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 filed 12 January 2024 is acknowledged and the information referred to therein has been considered.
Claim Objections
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 8 recites "of the optically transmissive disc is arranged orthogonally or parallel to the center axis" in the last line. The leading "of" here is grammatically out of place and should be removed.
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 6-8 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.
Claims 6 and 8 recite the limitation "the major surface of the aperture." There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Only the disc of claim 2 has a major surface. Moreover, an aperture is a void, and does not have any surfaces. For the purpose of examination, this is interpreted as referring to a plane defining an end of the aperture.
Claim 7 depends from claim 6 and is deficient for the same reason.
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.
Claims 1-3, 5-11, and 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 9,175,988 to Kieliger et al. (hereinafter referred to as Kieliger; cited by applicant) in view of US 2007/0267050 to Cronin et al. (hereinafter referred to as Cronin; cited by applicant).
With regards to claim 1, Kieliger teaches (see, for example, fig. 1, 2, 6, etc.) a probe housing (housing 10) for accommodating sensors (explicitly stated in abstract), comprising:
a plurality of coolant conduits (at least some of channels 32; col. 5, ll. 28-39) distributed in the circumferential direction (col. 4, ll. 3-6; also see fig. 4);
at least one flushing medium conduit (others of channels 32; col. 5, ll. 40-53) ;
a sensor lead-through hole (cavity 28), wherein the sensor lead-through hole extends at least partially parallel to the at least one flushing medium conduit (see fig. 2); and
a sensor receptacle (probe head 18) into which the sensor lead-through hole opens (when attached as per col. 4, ll. 33-37), wherein the sensor receptacle has a measuring section opening (recess 54 with aperture 56), and the sensor receptacle has a flushing medium outlet conduit having a flushing medium outlet which is connected to the at least one flushing medium conduit (a corresponding channel 32 in probe head 18, and mouth thereof, corresponding to a flushing channel 32 in guide tube 14; functionally described in col. 5, ll. 40-44).
Kieliger does not expressly teach that the flushing medium outlet conduit has a tapering cross-section to form a nozzle shape.
Cronin teaches the feature of providing a jet outlet with a small diameter outlet so as to increase the velocity of fluid emitted therefrom when cleaning a sensor surface ([0039]). It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to similarly configure the flushing medium outlet of Kieliger such that it has a smaller diameter toward the outlet (i.e., a tapering cross-section to form a nozzle shape). One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so in order to likewise ensure that the flushing medium has sufficient velocity to keep the surface of aperture 56 clean.
With regards to claim 2, the combination of Kieliger and Cronin teaches the probe housing according to claim 1. Kieliger further teaches an aperture and/or an optically transmissive disc being arranged in or at the measuring section opening, the disc having a major surface (aperture 56 is arranged in recess 54 as shown in fig. 6, etc.).
With regards to claim 3, the combination of Kieliger and Cronin teaches the probe housing according to claim 2. Although this combination does not expressly teach the flushing medium outlet being arranged under an acute angle with respect to a plane in which the major surface is located, this language is defined with respect to an optional feature (the major surface, which is only a feature of the disc of claim 2). Language that suggests or makes a feature or step optional but does not require that feature or step does not limit the scope of a claim under the broadest reasonable claim interpretation. In addition, when a claim requires selection of an element from a list of alternatives, the prior art teaches the element if one of the alternatives is taught by the prior art. See, e.g., Fresenius USA, Inc. v. Baxter Int’l, Inc., 582 F.3d 1288, 1298, 92 USPQ2d 1163, 1171 (Fed. Cir. 2009). Because claim 3 does not explicitly require a disc, this being an optional element according to parent claim 2, the acute angle limitation of this claim is not limiting here. Accordingly, the applied combination still reads on claim 3.
With regards to claim 5, the combination of Kieliger and Cronin teaches the probe housing according to claim 1. Kieliger further teaches the sensor lead-through hole and the at least one flushing medium conduit are surrounded by the coolant conduits and are arranged offset from a center axis of the probe housing (as per fig. 4, which does not show said "flushing medium conduit," but this is part of probe head 18 and would be arranged radially inward of the coolant conduits 32 when the probe head is installed to the housing body).
With regards to claim 6, the combination of Kieliger and Cronin teaches the probe housing according to claim 2. As applied, this combination does not expressly teach the flushing medium outlet having a rectangular cross section with a long side and a short side, and the flushing medium outlet being arranged with the long side parallel to the major surface of the aperture and/or the optically transmissive disc. However, Cronin teaches that nozzles used to clean sensor surfaces may be have any suitable shape, such as round, or slot-shaped ([0039]). Slots are broadly rectangular, having a long side and a short side. In view hereof, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to similarly configure the flushing medium outlet so as to have a rectangular (slotted) cross section with a long side and a short side. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so in order to effectively clean the aperture 56. When doing so, one of ordinary skill would also find it obvious to have the long side of the opening be parallel to the major surface of the aperture, as this would direct the fluid such that the fluid is kept close to and covers the greatest area of the aperture, thereby best fulfilling the purpose of the opening of keeping contaminants away.
With regards to claim 7, the combination of Kieliger and Cronin teaches the probe housing according to claim 6. Although this combination does not expressly teach the flushing medium outlet having a dimension in the direction of the long side that is equal or greater than the maximum dimension of the measuring section opening in that direction, the size of the outlet is a result effective variable that directly relates to the amount of flushing fluid emitted and the area coverable thereby. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the device of Kieliger and Cronin such that the flushing medium outlet has a dimension in the direction of the long side that is equal or greater than the maximum dimension of the measuring section opening in that direction as a matter of routine optimization since it has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). In the instant case, this would ensure that the entirety of the aperture 56 can be reached by the flushing fluid.
With regards to claim 8, the combination of Kieliger and Cronin teaches the probe housing according to claim 2. Kieliger further teaches the major surface of the aperture arranged in the measuring section opening (see col. 5, ll. 6-10, and fig. 5-6) and/or of the optically transmissive disc is arranged orthogonally or parallel to the center axis.
With regards to claim 9, the combination of Kieliger and Cronin teaches the probe housing according to claim 2. Although this combination does not expressly teach the optically transmissive disc comprising an optical element, this language is defined with respect to an optional feature (the optically transmissive disc, which is an optional feature in claim 2). Language that suggests or makes a feature or step optional but does not require that feature or step does not limit the scope of a claim under the broadest reasonable claim interpretation. In addition, when a claim requires selection of an element from a list of alternatives, the prior art teaches the element if one of the alternatives is taught by the prior art. See, e.g., Fresenius USA, Inc. v. Baxter Int’l, Inc., 582 F.3d 1288, 1298, 92 USPQ2d 1163, 1171 (Fed. Cir. 2009). Because claim 9 does not explicitly require an optically transmissive disc, this being an optional element according to parent claim 2, the optical element limitation of this claim is not limiting here. Accordingly, the applied combination still reads on claim 9.
With regards to claim 10, the combination of Kieliger and Cronin teaches the probe housing according to claim 1. Kieliger further teaches the flushing medium outlet line intersecting the measuring section opening (so as to prevent contaminants as per col. 5, ll. 40-45), a sealing air flow being creatable in the measuring section opening (this does not positively require this functionality, only that such functionality be possible ("creatable"), and is not found to be a limiting feature of this apparatus claim).
With regards to claim 11, the combination of Kieliger and Cronin teaches the probe housing according to claim 1. Kieliger further teaches a tubular outer body and an inner body surrounded by the outer body (see fig. 2-4, the outer body is the outside wall, and the inner body is the element is the inside wall 30), the sensor lead-through hole and the at least one flushing medium conduit being are arranged in the inner body (the channels 32 are bounded by inside wall 30, and cavity 28 is surrounded by, and thus inside, wall 30).
With regards to claim 13, the combination of Kieliger and Cronin teaches the probe housing according to claim 11. Kieliger further teaches the coolant conduits being arranged at the circumference of the inner body (in fig. 3-4, the channels 32 are arranged at a circumference of wall 30).
With regards to claim 14, the combination of Kieliger and Cronin teaches the probe housing according to claim 13. Kieliger further teaches coolant conduits being formed by recesses in the inner body (see fig. 4), the outer body limiting the coolant conduits on at least one side (see fig. 4).
With regards to claim 15, the combination of Kieliger and Cronin teaches the probe housing according to claim 1. Kieliger further teaches a probe device with a sensor having a sensor head (the sensor lines being arranged in cavity 28 and the sensor being arranged in probe head 18 behind the aperture 56/cavity 54 to detect a physical quantity), the sensor head being arranged in the sensor receptacle and a measuring outlet of the sensor head is arranged facing to the measuring section opening (the sensor is not depicted in the figures, but would be located behind aperture 56/cavity 54 to detect a physical quantity of the medium into which the housing 10 is placed)
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kieliger and Cronin as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 10,094,771 to Fetzner.
With regards to claim 4, the combination of Kieliger and Cronin teaches the probe housing according to claim 1. This combination does not expressly teach the flushing medium outlet line being designed as a Laval nozzle.
Fetzner teaches the Laval nozzles are useful to maximize the velocity of fluid expelled therefrom (col. 6, ll. 25-31). In view hereof, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the flushing medium outlet line as a Laval nozzle. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so in order to provide the flushing fluid at a high velocity and thereby ensure that the aperture remains clear.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kieliger and Cronin as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of US 9,234,807 to Kubiak et al. (hereinafter referred to as Kubiak).
With regards to claim 12, the combination of Kieliger and Cronin teaches the probe housing according to claim 11. This combination does not expressly teach the tubular outer body having an oval or elliptical cross section.
Kubiak teaches the feature of providing a sensor housing inserted in a flow stream with an elliptical profile (col. 2, ll. 44-56). It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the tubular outer body of Kieliger as modified by Cronin such that it has an oval or elliptical cross section like in Kubiak. Doing so would provide the predictable benefit of minimizing disturbance to the flow of the fluid having a physical parameter sensed.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to James Split whose telephone number is (571)270-1524. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 9:00 to 3:30.
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, Judy Nguyen can be reached at (571)272-2258. 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.
/JS/Examiner, Art Unit 2858
/JUDY NGUYEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2858