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 .
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grosse-Bley et al. (US Publication 2010/0326169; hereinafter Grosse-Bley).
Regarding claims 1-20, the claimed preamble “a gas leak detection device” merely states the purpose or intended use of the invention (a gas leak detection device without detection capability), rather than any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations. Therefore, the preamble “a gas leak detection device” is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction. See MPEP 2111.02 and Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 182 F.3d 1298, 1305, 51 USPQ2d 1161, 1165-66 (Fed. Cir. 1999).
With regards to claim 1, Grosse-Bley teaches a gas leak detection device comprising:
a tip head part (13c; [0037]) having a semi-spherical shape (“rounded dome”, [0037]; FIG. 5);
a tip connection part (20) configured to communicate with the tip head part (13) and connectable to a hydrogen detection line ([0033]; it is noted that the detection device is capable of being connected to an appropriate hydrogen detection line);
a reference detection hole (14) disposed at an end of the tip head part based on a longitudinal direction of the tip connection part ([0033, 0037]; FIG. 5); and
a peripheral detection hole (15) disposed in the tip head part, spaced apart from the reference detection hole (FIG. 5), and directed in a direction intersecting the reference detection hole (FIG. 5, the holes 15 are located in the rounded dome away from the apex formed at the opening 14, thus, the holes are directed in a direction intersecting the reference detection hole 14).
However, Grosse-Bley is silent (italicized portion highlights feature not taught) regarding the tip head part having a spherical shape.
It has been held that a simple change in shape is an alteration that would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art {the court held that the configuration of the claimed disposable plastic nursing container was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant, In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966)}. In this particular case, changing the shape would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as evidenced by the different shapes of the tip head part (13) shown in FIG. 3-5.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to make a simple change in the shape of the tip head part as taught by Grosse-Bley with reasonable expectation of performing the function as originally intended.
With regards to claim 2, Grosse-Bley teaches the gas leak detection device of claim 1, wherein a center of the peripheral detection hole (15) is positioned on a first reference line inclined at a preset first reference angle with respect to a centerline that passes through a center of the tip head part (13) and a center of the reference detection hole (14; FIG. 5).
With regards to claim 3, Grosse-Bley teaches the gas leak detection device of claim 2. However, Grosse-Bley is silent regarding wherein the first reference angle is 45 degrees or less.
It has been held that "[W]here 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." Smith v. Nichols, 88 U.S. 112, 118-19 (1874) (a change in form, proportions, or degree "will not sustain a patent"). In re Williams, 36 F.2d 436, 438 (CCPA 1929) ("It is a settled principle of law that a mere carrying forward of an original patented conception involving only change of form, proportions, or degree, or the substitution of equivalents doing the same thing as the original invention, by substantially the same means, is not such an invention as will sustain a patent, even though the changes of the kind may produce better results than prior inventions.") In this particular case, Grosse-Bley teaches a general condition of the location first reference line of the peripheral detection hole 15 inclined at a first reference angle with respect to the center of the reference detection hole 14 and changing the location of the location of the peripheral detection hole along the dome, in turn changes the first reference line and first reference angle.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adjust, through routine experimentation, the location of the peripheral detection hole 15 (hence the first reference angle) of Grosse-Bley including the location having the first reference angle as claimed with reasonable expectation of functioning as originally intended.
With regards to claim 4, Grosse-Bley teaches the gas leak detection device of claim 2. However, Grosse-Bley is silent regarding wherein the first reference angle is 30 degrees.
It has been held that "[W]here 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." Smith v. Nichols, 88 U.S. 112, 118-19 (1874) (a change in form, proportions, or degree "will not sustain a patent"). In re Williams, 36 F.2d 436, 438 (CCPA 1929) ("It is a settled principle of law that a mere carrying forward of an original patented conception involving only change of form, proportions, or degree, or the substitution of equivalents doing the same thing as the original invention, by substantially the same means, is not such an invention as will sustain a patent, even though the changes of the kind may produce better results than prior inventions.") In this particular case, Grosse-Bley teaches a general condition of the location first reference line of the peripheral detection hole 15 inclined at a first reference angle with respect to the center of the reference detection hole 14 and changing the location of the location of the peripheral detection hole along the dome, in turn changes the first reference line and first reference angle.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adjust, through routine experimentation, the location of the peripheral detection hole 15 (hence the first reference angle) of Grosse-Bley including the location having the first reference angle as claimed with reasonable expectation of functioning as originally intended.
With regards to claim 5, Grosse-Bley teaches the gas leak detection device of claim 2, wherein the peripheral detection hole (15) comprises a plurality of peripheral detection holes spaced apart from one another in a circumferential direction based on the centerline (FIG. 5).
With regards to claim 6, Grosse-Bley teaches the gas leak detection device of claim 2. However, Grosse-Bley is silent regarding wherein: the tip head part has a diameter of 20 mm and a thickness of 2 mm; a diameter of each of the reference detection hole and the peripheral detection hole is 4 mm; and the peripheral detection hole comprises seven peripheral detection holes spaced apart from one another at equal intervals in a circumferential direction based on the centerline.
It has been held that "[W]here 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." Smith v. Nichols, 88 U.S. 112, 118-19 (1874) (a change in form, proportions, or degree "will not sustain a patent"). In re Williams, 36 F.2d 436, 438 (CCPA 1929) ("It is a settled principle of law that a mere carrying forward of an original patented conception involving only change of form, proportions, or degree, or the substitution of equivalents doing the same thing as the original invention, by substantially the same means, is not such an invention as will sustain a patent, even though the changes of the kind may produce better results than prior inventions.") In this particular case, Grosse-Bley teaches a general condition of the tip head part (13c; FIG. 5), the diameter of the holes (14, 15), and the number of peripheral detection hole (15). However, changing the proportion and numbers of holes performing the same function as Grosse-Bley would be routine to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to change the form/proportion of the size of the tip head, the diameter of the holes, and the number of peripheral detection hole as taught by Grosse-Bley through routine experimentation with reasonable expectation of performing as originally intended.
With regards to claim 7, Grosse-Bley teaches a gas leak detection device comprising:
a tip head part (13c; [0037]) having a semi-spherical shape (“rounded dome”, [0037]; FIG. 5);
a tip connection part (20) configured to communicate with the tip head part (13) and connectable to a hydrogen detection line ([0033]; it is noted that the detection device is capable of being connected to an appropriate hydrogen detection line);
a reference detection hole (14) disposed at an end of the tip head part based on a longitudinal direction of the tip connection part ([0033, 0037]; FIG. 5); and
a peripheral detection hole (15) disposed in the tip head part, spaced apart from the reference detection hole (FIG. 5), and directed in a direction intersecting the reference detection hole (FIG. 5, the holes 15 are located in the rounded dome away from the apex formed at the opening 14, thus, the holes are directed in a direction intersecting the reference detection hole 14).
However, Grosse-Bley is silent (italicized portion highlights feature not taught) regarding the tip head part having a spherical shape.
It has been held that a simple change in shape is an alteration that would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art {the court held that the configuration of the claimed disposable plastic nursing container was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant, In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966)}. In this particular case, changing the shape would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as evidenced by the different shapes of the tip head part (13) shown in FIG. 3-5.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to make a simple change in the shape of the tip head part as taught by Grosse-Bley with reasonable expectation of performing the function as originally intended.
Furthermore, Grosse-Bley is silent regarding the gas leak detection device comprising: side detection holes disposed in the tip head part and positioned between the peripheral detection hole and the tip connection part.
It has been held that the mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced (see MPEP§ 2144.04, part VI, B). In this instance, there has been no unexpected result disclosed in the additional side detection holes disposed in the tip head part.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to duplicate the peripheral detection holes (15) as taught by Grosse-Bley, as modified, such that the additional holes provide additional port to provide the function as originally intended ([0033, 0037]).
With regards to claim 8, Grosse-Bley, as modified, teaches the gas leak detection device of claim 7, wherein the side detection holes comprise: a first side hole disposed between the peripheral detection hole and the tip connection part; and a second side hole disposed between the first side hole and the tip connection part and spaced apart from the first side hole (see duplication of part in claim 7).
With regards to claim 9, Grosse-Bley, as modified, teaches the gas leak detection device of claim 8. However, Grosse-Bley is silent regarding wherein: a center of the first side hole is positioned on a second reference line inclined at a preset second reference angle with respect to a centerline that passes through a center of the tip head part and a center of the reference detection hole; and a center of the second side hole is positioned on a third reference line inclined at a preset third reference angle with respect to the centerline that passes through the center of the tip head part and the center of the reference detection hole.
It has been held that "[W]here 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." Smith v. Nichols, 88 U.S. 112, 118-19 (1874) (a change in form, proportions, or degree "will not sustain a patent"). In re Williams, 36 F.2d 436, 438 (CCPA 1929) ("It is a settled principle of law that a mere carrying forward of an original patented conception involving only change of form, proportions, or degree, or the substitution of equivalents doing the same thing as the original invention, by substantially the same means, is not such an invention as will sustain a patent, even though the changes of the kind may produce better results than prior inventions.") In this particular case, Grosse-Bley, as modified, teaches a general condition of the location of the side holes (duplication of the peripheral detection holes 15 (FIG. 5) as in claim 7) inclined at a second/third reference angle with respect to the center of the reference detection hole 14 and changing the location of the location of the side holes along the dome, in turn changes the second/third reference line and second/third reference angle.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adjust, through routine experimentation, the location of the side holes (hence the second/third reference angle) of Grosse-Bley, as modified, including the location having the second/third reference angle as claimed with reasonable expectation of functioning as originally intended.
With regards to claim 10, Grosse-Bley, as modified, teaches the gas leak detection device of claim 9, wherein the second reference angle is 90 degrees and the third reference angle is 120 degrees (see claim 9).
With regards to claim 11, Grosse-Bley, as modified, teaches the gas leak detection device of claim 9, wherein: the first side hole comprises a plurality of first side holes spaced apart from one another in a circumferential direction based on the centerline; and the second side hole comprises a plurality of second side holes spaced apart from one another in the circumferential direction based on the centerline (see duplication of peripheral detection hole for additional side holes in claim 7).
With regards to claim 12, Grosse-Bley, as modified, teaches the gas leak detection device of claim 11. However, Grosse-Bley, as modified, is silent regarding wherein: the tip head part has a diameter of 20 mm and a thickness of 2 mm; a diameter of each of the plurality of first side holes and the plurality of second side holes is 4 mm; the plurality of first side holes comprises four first side holes spaced apart from one another at equal intervals in the circumferential direction based on the centerline; and the plurality of second side holes comprises three second side holes spaced apart from one another at equal intervals in the circumferential direction based on the centerline.
It has been held that "[W]here 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." Smith v. Nichols, 88 U.S. 112, 118-19 (1874) (a change in form, proportions, or degree "will not sustain a patent"). In re Williams, 36 F.2d 436, 438 (CCPA 1929) ("It is a settled principle of law that a mere carrying forward of an original patented conception involving only change of form, proportions, or degree, or the substitution of equivalents doing the same thing as the original invention, by substantially the same means, is not such an invention as will sustain a patent, even though the changes of the kind may produce better results than prior inventions.") In this particular case, Grosse-Bley, as modified, teaches a general condition of the tip head part (13c; FIG. 5), the diameter of the holes (14, 15), and the number of peripheral/side detection hole (15). However, changing the proportion and numbers of holes performing the same function as Grosse-Bley would be routine to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to change the form/proportion of the size of the tip head, the diameter of the holes, and the number of peripheral/side detection hole as taught by Grosse-Bley through routine experimentation with reasonable expectation of performing as originally intended.
With regards to claim 13, Grosse-Bley, as modified, teaches the gas leak detection device of claim 7. However, Grosse-Bley, as modified, is silent regarding wherein a total sum of opening areas of the reference detection hole, the peripheral detection hole, and the side detection holes is less than 15% of an overall area of the tip head part.
It has been held that "[W]here 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." Smith v. Nichols, 88 U.S. 112, 118-19 (1874) (a change in form, proportions, or degree "will not sustain a patent"). In re Williams, 36 F.2d 436, 438 (CCPA 1929) ("It is a settled principle of law that a mere carrying forward of an original patented conception involving only change of form, proportions, or degree, or the substitution of equivalents doing the same thing as the original invention, by substantially the same means, is not such an invention as will sustain a patent, even though the changes of the kind may produce better results than prior inventions.") In this particular case, Grosse-Bley, as modified, teaches a general condition of the tip head part (13c; FIG. 5), the diameter of the holes (14, 15), and the number of peripheral/side detection hole (15). However, changing the proportion and numbers of holes to have an opening area relative to the overall area of the tip head part while performing the same function as Grosse-Bley would be routine to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to change the form/proportion of the size of the tip head, the diameter of the holes, and the number of peripheral/side detection hole as taught by Grosse-Bley through routine experimentation with reasonable expectation of performing as originally intended.
With regards to claim 14, Grosse-Bley, as modified, teaches the gas leak detection device of claim 7, wherein in a case in which a negative pressure is applied to the hydrogen detection line, a suction pressure is applied to the reference detection hole, the peripheral detection hole, and the side detection holes based on the negative pressure (it is noted that the claim contains limitation that does not further define the structure of the gas leak detection device. The limitations merely claim a pressure that is usable with the gas detection device. Since Grosse-Bley meets the structural requirement as claimed, Grosse-Bley is considered to be usable with the negative pressure as required by the claim).
With regards to claim 15, Grosse-Bley, as modified, teaches the gas leak detection device of claim 14, wherein a suction rate through the reference detection hole, the peripheral detection hole, and the side detection holes is 3,000 sccm (it is noted that the claim contains limitation that does not further define the structure of the gas leak detection device. The limitations merely claim a pressure that is usable with the gas detection device. Since Grosse-Bley meets the structural requirement as claimed, Grosse-Bley is considered to be usable with the negative pressure as required by the claim).
With regards to claim 16, Grosse-Bley teaches a gas leak detection device comprising:
a tip head part (13c; [0037]) having a semi-spherical shape (“rounded dome”, [0037]; FIG. 5);
a tip connection part (20) configured to communicate with the tip head part (13) and connectable to a hydrogen detection line ([0033]; it is noted that the detection device is capable of being connected to an appropriate hydrogen detection line);
a a reference detection hole (14) disposed at an end of the tip head part based on a longitudinal direction of the tip connection part ([0033, 0037]; FIG. 5); and
a peripheral detection hole (15) disposed in the tip head part, spaced apart from the reference detection hole (FIG. 5), and directed in a direction intersecting the reference detection hole (FIG. 5, the holes 15 are located in the rounded dome away from the apex formed at the opening 14, thus, the holes are directed in a direction intersecting the reference detection hole 14),
wherein the reference detection hole (14) and the peripheral detection hole (15)are positioned in a tip detection zone on a tip portion of the tip head part based on the longitudinal direction of the tip connection part (see FIG. 5, 14 and 15 are located near the tip head part 13c).
However, Grosse-Bley is silent (italicized portion highlights feature not taught) regarding the tip head part having a spherical shape.
It has been held that a simple change in shape is an alteration that would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art {the court held that the configuration of the claimed disposable plastic nursing container was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant, In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966)}. In this particular case, changing the shape would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as evidenced by the different shapes of the tip head part (13) shown in FIG. 3-5.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to make a simple change in the shape of the tip head part as taught by Grosse-Bley with reasonable expectation of performing the function as originally intended.
With regards to claims 17-19, Grosse-Bley, as modified, teaches the gas leak detection device of claim 16, wherein the tip detection zone is 15% or less of an overall area of the tip head part (claim 17), wherein a total sum of opening areas of the reference detection hole and the peripheral detection hole is 55% or more of an area of the tip detection zone (claim 18), and wherein a total sum of opening areas of the reference detection hole and the peripheral detection hole is 57.1% of an area of the tip detection zone (claim 19).
It has been held that "[W]here 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." Smith v. Nichols, 88 U.S. 112, 118-19 (1874) (a change in form, proportions, or degree "will not sustain a patent"). In re Williams, 36 F.2d 436, 438 (CCPA 1929) ("It is a settled principle of law that a mere carrying forward of an original patented conception involving only change of form, proportions, or degree, or the substitution of equivalents doing the same thing as the original invention, by substantially the same means, is not such an invention as will sustain a patent, even though the changes of the kind may produce better results than prior inventions.") In this particular case, Grosse-Bley, as modified, teaches a general condition of the tip head part (13c; FIG. 5), the diameter of the holes (14, 15), and the number of peripheral/side detection hole (15). However, changing the proportion and numbers of holes to have an opening area relative to the overall area of the tip head part while performing the same function as Grosse-Bley would be routine to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to change the form/proportion of the size of the tip head, the diameter of the holes, and the number of peripheral/side detection hole as taught by Grosse-Bley through routine experimentation with reasonable expectation of performing as originally intended.
With regards to claim 20, Grosse-Bley teaches the gas leak detection device of claim 16, wherein a center of the peripheral detection hole (15) is positioned on a first reference line inclined at a preset first reference angle with respect to a centerline that passes through a center of the tip head part (13) and a center of the reference detection hole (14; FIG. 5).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to QUANG X.L NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-1585. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9AM-5PM.
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, STEPHEN D. MEIER can be reached at (571) 272-2149. 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.
/QXN/Examiner, Art Unit 2853
/STEPHEN D MEIER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2853