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 .
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 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.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 08/08/2024 & 07/24/2025 is/are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement(s) is/are being considered by the Examiner.
Drawings
Figure(s) 1 should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated. See MPEP § 608.02(g). See instant [0006] & [0013] “prior art”.
The drawings (fig. 1) are objected to under 37 CFR 1.84(l) for being unsatisfactorily reproducible. All drawings must be made by a process which will give them satisfactory reproduction characteristics. Every line, number, and letter must be durable, clean, black (except for color drawings), sufficiently dense and dark, and uniformly thick and well-defined. The weight of all lines and letters must be heavy enough to permit adequate reproduction. This requirement applies to all lines however fine, to shading, and to lines representing cut surfaces in sectional views. Lines and strokes of different thicknesses may be used in the same drawing where different thicknesses have a different meaning.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because of the inclusion of the same part being designated by different reference characters: "262" (correct) and "202" (typo of element number in fig. 5A) have both been used to designate “fill fluid diaphragm (fig. 2, diaphragm 118)” in figs. 5A-5C.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action.
The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The title of the invention includes a prohibited word, see MPEP § 606. Please delete the following word(s) from the Title: “IMPROVED”.
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. This may result in slightly longer titles, but the loss in brevity of title will be more than offset by the gain in its informative value in indexing, classifying, searching, etc. If a satisfactory title is not supplied by the applicant, the Examiner may, at the time of allowance, change the title by an Examiner’s amendment. See MPEP § 1302.04(a).
The following title is suggested: “ HAVING AMBIENT AIRFLOW COOLING”.
Claim Objections
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are objected to because of the following informalities:
As to independent claim 1:
the Examiner objects to the unnecessary nomenclature change in “process fluid diaphragm” to “process diaphragm”, the Examiner suggesting using the full names of elements consistently; and
the serial semicolons lack a conjunction following the last semicolon, the Examiner suggests “; and”; and
later instances of “a mechanical link” should each be “[[a]] the mechanical link”, the Examiner suggesting introducing a mechanical link as the first comprised element of the remote seal system so that thereby each later instance can be referenced thereto with antecedent basis.
Dependent claim(s) of objected to claim(s) is/are likewise objected to.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-5, 11-12, and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over newly cited Hoffman et al (US 20160091383 A1; hereafter “Hoffman”) in view of newly cited Duppui* (DE 4025664 C1; hereafter “Duppui”).
*machine translation provided by Examiner with foreign document and utilized for English citations
Regarding independent claim 1,
Hoffman teaches a remote seal system (fig. 2) (Title “FILL FLUID THERMAL MANAGEMENT”; Abstract “A remote seal assembly for a process transmitter includes a seal body containing a cavity sealed by a diaphragm”), comprising:
a process fluid diaphragm (fig. 2, diaphragm 106) having a first side (first side of diaphragm 106) configured for exposure to a process fluid (fluid of process element 104) and a second side (second side of diaphragm 106), opposite the first side (first side of diaphragm 106), that is configured to contact a fluid link (fig. 2, capillary 112);
the fluid link (fig. 2, capillary 112) in contact with the second side (second side of diaphragm 106) of the process fluid diaphragm (fig. 2, diaphragm 106);
a fill fluid diaphragm (fig. 2, diaphragm 118) having a first side (first side of diaphragm 118) in contact with the fluid link (fig. 2, capillary 112) and a second side (second side of diaphragm 118) configured for exposure to a remote seal fill fluid (fill fluid 372; see fig. 3) ([0028] “second type of fill fluid 372 is within capillary 124/224 and cavity 122”).
Hoffman does not teach a mechanical link.
Duppui teaches a seal system (fig., pick-up 1) (Title “Pressure Pick-up Esp. For Processing Chamber Or Burner - Has Connecting Rod Inside Transmitting Chamber Between Facing Sides Of Measurement And Transmitting Diaphragms”; Abstract “The pick-up (1) measures the pressure in a processing chamber, esp. with high temp. pressure medium” and “The connecting rod (4) extends inside the transmitting chamber (17) between the opposite facing sides of the two diaphragms”), comprising: a process fluid diaphragm (fig., transmission membrane 3) having a first side (first side of transmission membrane 3) configured for exposure to a process fluid and a second side (second side of transmission membrane 3), opposite the first side (first side of transmission membrane 3), that is configured to contact a mechanical link (fig., connecting rod 4 with pin 16); a mechanical link (fig., connecting rod 4 with pin 16) in contact with the second side (second side of transmission membrane 3) of the process fluid diaphragm (fig., transmission membrane 3); a fill fluid diaphragm (fig., measuring membrane 5) having a first side (first side of measuring membrane 5) in contact with the mechanical link (fig., connecting rod 4 with pin 16) and a second side (second side of measuring membrane 5) configured for exposure to a remote chamber (fig., chamber 7), wherein the process fluid diaphragm (fig., transmission membrane 3) is coupled to a seal body (housing coupled to transmission membrane 3; see fig., diaphragm seal housing / flange 12) and the fill fluid diaphragm (fig., measuring membrane 5) is coupled to a fill fluid housing (housing coupled to measuring membrane 5; see fig., flange 13), wherein the remote seal body (housing coupled to transmission membrane 3; fig., diaphragm seal housing / flange 12) and the fill fluid housing coupled to measuring membrane 5; see fig., flange 13) are mounted to opposite ends of a tube (tube around cylindrical cavity 6) through which the mechanical link (fig., connecting rod 4 with pin 16) passes, wherein the mechanical link (fig., connecting rod 4 with pin 16) is a rod having a first end coupled to the second side (second side of transmission membrane 3) of the process fluid diaphragm (fig., transmission membrane 3) and a second end coupled to the first side (first side of measuring membrane 5) of the fill fluid diaphragm (fig., measuring membrane 5), wherein the mechanical link (fig., connecting rod 4 with pin 16) extends substantially perpendicularly between the process fluid diaphragm (fig., transmission membrane 3) and the fill fluid diaphragm (fig., measuring membrane 5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute Duppui’s mechanical link design for Hoffman’s fluid link design, thereby providing a simple construction alternative that is suitable for high temperatures and does not require use of liquid metal (the Examiner further notes that most liquid metals—aside from the environmentally undesirable use of mercury—unfortunately are potentially problematically prone to solidify at/near standard temperature and pressure and/or are often quite expensive). Complimentarily, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Hoffman’s remote seal assembly with Duppui’s pressure pick-up mechanical link design thereby providing the expected benefits of increased utility and marketability with regards to being able to measure pressure of remote seal assemblies for process controls. The Examiner additionally notes that the Courts have ruled an obviousness analysis based on the collective teachings of the references does not depend on the order in which the references are listed in the statement of the rejection. See In re Bush, 296 F.2d 491, 496 (CCPA 1961): “In a case of this type where a rejection is predicated on two references each containing pertinent disclosure which has been pointed out to the applicant, we deem it to be of no significance, but merely a matter of exposition, that the rejection is stated to be on A in view of B instead of on B in view of A, or to term one reference primary and the other secondary.”
Regarding claim 2, which depends on claim 1,
The combination of Hoffman and Duppui does not explicitly state wherein all components of the remote seal system are constructed from the same material.
However:
It has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice, see MPEP § 2144.07 and In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960). In the present case it is the Examiner’s position that choosing a single same material to make the components of system from is routine in the art, including for known reasons such as matching thermal expansion/contraction.
Furthermore, and as generalized factual support of the aforementioned assertion, Duppui teaches ensuring pressure measurement is minimally influenced even at high temperatures by utilizing materials that are approximately the same thermal expansion (second to last paragraph page 4 “The connecting rod ( 4 ) is preferably made of a material with very low thermal conductivity in order to reduce the temperature influence of the transmission space ( 17 ) or the measuring membrane ( 5 ) and the measuring space ( 7 ) by a possibly very high temperature of the process medium to keep possible. To ensure a pressure measurement least influencing uniform thermal expansion behavior, the diaphragm seal housing, i.e. in particular the flange ( 12 ), the cap ( 14 ) and the intermediate cylinder jacket, is made of a material whose thermal expansion coefficient corresponds approximately to that of the connecting rod ( 4 )”).
Moreover, choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success is obvious to try, see MPEP § 2143(I)(E). The Examiner also notes that MPEP § 2145(III)(X)(B) states “An “obvious to try” rationale may support a conclusion that a claim would have been obvious where one skilled in the art is choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success. “[A] person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely that product [was] not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. In that instance the fact that a combination was obvious to try might show that it was obvious under § 103.” KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 538, 421,82 USPQ2d 1385, 1397 (2007).” It is the Examiner’s position that choosing materials whose thermal expansion coefficient are approximately the same by trivially choosing the same material (and thus the same thermal expansion coefficient) merely requires common sense.
In view of the above, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to trivially try to use the same material for the construction of all components of the remote seal system for the aforementioned reason of matching thermal expansion coefficient (see especially citation from Duppui), and furthermore for simplicity of sourcing, manufacturing, &/or repairing with said material. The Examiner additionally notes that in Dystar Textilfarben GmbH & Co. Deutschland KG v. C.H. Patrick, 464 F.3d 1356, 1368, 80 USPQ2d 1641, 1651 (Fed. Cir. 2006): “Indeed, we have repeatedly held that an implicit motivation to combine exists not only when a suggestion may be gleaned from the prior art as a whole, but when the ‘improvement’ is technology-independent and the combination of references results in a product or process that is more desirable, for example because it is stronger, cheaper, cleaner, faster, lighter, smaller, more durable, or more efficient. Because the desire to enhance commercial opportunities by improving a product or process is universal—and even common-sensical—we have held that there exists in these situations a motivation to combine prior art references even absent any hint of suggestion in the references themselves.” In the present case, utilizing the same preferred material is a common-sense enhancement for the aforementioned reasons. See MPEP § 2144(II).
Regarding claim 4, which depends on claim 1,
Hoffman teaches wherein the process fluid diaphragm (fig. 2, diaphragm 106) is coupled to a remote seal body (housing coupled to diaphragm 106; see fig. 3, diaphragm housing 302) and the fill fluid diaphragm (fig. 2, diaphragm 118) is coupled to a fill fluid housing (housing coupled to diaphragm 118; see fig. 3, coupling body 116).
Regarding claim 5, which depends on claim 4,
Hoffman teaches wherein the remote seal body (housing coupled to diaphragm 106; see fig. 3, diaphragm housing 302) and the fill fluid housing (housing coupled to diaphragm 118; see fig. 3, coupling body 116) are mounted to opposite ends of a tube (figs. 2-3, housing 114).
Hoffman does not teach a mechanical link, nor wherein the mechanical passes through the tube.
Duppui teaches wherein the remote seal body (housing coupled to transmission membrane 3; fig., diaphragm seal housing / flange 12) and the fill fluid housing coupled to measuring membrane 5; see fig., flange 13) are mounted to opposite ends of a tube (tube around cylindrical cavity 6) through which the mechanical link (fig., connecting rod 4 with pin 16) passes.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute Duppui’s mechanical link design for Hoffman’s fluid link design for the same combination and motivation provided for the independent claim.
Regarding claim 11, which depends on claim 1,
Hoffman teaches the process fluid diaphragm (fig. 2, diaphragm 106) and the fill fluid diaphragm (fig. 2, diaphragm 118).
Hoffman does not teach: a mechanical link, wherein the mechanical link is a rod having a first end coupled to the second side of the process fluid diaphragm and a second end coupled to the first side of the fill fluid diaphragm.
Duppui teaches wherein the mechanical link (fig., connecting rod 4 with pin 16) is a rod having a first end (first end of connecting rod 4) coupled to the second side (second side of transmission membrane 3) of the process fluid diaphragm (fig., transmission membrane 3) and a second end (second end of pin 16) coupled to the first side (first side of measuring membrane 5) of the fill fluid diaphragm (fig., measuring membrane 5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute Duppui’s mechanical link design for Hoffman’s fluid link design for the same combination and motivation provided for the independent claim.
Regarding claim 12, which depends on claim 1,
Hoffman teaches the process fluid diaphragm (fig. 2, diaphragm 106) and the fill fluid diaphragm (fig. 2, diaphragm 118).
Hoffman does not teach: a mechanical link, wherein the mechanical link extends substantially perpendicularly between the process fluid diaphragm and the fill fluid diaphragm.
Duppui teaches wherein the mechanical link (fig., connecting rod 4 with pin 16) extends substantially perpendicularly between the process fluid diaphragm (fig., transmission membrane 3) and the fill fluid diaphragm (fig., measuring membrane 5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute Duppui’s mechanical link design for Hoffman’s fluid link design for the same combination and motivation provided for the independent claim.
Regarding claim 19, which depends on claim 1,
Hoffman teaches further comprising a capillary (fig. 2, capillary 224) hydraulically coupled to the second side (second side of diaphragm 118) of the fill fluid diaphragm (fig. 2, diaphragm 118).
Regarding claim 20, which depends on claim 19,
Hoffman teaches further comprising a pressure transmitter (fig. 2, pressure transmitter 128) operably coupled to the capillary (fig. 2, capillary 224).
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over newly cited Hoffman in view of newly cited Duppui and in further view of newly cited Broden (US 20090308170 A1; hereafter “Broden”).
Regarding claim 3, which depends on claim 2,
Hoffman does not teach wherein the material is selected from the group consisting of carbon steel, C-276, 316L stainless steel, and Hastelloy N.
However:
It has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice, see MPEP § 2144.07 and In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960). In the present case it is the Examiner’s position that choosing a material to make the components of system from is routine in the art, and that each of carbon steel, C-276, 316L stainless steel, and Hastelloy N are conventional material choices for (remote) seal applications.
Furthermore, and as factually supporting an exemplary Broden teaches wherein the material is selected from the group consisting of carbon steel, C-276, 316L stainless steel, and Hastelloy N (Title “ISOLATION SYSTEM FOR PROCESS PRESSURE MEASUREMENT”; Abstract “A process fluid pressure transmitter includes a pressure sensor, transmitter electronics, and an isolation system”; [0017] “remote-seal application”; [0018] “A common material for the construction of support base 30 is Type 316 stainless steel. Isolator diaphragm 32 is preferably circular and is welded about its periphery 34 to support base 30. Isolator diaphragm 32 generally includes at least one convolution 36, and is generally about one one-thousandth of an inch (0.001'') thick. Further, isolator diaphragm 32 is generally formed of the same material as support base 30. Accordingly, isolator diaphragm 32 is also generally constructed of Type 316 stainless steel”; [0023] “In accordance with one embodiment of the present invention, a specific material example is provided. As can be appreciated, the choice of the base material, isolation diaphragm material and isolation diaphragm size and construction can vary”).
In view of the above, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to choose a routine material for Hoffman & Duppui’s combination material such as Broden’s 316 Stainless Steel for the known benefits such as superior corrosion resistance, excellent heat resistance, non-reactivity, non-porosity, durability, easy welding, etc.
Claim(s) 7-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over newly cited Hoffman in view of newly cited Duppui and in further view of Applicant cited Terada* (JP 2009281827 A; hereafter “Terada”).
*machine translation provided by Examiner with foreign document and utilized for English citations
Regarding claim 7, which depends on claim 5,
Hoffman does not teach further comprising at least one heat transfer fin mounted to the tube.
Terada teaches a remote seal system (figs. 1 & 2, pressure detecting device 4), comprising: a process fluid diaphragm (fig. 2, pressure receiving portion 9) having a first side (first side of pressure receiving portion 9) configured for exposure to a process fluid (fluid in tube 2) and a second side (second side of pressure receiving portion 9), opposite the first side (first side of pressure receiving portion 9), that is configured to contact a mechanical link (fig. 2, connecting member 11); a mechanical link (fig. 2, connecting member 11) in contact with the second side (second side of pressure receiving portion 9) of the process fluid diaphragm (fig. 2, pressure receiving portion 9); a button (fig. 2, button 101) having a first side (first side of button 101) in contact with the mechanical link (fig. 2, connecting member 11) and a second side (second side of button 101), wherein the process fluid diaphragm (fig. 2, pressure receiving portion 9) is coupled to a remote seal portion of a body (fig. 2, housing 31), wherein the remote seal portion (portion of housing 31 near pressure receiving portion 9) of the body (fig. 2, housing 31) and the opposite portion of the body (fig. 2, housing 31) are mounted to opposite ends of a tube (tube portion around connecting member 11) of the body (fig. 2, housing 31) through which the mechanical link (fig. 2, connecting member 11) passes, and further comprising at least one heat transfer fin (figs. 1-2, heat sink fin 33) mounted (reasonably interpreting that mounted includes integral attachment; additional obviousness analysis provided for narrower interpretation of mounted as excluding integral) to the tube (tube portion around connecting member 11), wherein the at least one heat transfer fin (figs. 1-2, heat sink fin 33) includes a fin surface (surface of heat sink fin 33) that is perpendicular to a longitudinal axis (longitudinal axis through connecting member 11) of the tube (tube portion around connecting member 11).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Terada’s heat sink fins for a tube with Hoffman’s tube thereby providing the expected advantage of increasing the surface area available for heat dissipation thereby allowing for more heat to escape into the air, and thereby suppressing unwanted heat transfer across the system to other more sensitive components.
With further respect to the mounting, the Examiner notes that:
It has been held that constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill in the art, see MPEP § 2144(V)(C), Nerwin v. Erlichman, 168 USPQ 177, 179 (BPAI. 1969), and In reDulberg, 289 F.2d 522, 523, 129 USPQ 348, 349 (CCPA 1961). In the present case, it is the Examiner's position that only ordinary skill in the art is required to have separate heat fins as a distinct component from the tube and has the expected advantage of enabling separate manufacturing and/or convenient commercial sourcing of components and/or separate repair/maintenance/replacement.
The Examiner takes Official Notice that mounting heat transfer fins is a routine activity.
In view of the above, either one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed would at once envisaged that the combination of Terada’s heat fins reasonably suggests mounting the fins in the combination with Hoffman, or nevertheless, or in the alternative, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the routine (see Official Notice) activity of mounting heat fins thereby providing a known and straightforward means of combining heat fins with a structure and thus providing the aforementioned advantages.
Regarding claim 8, which depends on claim 7,
Hoffman as previously modified by Terada (see analysis of preceding claims) suggests wherein the at least one heat transfer fin (Terada: figs. 1-2, heat sink fin 33) includes a fin surface (Terada: surface of heat sink fin 33) that is perpendicular to a longitudinal axis of the tube (figs. 2-3, housing 114). The Examiner further emphasizes that the perpendicular orientation commonsensically maximizes surface area and optimizes airflow interaction.
Claim(s) 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over newly cited Hoffman in view of newly cited Duppui, Applicant cited Terada, and in further view of newly cited Ryan (US 5343015 A; hereafter “Ryan”).
Regarding claim 9 and claim 10, where claim 9 depends on claim 7 and where claim 10 depends on claim 7,
Hoffman does not teach items: 1) (claim 7) heat transfer fin attached to the tube; 2) (claim 9) wherein the at least one heat transfer fin is attached to the tube by tension; and 3) (claim 10) wherein an end of the at least one heat transfer fin is welded to the tube.
Regarding item 1), Terada teaches the heat transfer fin (figs. 1-2, heat sink fin 33) attached to the tube (tube portion around connecting member 11).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Terada’s heat sink fins for a tube with Hoffman’s tube for the same combination and motivation provided for claim 7.
Hoffman as modified by Terada is silent to items 2) & 3).
Regarding items 2) & 3):
The Examiner takes Official Notice that attaching a heat fin by tension wrapping a tube and welding is a routine activity.
Furthermore, and as supporting factual evidence of the aforementioned assertion, Ryan teaches wherein the at least one heat transfer fin (fig. 1, fin 12) is attached to the tube (fig. 1, tube 10) by tension and wherein an end of the at least one heat transfer fin (fig. 1, fin 12) is welded to the tube (fig. 1, tube 10) (Title “Laser Assisted High Frequency Welding”; Abstract “tube having a fin helically wound about and welded to its surface”; col. 1, ll. 15-20 “In the manufacture of a finned heat exchanger tube, a metallic strip or fin is helically wound or wrapped on the outer surface of a rotating metallic tube to form the fins. The fin is fed to the tube surface under tension, with the bottom edge of the fin being welded to the tube”; col. 5, ll. 31-48 “A fin is fed to the tube surface under tension, with the about 0.050 inch bottom edge of the fin being forge welded to the tube”).
In view of the above, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the routine—as factually supported by Ryan—manufacturing activity of tensioning and welding with adding Terada’s heat fin to Hoffman’s tube thereby ensuring by the tension a tight mechanical fit for efficient thermal transfer while the weld ensures that the fins do not shift or lose contact over time.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over newly cited Hoffman in view of newly cited Duppui and in further view of newly cited Jeng et al (NPL The effects of vent channels and metal conductive base on thermal characteristics of the active graphite-composite cylindrical heat sink; hereafter “Jeng”).
Regarding claim 6, which depends on claim 5,
Hoffman does not teach wherein the tube (figs. 2-3, housing 114) includes a plurality of ventilation holes
However:
The Examiner takes Official Notice that ventilation holes are a conventional feature well-known to reduce heat & air pressure differences.
Furthermore, and as supporting factual evidence of the aforementioned assertion that ventilation holes are known to reduce temperature differences, Jeng teaches a cylinder heat sink comprising a plurality of ventilation holes (Title “The effects of vent channels and metal conductive base on thermal characteristics of the active graphite-composite cylindrical heat sink”; Abstract “effects of vent channels and metal conductive base on the fluid flow and heat transfer characteristics”; see exemplary fig. 3; Conclusion “combined the finned cylindrical heat sink with vertical vent channels, horizontal upper-row, and bottom-row vent channels”).
In view of the above, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Jeng’s heat transfer elements (at least vent, although Examiner notes also the fins) for a cylindrical heat sink component with Hoffman’s previously modified (by Duppui, see analysis of independent claim) cylindrical tube, thereby providing the expected advantages of reducing heat of Hoffman’s tube by increasing airflow via the vents, and with regards to heatfins, also increasing the surface area available for heat dissipation thereby allowing for more heat to escape into the air, and thereby cooperatively further suppressing unwanted heat transfer across the system to other more sensitive components. The Examiner further notes that the use of vents also has the additional advantage of preventing undue buildup of pressure differentials across the tube, which along with reducing the chance of damage to the tube, may further reduce construction costs as the tube can be less robust. The Examiner additionally notes that in Dystar Textilfarben GmbH & Co. Deutschland KG v. C.H. Patrick, 464 F.3d 1356, 1368, 80 USPQ2d 1641, 1651 (Fed. Cir. 2006): “Indeed, we have repeatedly held that an implicit motivation to combine exists not only when a suggestion may be gleaned from the prior art as a whole, but when the ‘improvement’ is technology-independent and the combination of references results in a product or process that is more desirable, for example because it is stronger, cheaper, cleaner, faster, lighter, smaller, more durable, or more efficient. Because the desire to enhance commercial opportunities by improving a product or process is universal—and even common-sensical—we have held that there exists in these situations a motivation to combine prior art references even absent any hint of suggestion in the references themselves.” In the present case, making Hoffman’s cylindrical tube able to assist via vents (& fins) with preventing heat from reaching downstream components is a common-sense enhancement that is desirable for making the device more efficient. See MPEP § 2144(II).
Claim(s) 15-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over newly cited Hoffman in view of newly cited Duppui and in further view of newly cited Broden with newly cited Ohbayashi* et al (KR 20060033021 A; hereafter “Ohbayashi”) and with newly cited Pall et al (US 3124959 A; hereafter “Pall”).
*machine translation provided by Examiner with foreign document and utilized for English citations
Regarding claim 15 and claim 17 and claim 16 and claim 18, where claim 15 depends on claim 1 and where claim 16 depends on claim 15 and where claim 17 depends on claim 1 and where claim 18 depends on claim 17,
Hoffman and Duppui both teach the process fluid diaphragm (Hoffman: fig. 2, diaphragm 106. Duppui: fig., transmission membrane 3) and the fill fluid diaphragm (Hoffman: fig. 2, diaphragm 118. Duppui: fig., measuring membrane 5).
The combination of prior art is silent to each of the process fluid (claims 15-16) & fill fluid (claims 17-18) diaphragms having: 1) convolution disposed around a central region; 2) the central region being thicker; and 3) (claims 16 & 18) wherein the thicker region is formed by plating.
Regarding item 1):
Legal precedent has condoned the use of particular examples of what may be considered common sense or ordinary routine practice including changes in shape, see MPEP § 2141(I) & 2144.04(IV)(B), and In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). In the present case, it is the Examiner’s position that only ordinary skill in the art is required to change the shape of a diaphragm to comprise a conventional convolution.
Furthermore, Broden teaches a diaphragm (fig. 1b, diaphragm 32) having a convolution disposed around a central region (Title “ISOLATION SYSTEM FOR PROCESS PRESSURE MEASUREMENT”; Abstract “A process fluid pressure transmitter includes a pressure sensor, transmitter electronics, and an isolation system”; [0017] “remote-seal application”; [0018] “Isolator diaphragm 32 generally includes at least one convolution 36”).
In view of the above, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Broden’s convolution design for a diaphragm with each of Hoffman’s diaphragms for the expected advantages of accommodating greater deflections without excessive & undesirable deformation/stretching, improved efficiency through “rolling” instead of stretching, increased sensitivity to pressure changes, increased lifespan, and/or increased capability for higher pressure environments.
Regarding items 2) & 3):
It has been held that a mere change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, see MPEP § 2144.04(IV)(A), In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCP A 1955), In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (CCPA 1976), and Gardnerv.TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984). In the present case, it is the Examiner’s position that only ordinary skill in the art is required to change the size of the diaphragm, including changing the size of the central region of a diaphragm that is exposed to Duppui’s mechanical link/rod. Conversely and/or complimentarily, it is also the Examiner’s position that only ordinary skill in the art is required to make the convoluted portion thinner (compared to the center) in order to be less-stiff/more-pliable during pressure deflection.
Choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success is obvious to try, see MPEP § 2143(I)(E). The Examiner also notes that MPEP § 2145(III)(X)(B) states “An “obvious to try” rationale may support a conclusion that a claim would have been obvious where one skilled in the art is choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success. “[A] person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely that product [was] not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. In that instance the fact that a combination was obvious to try might show that it was obvious under § 103.” KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 538, 421,82 USPQ2d 1385, 1397 (2007).” In the present case, it is the Examiner’s position that thickening a central portion of a diaphragm that exposed to mechanical stress (against Duppui’s mechanical link/rod) is a commonsense activity that would have been obvious to try in an effort to make said diaphragm more robust, as well as mitigating nonlinearities in the deflection for pressure measurements (see support below).
Factually supporting the aforementioned assertions, Pall teaches wherein a central region of a diaphragm is thicker (col. 4, ll. 43-52 “Nonlinearity can be minimized by making the diaphragm thicker at the center than at the edges, such as by attaching a central disk to the diaphragm or by decreasing the thickness gradually and uniformly from the center to the edges”).
Furthermore, and as supporting factual evidence of the ordinary skill in the art required to control the thickness of a diaphragm, Ohbayashi teaches plating (especially pertinent to item 3) to easily set/control the thickness of a diaphragm (last paragraph page 8 “the diaphragm C which needs control of thickness is formed by the technique of sputtering, vacuum deposition, and plating, the thickness of the diaphragm C can be easily set to the thickness suitable for vibration by comparatively simple process, Therefore, the sound pressure signal can be detected with good sensitivity”).
In view of the above, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to either try thinning the (as modified by Broden) convolution portion to be thinner for purposes of making said portion more flexible and/or to try thickening via simple and routine process of plating—as factually supported by Ohbayashi--the central region and therefore providing the aforementioned advantages as put forth in reasoned detail above, including that—as factually supported by Pall—a thicker central region minimizes nonlinearity.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) 13-14 is/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.
When this application is finally acted upon and allowed (i.e., the Notice of Allowance), the Examiner will determine, at the same time, whether the reasons why the application is being allowed are sufficiently evident from the record; see MPEP § 1302.14(I).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure. Applicant is invited to review PTO form 892 accompanying this Office Action listing Prior Art relevant to the instant invention cited by the Examiner.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to DAVID L SINGER whose telephone number is 303-297-4317. The Examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 am - 6:00pm CT, EXCEPT alternating Friday.
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.
/DAVID L SINGER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855 06MAR2026