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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 03/17/2026 has been entered.
Claims 1-20 remain pending and are examined herein on the merits.
Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome the objection previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed 12/18/2025 (hereinafter the OA).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/17/2026 (hereinafter, Remarks) have been fully considered and is partially persuasive as follows:
As to independent claim 1 as amended, the arguments (Remarks, pp. 7-8 under heading I.) are persuasive.
Regarding independent claim 19 the arguments are not persuasive as follows:
Specifically, applicant argues “currently amended independent claim 19 is patentable over the cited references for at least similar reasons as currently amended independent claim 1.”
In response, claim 19 as of the amendment of 03/17/2026 is previously presented not currently amended.
Further, claim 19 does not contain all the limitations of claim 1 and further contradicts claim 1 to include the pressure different than ambient limitations with are not in claim 19 which specifically recites 101kPa (which is ambient pressure; i.e. 1 atmosphere – see the OA at p.11) as the vessel pressure.
Therefore, the position of the office must remain that upon knowledge of the cited art one of ordinary skill in the art would have had all the information and motivation required to make the invention as claimed (in claim 19) at the time it was made.
See rejection under 35 USC 103 below.
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.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over "Effect of Pressure and Oxidant Concentration on Autoignition Temperatures of Selected Combustibles in Various Oxygen and Nitrogen Tetroxide Atmospheres" by Furno et al. – Journal of Chemical and Engineering Data; APR 1968; pp. 243-249 (hereinafter Furno) in view of Evans et al. (US 3578756; hereinafter Evans).
Regarding claim 19, Furno teaches a method to measure autoignition temperatures (abstract “Minimum autoignition temperatures were determined”; see Table II), the method comprising:
flowing a gas (at least “Air”, “Oxygen” or “Nitrogen Tetroxide”; see Table II) from at least one gas source (at least the source of the “Air”, “Oxygen” or “Nitrogen Tetroxide”; see Table II, “the oxidant or oxidantdiluent mixture was introduced through the gas inlet port” p.244, col. 1, 2nd ¶) into a vessel chamber of a pressure vessel via at least one gas inlet (see fig. 1 showing a vessel within a vessel and gas inlets) to at least one of increase an absolute pressure of the vessel chamber to 101 kPa or maintain the absolute pressure of the vessel chamber at 101 kPa (p.244, col. 2, 1st full ¶ teaches using air at atmospheric pressure; please note that 101kPa is known to be atmospheric pressure which is 1 atm), the pressure vessel including one or more vessel walls defining the vessel chamber and an opening (see fig. 1 showing walls and opening(s)), wherein the absolute pressure of the vessel chamber is detected using at least one pressure sensor (pressure transducer; see fig. 1 showing this detection of the chamber pressure);
increasing a temperature in a furnace chamber of a furnace (see fig. 1 showing an electric heating device in the larger insulated chamber for heating via the variable transformers), the furnace disposed in the vessel chamber, the furnace including one or more furnace walls defining the furnace chamber (see fig. 1 showing that the heater/furnace has a wall or walls as shown with the heating coil connected to the variable transformers therein); and
disposing at least one sample into the furnace chamber through at least one sample inlet defined by the furnace (at least inlet from the syringe; see p.244, col. 1, 2nd ¶; see fig. 1).
Furno does not directly and specifically state regarding the pressure vessel including a lid configured to cover the opening and be secured to the one or more vessel walls (see however, p.244, col. 1, 2nd ¶ teaching that a vessel with a cover is known).
Regardless, Evans teaches a method to “determine autoignition temperatures” (abstract) with an oxygen source (36; see fig. 1) and having a lid (col. 2, ¶ at 9 teach at least regarding “A hermetically sealed top assembly, generally designated by the reference character 16, is provided for closing the top of the chamber”; see at least fig. 3).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the autoignition determination method having knowledge of a lid of Furno with the specific knowledge of using the lid/cover for autoignition system/chamber of Evans. This is because such a lid allows for opening and closing the chamber/vessel. This is important in order to access the inside of the chamber/vessel.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-18 and 20 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
The best prior art of record "Effect of Pressure and Oxidant Concentration on Autoignition Temperatures of Selected Combustibles in Various Oxygen and Nitrogen Tetroxide Atmospheres" by Furno et al. – Journal of Chemical and Engineering Data; APR 1968; pp. 243-249, Evans et al. (US 3578756), and Smith et al. (US 20190093622), fail to specifically teach the invention as claimed. The limitations regarding an autoignition system to measure autoignition temperatures having the vessels as recited and configured; the sample dispenser; the gas source; the pressure sensor and the controller as in independent claims 1 and 20 when combined with the specific limitations regarding the pressure vessel configured to exhibit a pressure in the vessel chamber that is different than ambient pressure (claim 1) / the safety outlet (claim 20) as well as all additional limitations also in independent claims 1 and 20 distinguish the present invention from the combined prior art.
Hence the prior art of record fails to teach the invention as set forth in claims 1-18 and 20. The examiner cannot find specific teaching of the invention, nor reasons within the cited art to combine the elements of these references other than applicant’s own reasoning to fully encompass the current pending claims.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892.
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 PHILIP COTEY whose telephone number is (571)270-1029. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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, Laura Martin can be reached at 571-272-2160. 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.
/PHILIP L COTEY/Examiner, Art Unit 2855
/LAURA MARTIN SWEENEY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2855
Prosecution Insights