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 .
Drawings
The drawing of figure 1 is objected to because unlabeled non-descriptive representations are impermissible under 37 CFR 1.83(a) which states (bold for emphasis):
(a) The drawing in a nonprovisional application must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. However, conventional features disclosed in the description and claims, where their detailed illustration is not essential for a proper understanding of the invention, should be illustrated in the drawing in the form of a graphical drawing symbol or a labeled representation (e.g., a labeled rectangular box). In addition, tables that are included in the specification and sequences that are included in sequence listings should not be duplicated in the drawings.
Element(s) 9, 11, 13, 15, 21 as shown in fig.1 need appropriate legends in the form of descriptive text labels in addition to any reference characters already present. Empty or not labeled rectangular boxes and non-descriptive representations of features are not descriptive, and therefore incomplete. The descriptive text labels should contain as few words as possible. See also 37 CFR 1.84(n) (conventional symbols), 1.84(o) (required descriptive legends), & 1.84(p) (standards for the text labels), and MPEP 608.02(b)(II)(¶ 6.22) (“descriptive text label”).
Appropriate Correction is required.
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 1-3 and 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Noordover – US 20130152674.
As to claim 1, Noordover teaches a method for measuring a viscosity of an oil ([0129-0132]: dimension of bleed/stain zone ZB is compared with a reference value; bleed zone is less than a reference size means increased oil viscosity or high viscosity, so bleed zone is larger mean lower oil viscosity, hence determine viscosity which is high or low; thus “a method for measuring a viscosity of an oil”), comprising:
placing a drop of the oil on a piece of blotter paper to form a stain ([0123, 0129]: placing a quantity QG of used grease on a test medium 102 i.e. paper 105 to form a bleed/stain; [0123]: paper fibers correspond to “blotter paper”; thus “placing a drop of the oil on a piece of blotter paper to form a stain”);
measuring a size of the stain at a given time after placing the drop of the oil on the piece of blotter paper 105 ([0129-0132]: after oil sample is prepared i.e. placing a drop of the oil on a piece of blotter paper to form a stain and then the oil sample on the paper is heated by placing the oil sample paper on heater 104 and heated to about a predetermined temperature for a predetermined period of time, preferably to within a range of about sixty degree Celsius (60° C.) to about sixty-five degree Celsius (65° C.) for at least two hours; after each sample 101, 103 has been prepared, each sample 101, 103 is measured as indicated in FIG. 17, preferably by using scale 106 to measure the diameter of the bleed zone ZB; thus “measuring a size of the stain at a given time after placing the drop of the oil on the piece of blotter paper”); and
determining the viscosity of the oil by comparing the size of the stain at the given time with empirical data relating stain size, time and oil viscosity ([0129-0132]: dimension of bleed/stain zone ZB is compared with a reference value; bleed zone is less than a reference size means increased oil viscosity or high viscosity, so bleed zone is larger mean lower oil viscosity, hence determine viscosity which is high or low; reference bleed zone dimension DR. as shown in figs. 20-21 is inherently measured at a given time; hence, reference bleed zone dimension DR. corresponds to “empirical data”; thus “determining the viscosity of the oil by comparing the size of the stain at the given time with empirical data relating stain size, time and oil viscosity”).
As to claim 2, Noordover teaches before measuring the size of the stain/bleed: placing the piece of blotter paper 105 on a temperature-controlled plate 104 ([0126 and 0129-0132]: after oil sample is prepared i.e. placing a drop of the oil on a piece of blotter paper to form a stain and then the oil sample on the paper is heated by placing the oil sample paper on heater 104 and heated to about a predetermined temperature for a predetermined period of time, preferably to within a range of about sixty degree Celsius (60° C.) to about sixty-five degree Celsius (65° C.) for at least two hours; after each sample 101, 103 has been prepared, each sample 101, 103 is measured as indicated in FIG. 17, preferably by using scale 106 to measure the diameter of the bleed zone ZB; thus “before measuring the size of the stain/bleed: placing the piece of blotter paper on a temperature-controlled plate”); and setting a temperature of the plate to a predetermined temperature ([0130]).
As to claim 3, Noordover teaches placing the piece of blotter paper 105 on the temperature-controlled plate 104 occurs after placing the drop of the oil on the piece of blotter paper 105 ([0126 and 0129-0132]).
As to claims 7-8, Noordover teaches a volume of the drop of the oil is between 50 μL and 100 µL; a volume of the drop of the oil is 80 μ ([0067]: volume of grease used is typically from 0.01 ml to 10 ml; thus “a volume of the drop of the oil is between 50 μL and 100 µL; a volume of the drop of the oil is 80 μ”).
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 4-6, 10-12 and 14 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by Noordover – US 20130152674.
As to claims 4-6, Noordover does not explicitly teach the predetermined temperature is between 50°C and 60°C.
Since Noordover teaches oil sample on blotter paper is heated to about a predetermined temperature for a predetermined period of time, preferably to within a range of about sixty degree Celsius (60° C.) to about sixty-five degree Celsius (65° C.) for at least two hours ([0130]), it would thus have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Noordover to include any desired predetermined heating temperature including i.e. the predetermined temperature is between 50°C and 60°C (as recited in claim 4), the predetermined temperature is between 53°C and 57°C (as recited in claim 5), the predetermined temperature is 55°C (as recited in claim 6), since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable predetermined temperature ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955); and since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable i.e. predetermined temperature involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980), while still solve the problem of: determining viscosity which is high or low.
As to claim 10, Noordover does not explicitly teach a volume of the drop of oil and the blotter paper are selected such that the drop of oil produces a stain on the blotter paper having a diameter of at least 10 mm two seconds after the drop of oil is placed on the blotter paper.
Since Noordover teaches a volume of the drop of oil/grease is selected/predetermined such that the drop of oil/grease produces a stain/bleed on the blotter paper 105 (after a certain period of time) having a predetermined amount/volume of grease when applying the grease quantity QG onto the medium 105, wherein the predetermined amount/volume of grease/oil is selected using boundary line 107 (with a certain diameter because the boundary line 107 is generally circular) on the blotter paper 105 ([0124]), it would thus have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Noordover to include a volume of the drop of oil and the blotter paper are selected such that the drop of oil produces a stain on the blotter paper having a diameter of at least 10 mm after any desired period i.e. two seconds after the drop of oil is placed on the blotter paper, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable i.e. (a stain is produced two seconds after the drop of oil is placed on the blotter paper) involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980), while still solve the problem of: to ensure a predetermined amount/volume of grease/oil to be used/applied prior to heating.
As to claim 11, Noordover does not explicitly teach the viscosity of the oil is determined with a maximum deviation of 14% compared to reality.
Since Noordover teaches determine viscosity which is high or low (as reasons stated in the rejection of claim 1), it would thus have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Noordover to include the viscosity of the oil (i.e. an increase of viscosity of the oil) is determined with a maximum deviation of 14% compared to reality, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable i.e. (a maximum deviation) involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980), while still solve the problem of: establishing an absolute boundary of inaccuracy.
As to claim 12, claim 12 is rejected as reasons stated in the rejection of claims 6, 8, and 10.
As to claim 14, Noordover teaches a viscosity testing kit 200 for measuring a viscosity of an oil ([0129-0132]: dimension of bleed/stain zone ZB is compared with a reference value; bleed zone is less than a reference size means increased oil viscosity or high viscosity, so bleed zone is larger mean lower oil viscosity, hence determine viscosity which is high or low; thus “a viscosity testing kit for measuring a viscosity of an oil”), comprising:
a pipette ([0065]: syringe); a temperature-controlled plate 104, at least one piece of blotter paper 105 (as reasons stated in the rejection of claim 1), and the viscosity of the oil is determined by comparing the size of the stain at the given time with empirical data relating stain size, time and oil viscosity ([0129-0132]: dimension of bleed/stain zone ZB is compared with a reference value; bleed zone is less than a reference size means increased oil viscosity or high viscosity, so bleed zone is larger mean lower oil viscosity, hence determine viscosity which is high or low; reference bleed zone dimension DR. as shown in figs. 20-21 is inherently measured at a given time; hence, reference bleed zone dimension DR. corresponds to “empirical data”; thus “determining the viscosity of the oil by comparing the size of the stain at the given time with empirical data relating stain size, time and oil viscosity”).
Noordover does not explicitly teach printed empirical data relating stain size, time and oil viscosity.
It would thus have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Noordover to include printed empirical data relating stain size, time and oil viscosity, because printed data provides a permanent, physical, and accurate record for audits, compliance, and comparing measurement data against specifications and/or expected measurement data.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9, 13, and 15-16 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
As to claim 9, claim 9 includes the piece of blotter paper includes a printed scale, when in combination with all other elements in the claim 9 distinguish the present invention from the prior arts.
As to claim 13, claim 13 includes placing the drop of oil on the piece of blotter paper at an intersection of two mutually perpendicular scales printed on the piece of blotter paper, when in combination with all other elements in the claims 1-2 distinguish the present invention from the prior arts.
As to claim 15, claim 15 includes a scale is printed on the at least one piece of blotter paper, when in combination with all other elements in the claim 14 distinguish the present invention from the prior arts.
As to claim 16, claim 16 is also objected due to their dependency on the objected claim 15.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TRUONG D PHAN whose telephone number is (571)272-8883. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday.
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 on 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 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/TRUONG D PHAN/Examiner, Art Unit 2855
/JOHN E BREENE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2855