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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
Acknowledgement is made of Applicant’s Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) form PTO-1149 filed 01/10/2024 & 08/12/2025. These IDS have been considered.
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 32, 36, 37, 39, 40, 45, 48, 49, and 51 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 32, the lines 1-2 limitation “the detector high vacuum pump” lacks antecedent basis. Claim 21 on which this claim depends recites a “specimen high vacuum pump” and a “pre-vacuum pump”. Not a “detector high vacuum pump”. Claim 22 recites a “detector high vacuum pump”. For the purposes of applying prior art, Examiner is interpreting this claim as either reciting the specimen high vacuum pump, or depending upon claim 22.
Regarding claim 36, the line 2 limitations “the detector line” and “the detector high vacuum pump” both lack antecedent basis. Claim 21 on which this claim depends recites a “test specimen line” and a “specimen high vacuum pump” and a “pre-vacuum pump”. Not a “detector line” or “detector high vacuum pump”. Claim 22 recites a “detector line” and a “detector high vacuum pump”. For the purposes of applying prior art, Examiner is interpreting this claim as either reciting the specimen line and the specimen high vacuum pump, or depending upon claim 22.
Regarding claim 37, the line 1 limitation “the stop valve” and the line 2 limitation “the detector line” both lack antecedent basis. Claim 21 on which this claim depends recites a “test specimen line”. Not a “detector line”. Claim 22 recites a “detector line”. For the purposes of applying prior art, Examiner is interpreting this claim as either reciting the specimen line or depending upon claim 22.
Regarding claim 39, the line 2 limitation “a detector high vacuum pump” is confusing because claim 22 on which this claim depends already recites a detector high vacuum pump. Is the instant recitation a second detector high vacuum pump? Or should it read --the detector high vacuum pump--? For the purposes of applying prior art, Examiner is interpreting this limitation as --the detector high vacuum pump-- which is most consistent with the specification.
Regarding claim 45, the line 1 limitation “the stop valve” lacks antecedent basis. Examiner reads --a stop valve--.
Regarding claim 48, the line 3 limitation “the detector high vacuum pump” lacks antecedent basis. Claim 47, on which this claim depends, depends on any of the preceding claims, half of which are drawn to the embodiment that recites a test specimen high vacuum pump” rather than a detector high vacuum pump.
Regarding claim 51, the limitation “the detector line” lacks antecedent basis. Claim 47, on which this claim depends, depends on any of the preceding claims, half of which are drawn to the embodiment that recites “a test specimen line” rather than a “a detector line.
Also regarding claim 51, the use of the phrase “in particular” is indefinite because it is unclear if Applicant intends for the phrase and/or structure that follows “in particular” to be given patentable weight or is only being provided as an example. Description of examples or preferences is properly set forth in the specification rather than the claims. If stated in the claims, examples and preferences may lead to confusion over the intended scope of a claim. In those instances where it is not clear whether the claimed narrower range is a limitation, a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) should be made. See MPEP 2173.05(d).
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.
Claims 21, 22, 32-35, 38-43, and 46 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ding et al. (CN 111141458; “Ding”, see attached machine translation).
Regarding claim 21, Ding discloses in figure 1 a leak detection device, comprising a test specimen port (port connecting the device to cylinder 1), a specimen high vacuum pump (14), the inlet of which is connected with the test specimen port, at least one pre-vacuum pump (15), the inlet of which is connected via a test specimen line with the outlet of the specimen high vacuum pump (14), and a gas detector (13) connected with the at least one pre-vacuum pump (15), which is connected via at least a first gas line with the specimen high vacuum pump (14), the test specimen line and/or the test specimen port such that gas from the specimen port is supplied to the gas detector (13) via the first gas line for gas analysis, wherein a gas pressure measuring volume (6) connected with a gas pressure sensor (11) is configured in the test specimen line (¶ [0031]).
Ding does not explicitly disclose the device is for combined integral and localizing leak detection and such that, during gas measurement with the gas detector, an integral leak detection can be carried out by measuring the pressure profile in the gas pressure measuring volume.
Examiner notes both of these limitations recite an intended use of the device. A claim containing a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. See MPEP § 2114 (II).
Furthermore, based on the claim construction, it appears that the limitation “an integral leak detection can be carried out” is a latent property of the structure of the claimed device, not a structural or properly recited functional limitation. See MPEP §2145(II).
Regarding claim 22, Ding discloses in figure 1 a leak detection device, comprising a test specimen port (port connecting the device to cylinder 1), a detector high vacuum pump (14), at least one pre-vacuum pump (15), the inlet of which is connected via a detector line with the outlet of the detector high vacuum pump (14), and a gas detector (13) connected with the inlet of the detector high vacuum pump (14), which is connected via at least a first gas line with the test specimen line and/or the test specimen port such that gas from the specimen port is supplied to the gas detector (13) via the first gas line for gas analysis, wherein a gas pressure measuring volume (6) connected with a gas pressure sensor (11) is configured in the detector line (¶ [0031]).
Ding does not explicitly disclose the device is for combined integral and localizing leak detection and such that, during gas measurement with the gas detector, an integral leak detection can be carried out by measuring the pressure profile in the gas pressure measuring volume.
Examiner notes both of these limitations recite an intended use of the device. A claim containing a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. See MPEP § 2114 (II).
Furthermore, based on the claim construction, it appears that the limitation “an integral leak detection can be carried out” is a latent property of the structure of the claimed device, not a structural or properly recited functional limitation. See MPEP §2145(II).
Regarding claim 32, Ding discloses the outlet of the detector high vacuum pump (14) is connected with the pre-vacuum pump (15) in order to be evacuated thereby (¶ [0031]).
Regarding claim 33, Ding discloses the gas detector (13) is a mass spectrometer (¶ [0031]).
Regarding claim 34, Ding discloses the gas pressure sensor (11) is a pressure gauge as a total pressure sensor, a gas tightness sensor, or a differential pressure sensor (¶ [0031]).
Regarding claim 35, Ding discloses at least one other gas line provided with a selectively closable stop valve (17) is provided and/or that the first gas line has a selectively closable stop valve (¶ [0031]).
Regarding claim 38, Ding discloses the test specimen line has a selectively closable stop valve (9) between the gas pressure measuring volume (6) and the at least one pre-vacuum pump (15) (¶ [0031]).
Regarding claim 39, Ding discloses the gas line and/or at least one intermediate gas line opens into a detector high vacuum pump (14) evacuating the gas detector (13) (¶ [0031]).
Regarding claim 40, Ding discloses the outlet of the detector high vacuum pump (14) is connected with the pre-vacuum pump (15) in order to be evacuated thereby (¶ [0031]).
Regarding claim 41, Ding discloses the gas detector (13) is a mass spectrometer (¶ [0031]).
Regarding claim 42, Ding discloses the gas pressure sensor (11) is a pressure gauge as a total pressure sensor, a gas tightness sensor, or a differential pressure sensor (¶ [0031]).
Regarding claim 43, Ding discloses at least one other gas line provided with a selectively closable stop valve (17) is provided and/or that the first gas line has a selectively closable stop valve (¶ [0031]).
Regarding claim 46, Ding discloses the test specimen line has a selectively closable stop valve (9) between the gas pressure measuring volume (6) and the at least one pre-vacuum pump (15) (¶ [0031]).
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 36 and 44 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bohm et al. (USPN 5,900,537; “Bohm”).
Regarding claim 36, Ding discloses all the limitations of claim 21 on which this claim depends.
Ding is silent to a stop valve is provided in the detector line connecting the detector high vacuum pump and the at least one pre-vacuum pump.
In the same field of endeavor, Bohm discloses in figure 1 a leak detector in which a stop valve (16) is provided in the detector line connecting the detector high vacuum pump (7) and the at least one pre-vacuum pump (5) (col. 2, lines 39-67).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to include Bohm’s valve in Ding’s detector for the purpose of better controlling gas flow between the pumps so that high sensitivity detection can be carried out (col. 2, lines 39-67).
Regarding claim 44, Ding discloses all the limitations of claim 22 on which this claim depends.
Ding is silent to a selectively closable stop valve (16) is provided in the detector line connecting the detector high vacuum pump (7) and the at least one pre-vacuum pump (5) (col. 2, lines 39-67).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to include Bohm’s valve in Ding’s detector for the purpose of better controlling gas flow between the pumps so that high sensitivity detection can be carried out (col. 2, lines 39-67).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 23-31, 47, and 50 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 37, 45, 48, 49 and 51 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure and represents the general state of the art.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATALIE HULS whose telephone number is (571)270-5914. The examiner can normally be reached T-F 7-4 EST.
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, Catherine Rastovski can be reached at (571) 270-0349. 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.
/NATALIE HULS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2863