main body of Oventrop at least in part from a sintered material or a composite material in order to provide a material with a desired thermal coupling between the contact surface to the sensor element, which Oventrop suggests is desirable (paragraph 20); and since the use of the particular type of materials claimed by applicant, i.e., sintered or composite, are considered to be nothing more than a choice of engineering skill, choice, or design, because the use of the particular materials claimed by applicant are considered to be the use of numerous and known alternate types of materials that a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been able to provide using routine experimentation in order to provide a material for supporting the sensor element as already suggested by Oventrop.
Referring to claim 31, Oventrop discloses that the coupling element includes at least two, separately manufactured, coupling components (two different objects) (1, 14) (figure 4; paragraph 20).
Referring to claim 32, the method of fabricating the coupling element of Oventrop (by a 3D printing process) is not germane to the issue of patentability of the apparatus itself. Therefore, this limitation has not been given patentable weight.
Referring to claim 33, Oventrop discloses a fastener (9) configured to fasten the main body (1) to the container (15) (figure 1).
Referring to claim 34, Oventrop discloses a device (figure 4) for determining and/or monitoring a process variable including a temperature of a medium in a container (15), the device comprising:
the coupling element according to claim 16 (as stated above); and
a sensor element (7).
Claims 25 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oventrop in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication 2019/0353528 to Umkehrer.
Referring to claim 25, Oventrop discloses an element having all of the limitations of claim 25, as stated above with respect to claim 16, except for a member comprising a material having anisotropic thermal conductivity arranged in a region of the contact surface.
However, Umkehrer discloses (paragraphs 8, 11, 22, 23, 26, 31, 52, 53) a device for detecting a process variable (temperature), wherein the device comprises a member comprising a material having anisotropic thermal conductivity arranged in a region of a contact surface in order to direct heat flow toward a temperature sensor (7).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Oventrop with a member comprising a material having anisotropic thermal conductivity arranged in a region of the contact surface, as suggested by Umkehrer, in order to direct heat flow toward the sensor element, thereby allowing for a more accurate temperature measurement.
Referring to claim 26, Oventrop in view of Umkehrer disclose an element having all of the limitations of claim 26, as stated above with respect to claim 25, wherein Umkehrer discloses that the material having the anisotropic thermal conductivity comprises graphite or hexagonal boron nitride (paragraph 26).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oventrop in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication 2013/0070808 to Daily et al [hereinafter Daily].
Referring to claim 20, Oventrop discloses an element having all of the limitations of claim 20, as stated above with respect to claim 16, except for a shaft that extends from the main body and opens into the bore.
However, Daily discloses a coupling element (figures 1, 2, 4; paragraphs 1, 2, 24-26, 29, 30) for fastening a device (14) to a container (12), the device (14) being configured for determining and/or monitoring a process variable including a temperature of a medium in the container (12) (paragraph 24), the coupling element comprising: a main body (28/42) including a contact surface (32) configured to enable the main body (28/42) to be applied to the container face to face via the contact surface (32) (figure 4; paragraph 25); wherein the main body (28/42) includes a bore (36) that is configured to receive a sensor element (24) of the device (14), the sensor element (24) being configured for determining and/or monitoring the process variable (figure 4; paragraphs 24, 26); wherein a longitudinal axis of the bore (36) extends tangentially to the contact surface (32) (e.g., parallel) (figures 1, 4) and a shaft (16) that extends from the main body (28/42) and opens into the bore (36) (figures 1, 4) for enclosing the sensor element conductors from the sensor element to instrumentation (paragraph 20).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Oventrop with a shaft that extends from the main body and opens into the bore in order to enclose the sensor element conductors from the sensor element to instrumentation, which Daily suggests is desirable.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims have been considered, but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection stated above.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 MIRELLYS JAGAN whose telephone number is (571)272-2247. The examiner can normally be reached Tuesday-Friday 8-6.
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, Kristina DeHerrera can be reached at 303-297-4237. 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.
/MIRELLYS JAGAN/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2855
6/5/26
Prosecution Insights