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 .
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The following title is suggested: ADAPTATION DEVICE FOR COUPLING AT LEAST ONE SENSOR TO A TUBE SHELL WALL OF A TUBE FOR FLUID MEASUREMENT.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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, 5-7, 10, 12-13 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Maurer et al US10463306 (hereinafter “Maurer”)
Regarding claim 1, Maurer discloses an adaptation device (overmoulding-9) for coupling at least one sensor (sensor device-30) to a tube shell wall (wall-22) of a tube (lead-20) for measuring a property of a fluid conveyed through the tube (Col 14 line 58-Col 15 line 3), comprising: a base body (measuring device-10), an adapter passage opening (opening-14.1) for providing a fluid connection via a tube shell wall passage opening between a tube lumen and the sensor (Col 14 line 58-Col 15 line 3), a sensor receptacle (cap-14 holds device-30 in place) for accommodating the at least one sensor in the region of the adapter passage opening (See Fig 4A), an adapter sealing portion (Col 9 line 45-Col 10 line 8, Col 17 line 1-29, Step S3.2) extending around the adapter passage opening for sealing the adaptation device with respect to the tube shell wall in a manner surrounding the adapter passage opening, and a mounting structure for supporting a sensor housing, the mounting structure comprising a plurality of mounting strips clamped between parts and/or between components of the sensor housing (Maurer discloses multiple mounting structures comprising a plurality of mounting strips such as intermediate portion 9.3 and contact section-39 (See Fig 5), Recesses-9.2 form multiple mounting strip points of the overmould-9 in a front section, a central section and a back section (See Fig 5 and 7A), Lateral surfaces-9b and 9c provide flanks or holding surfaces to allow overmolding-9 to be clamped and held in an ergonomic manner (See Fig 6b)).
Regarding claim 2, Maurer discloses the base body (measuring device-10) of the adaptation device is adaptable to different outer diameters of the tube shell wall (wall-22). (Col 3 line 38-54, Col 7 line 57-Col 8 line 2)
Regarding claim 5, Maurer discloses the base body (measuring device-10) has adaptation recesses (See Fig 1 which shows radial cavity-26 connecting to an opening in the measuring device-10) in a region radially adjacent to the tube shell wall (wall-22) which permit circumferential adaptation of the base body to the tube shell wall. (Col 14 line 58-Col 15 line 3).
Regarding claim 6, Maurer discloses for adaptation to the tube shell wall (wall-22), the base body (measuring device-10) has adaptation recesses in a region radially adjacent to the tube shell wall which are arranged in a circumferential direction or an axial longitudinal direction along the base body.(See Fig 5 and 7A, Col 15 line 45- Col 16 line 3)
Regarding claim 7, Maurer discloses at least one positioning protrusion for presetting a position of the adaptation device (overmoulding-9) relative to the tube shell wall (wall-22) by cooperating with at least one positioning recess in the tube shell wall, the at least one positioning recess having a shape complementary to the positioning protrusion. (Col 15 line 4-Col 16 line 3, See Figs 1, 5 and 7a )
Regarding claim 10, Maurer discloses at least one connector receptacle (receptacle-5) for an electrical connector for electrical connection of the at least one sensor to an external component. (Fig 4A-B, Col 15 line 30-40)
Regarding claim 12, Maurer discloses a sensor device (system-1) comprising: an adaptation device (overmoulding-9) for coupling a sensor (sensor device-30) to a tube shell wall (wall-22) of a tube (lead-20) for measuring a property of a fluid conveyed through the tube (Col 14 line 58-Col 15 line 3), the adaptation device comprised of a base body (measuring device-10), an adapter passage (opening-14.1), a sensor receptacle (cap-14 holds device-30 in place) for receiving the sensor in the region of the adapter passage opening (See Fig 4A), an adapter sealing portion (Col 9 line 45- Col 10 line 8, Col 17 line 1-29, step S3.2) extending around the passage opening, and a mounting structure, the mounting structure comprising a plurality of mounting strips clamped between one of parts and components of the sensor housing (Maurer discloses multiple mounting structures comprising a plurality of mounting strips such as intermediate portion 9.3 and contact section-39 (See Fig 5), Recesses-9.2 form multiple mounting strip points of the overmould-9 in a front section, a central section and a back section (See Fig 5 and 7A), Lateral surfaces-9b and 9c provide flanks or holding surfaces to allow overmolding-9 to be clamped and held in an ergonomic manner (See Fig 6b))., at least one sensor (sensor-32) accommodated in the at least one sensor receptacle of the adaptation device, a sensor housing accommodating the at least one sensor.
Regarding claim 13, Maurer discloses the sensor housing (See Fig 1, 5 and 7A) is designed as a multi-part housing and the mounting structure (Maurer discloses multiple mounting structures comprising a plurality of mounting strips such as intermediate portion 9.3 and contact section-39 (See Fig 5), Recesses-9.2 form multiple mounting strip points of the overmould-9 in a front section, a central section and a back section (See Fig 5 and 7A), Lateral surfaces-9b and 9c provide flanks or holding surfaces to allow overmolding-9 to be clamped and held in an ergonomic manner (See Fig 6b)).is designed such that it simultaneously effects sealing with respect to at least one of the housing parts via an adapter housing seal. (Col 9 line 45-Col 10 line 8, Col 17 line 1-29, Step S3.2)
Regarding claim 20, Maurer discloses at least one positioning protrusion (Se Figs 1, 5 and 7A) configured to cooperate with a positioning recess in the tube shell wall (wall-22) to set a position of the adaptation device (overmoulding-9) relative to the tube shell wall, and wherein one of the base body (measuring device-10) has a plurality of spaced apart adaptation recesses extending in a longitudinal direction of the base body configured for adapting the adaptation device different tube shell wall diameters. (Col 3 line 38-54, Col 7 line 57-Col 8 line 2)
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.
Claim(s) 3-4 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maurer et al US10463306 (hereinafter “Maurer”) in view of Endress & Hauser GMBH & CO KG EP1939600 (hereinafter “Endress”) in further view of Klenner et al US20160030696 (hereinafter “Klenner”).
Regarding claim 3, Maurer discloses the adaptation device according to claim 1.
However, Maurer fails to disclose the base body in a region radially adjacent to the tube shell wall is made of a plastic soft component having a smaller Shore hardness compared to a plastic hard component of the base body, the plastic soft component disposed in a radially distal region of the base body. Endress discloses the base body (sensor housing-25 connected with sensor housing-45) in a region radially adjacent to the tube shell wall (tubular conduit section-27) is made of a plastic soft component having a different hardness compared to a plastic hard component of the base body, the plastic soft component disposed in a radially distal region of the base body. (Paragraph 0020-0023 and 0034 disclose using plastics with different hardness)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include the design of Endress into Maurer for the purpose of creating a longer lasting device. The modification would allow for a decrease in potential mechanical damage.
However, the combination fails to disclose using plastic soft component having a smaller shore hardness compared to a plastic hard component of the same body. Klenner discloses using plastic soft component (Paragraph 0274-0280 and 0772 discloses a nasal cannula-614 made up of two sections of the same material, with the first and second sections having a different shore hardness) having a smaller shore hardness compared to a plastic hard component of the same body.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include the design of Endress into Maurer for the purpose of creating a longer lasting device. The modification would allow for a more firmer clamping while also decreasing potential mechanical damage.
Regarding claim 4, Maurer disclsoes the device according to claim 3.
However, Maurer fails to disclose the plastic soft component is configured for use in an adaptable design of the base body and the adaptation device. Endress discloses the plastic soft component (housing-25 connected to sensor housing-45) is configured for use in an adaptable design of the base body and the adaptation device. (Paragraph 0020-0023 and 0034 disclose using plastics with different hardness)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include the design of Endress into Maurer for the purpose of creating a longer lasting device. The modification would allow for a decrease in potential mechanical damage.
However, the combination fails to disclose using plastic soft component having a smaller shore hardness compared to a plastic hard component of the same body. Klenner discloses using plastic soft component (Paragraph 0274-0280 and 0772 discloses a nasal cannula-614 made up of two sections of the same material, with the first and second sections having a different shore hardness) having a smaller shore hardness compared to a plastic hard component of the same body.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include the design of Endress into Maurer for the purpose of creating a longer lasting device. The modification would allow for a more firmer clamping while also decreasing potential mechanical damage.
Regarding claim 19, Maurer disclsoes the device according to claim 3.
However, Maurer fails to disclose the plastic soft component is configured for sealing the base body and one of the tube shell wall and at least part of the sensor housing. Endress discloses the plastic soft component (housing-25 connected to sensor housing-45) is configured for sealing the base body and one of the tube shell wall and at least part of the sensor housing. (Paragraph 0024-0026)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include the design of Endress into Maurer for the purpose of creating a longer lasting device. The modification would allow for a decrease in potential mechanical damage.
However, the combination fails to disclose using plastic soft component having a smaller shore hardness compared to a plastic hard component of the same body. Klenner discloses using plastic soft component (Paragraph 0274-0280 and 0772 discloses a nasal cannula-614 made up of two sections of the same material, with the first and second sections having a different shore hardness) having a smaller shore hardness compared to a plastic hard component of the same body.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include the design of Endress into Maurer for the purpose of creating a longer lasting device. The modification would allow for a more firmer clamping while also decreasing potential mechanical damage.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8-9, 11 and 14-18 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Prior art made available do not teach, or fairly suggest, at least one force measuring structure configured for measuring a mechanical stress acting on the base body of the adaptation device, at least one sensor passage opening for coupling a another sensor to the tube shell wall of the tube., the at least one sensor comprises a pressure sensor and the at least one force measuring structure is configured for at least one of calibration and correction of the pressure sensor as disclosed in respective claims 8, 11 and 17.
Conclusion
The prior art as cited on the PTO-892 is made of record and not relied upon but considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NIGEL H PLUMB whose telephone number is (571)272-8886. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7am-5pm.
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 (USA or CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/NIGEL H PLUMB/Examiner, Art Unit 2855
/Eric S. McCall/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855