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 .
Status of Claims
Claim 1-18 are pending and under examination.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) document(s) submitted on 03/26/2024 and 09/19/2025 are compliant with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the IDS document(s) has/have been fully considered by the examiner.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it does not meet the length requirement.
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Objections
Claims 3, 9-10 and 12-14 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 3 and 10 refer to “the heating element”. Claim 1 previously refers to “at least one heating element”. The examiner requests applicant use the same terminology/modifiers when referring to the same feature of the claimed invention, and to carry the terminology throughout the entire claim set. In this case, the examiner requests applicant amend claims 3 and 10 to recite “the at least one heating element”.
Claims 9 and 12-14 refer to “the tip portion”. Claim 8 previously refers to “a detachable tip portion”. The examiner requests applicant use the same terminology/modifiers when referring to the same feature of the claimed invention, and to carry the terminology throughout the entire claim set. In this case, the examiner request applicant amend claim 9 and 12-14 to recite “the detachable tip portion”.
Claim 10 recites “the blind hole (15) … end at a distance (26) …”. The examiner requests applicant amend the claim to recite “the blind hole (15) … ends at a distance (26) …”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 10 is 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 10 recites “the at least one heating element (9) is at least one of arranged in a blind hole, and at least one of the blind hole (10) accommodating the heating element (9)”. The wording of the claim limitations is ambiguous and it is unclear what applicant is attempting to define. For purposes of examination, the examiner is interpreting the claim limitations to read “the at least one heating element (9) is arranged in a blind hole”.
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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-8, 10, 11, and 15-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bernath (US Patent No. 4,342,234 – hereinafter “Bernath”).
Regarding claim 1, Bernath disclose a sampling probe (Bernath; fig. 1, col. 4 lines 9-21), comprising: a sampling portion that accommodates a nozzle (Bernath; fig. 1, #1, #8, col. 4 lines 22-43);
a connecting portion (Bernath; fig. 1, #2, #3, col. 4 lines 9-21 and 44-57), and the nozzle that is in fluid connection with the connecting portion (Bernath disclose nozzle 8 coupled with gas filter 20, short connecting line 22, and detector 27 where gas sample is pulled using vacuum pump 25; fig. 1, col. 4 lines 44-57); and
at least one heating element accommodated in the sampling portion (Bernath disclose sampling portion 1 comprises heating jacket 9 with axial bores 10 spaced around the circumference, into each of which an electrical heating rod 11 is fitted; fig. 1, col. 4 lines 22-32), the at least one heating element is in thermally conducting contact with the nozzle (Bernath disclose heating jacket 9 has axial bores 10 spaced around the circumference, into each of which an electrical heating rod 11 is fitted; fig. 1, col. 4 lines 22-32).
Regarding claim 2, Bernath disclose the sampling probe according to claim 1 above, wherein the at least one heating element is at least one of arranged in a blind hole or is accessible from the connecting portion (Bernath disclose heating jacket 9 has axial bores 10 spaced around the circumference, into each of which an electrical heating rod 11 is fitted; fig. 1, col. 4 lines 22-32).
Regarding claim 3, Bernath disclose the sampling probe according to claim 1 above, wherein the heating element is part of an insertion cartridge (Bernath disclose electrical heating rods 11 are fitted in axial bores 10 of heating jacket 9; fig. 1, col. 4 lines 22-23).
Regarding claim 4, Bernath disclose the sampling probe according to claim 1 above, wherein the sampling portion comprises at least one temperature sensing element (Bernath fig. 1, #14, col. 4 lines 33-42).
Regarding claim 5, Bernath disclose the sampling probe according to claim 4 above, wherein the at least one temperature sensing element is at least one of arranged in a blind hole or is accessible from the connecting portion (Bernath disclose there is an axial blind bore 13 above said probe in the heating jacket 9, which hole accommodates a temperature sensor 14; fig. 1, col. 4, lines 33-42).
Regarding claim 6, Bernath disclose the sampling probe according to claim 5 above, wherein the sampling portion comprises a shaft with a cylindrical portion (Bernath disclose the sampling portion 1 comprises insulating jacket 17 as a shaft; fig. 1, col. 4 lines 22-43).
Regarding claim 7, Bernath disclose the sampling probe according to claim 6 above, wherein the fluid connection comprises at least two blind holes from opposing ends of the sampling probe, and the at least two blind holes intersect one another at respective blind ends thereof (Bernath disclose nozzle 8 coupled with gas filter 20, short connecting line 22, and detector 27 where gas sample is pulled using vacuum pump 25 at an opposing end of the nozzle; fig. 1, col. 4 lines 44-57).
Regarding claim 8, Bernath disclose the sampling probe according to claim 7 above, wherein the nozzle is arranged in a detachable tip portion of the sampling portion (Bernath disclose heating jacket 9 for the sampling probe 8 features a radial attachment plate 18 at its end that is detachably connected with the analyzer; fig. 1, #18, col. 3 lines 27-36 and col. 4 lines 33-43, and the rear end of the sampling probe 8 is connected with gas filter 20; fig. 1, col. 4 lines 44-57. Accordingly, the nozzle 8 is arranged in a detachable tip portion of the sampling portion 1).
Regarding claim 10, Bernath teach the sampling probe according to claim 8 above, wherein the at least one heating element is at least one of arranged in a blind hole, and at least one of the blind hole accommodating the heating element or the blind hole accommodating the at least one temperature sensing element end at a distance from the detachable tip portion (Bernath disclose heating jacket 9 has axial bores 10 spaced around the circumference, into each of which an electrical heating rod 11 is fitted; fig. 1, col. 4 lines 22-32, and the blind hole 13 end at a distance from the radial attachment plate 18).
Regarding claim 11, Bernath disclose the sampling probe according to claim 8 above, wherein the nozzle is created on a sleeve (Bernath disclose the nozzle 8 is surrounded by heating jacket 9 formed of a metal sleeve; fig. 1, col. 4 lines 22-43).
Regarding claim 15, Bernath disclose the sampling probe according claim 1 above, further comprising a heat barrier that at least partially covers the sampling portion, and the heat barrier comprises at least one of a heat insulator, active cooling, or a passive cooling (Bernath; fig. 1, #17, col. 4 lines 22-44).
Regarding claim 16, Bernath disclose a containment, comprising: a sampling probe according to claim 1, wherein the connection portion is arranged outside the containment and the sampling portion penetrates an enclosure surface of the containment (Bernath disclose sampling portion 1 extends through opening 4 of chamber 7 while connecting portion 2/3 are arranged outside of the chamber 7; fig. 1, col. 4 lines 22-32).
Regarding claim 17, Bernath disclose the containment according to claim 16 above, further comprising a heat barrier that at least partially covers the sampling portion and at least one of penetrates the enclosure surface or wherein is arranged at least partially inside the containment (Bernath disclose heat barrier 17 covers sampling portion 1 and penetrates the enclosure 5 of the containment 7; fig. 1, col. 4 lines 9-32).
Regarding claim 18, Bernath disclose the containment of claim 17 above, wherein heat barrier at least locally prevents or reduces surface evaporation of a decontamination agent on the sampling probe (Bernath disclose the heat barrier 17; fig. 1, #17, col. 4 lines 22-44 Note: What the heat barrier prevents or reduces amounts to intended use. However, functional language does not add any further structure to an apparatus beyond that of a capability. Apparatus claims must distinguish over the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. Therefore, if the prior art structure is capable of performing the function, then the prior art meets the limitation in the claims. See MPEP 2114 and 2111.04).
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 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 9 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bernath in view of Beder et al. (US Patent No. 4,479,865 – hereinafter “Beder”).
Regarding claim 9, Bernath disclose the sampling probe according to claim 8 above.
Bernath does not teach wherein the tip portion is screwed against an insertion stop of the shaft.
However, Beder teach the analogous art of a shaft with a cylindrical portion (Beder; fig. 1, #12, col. 2 lines 35-51) and a tip portion (Beder; fig. 1, #40, col. 2 lines 52-55), wherein the tip portion is screwed against an insertion stop of the shaft (Beder; fig. 1, #22, #16, #58, col. 2 lines 35-51).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the tip portion and shaft of Bernath with the tip portion that is screwed against an insertion stop of the shaft, as taught by Beder, because Beder teach the threaded portion and insertion stop can be engage end surfaces securely fastened tip portion to the shaft (Beder; fig. 1, #22, #62, col. 4 lines 3-14). One of ordinary skill in the art would have expected this modification could have been performed with a reasonable expectation of success since Bernath and Beder both teach probes with a detachable tip portion.
Regarding claim 12, Bernath disclose the sampling probe according to claim 11 above, comprising the sleeve and detachable tip portion.
Bernath does not teach wherein the sleeve is press-fit into a hole of the tip portion.
However, Beder teach the analogous art of a sleeve (Beder; fig. 3, #42, col. 2 lines 52-55) and a tip portion (Beder; fig. 3, #44, col. 2 lines 52-55), wherein the sleeve is press fit into a hole of the tip portion (Beder; figs. 1-3, col. 3 lines 55-58).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the sleeve and tip portion of Bernath to be a press-fit attachment, as taught by Beder, because the press-fit attachment allows easy separation of the sleeve from the top portions to enable easier and more thorough cleaning of the nozzle. One of ordinary skill in the art would have expected this modification could have been performed with a reasonable expectation of success since Bernath and Beder both teach analyzing devices for measuring a sample.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bernath in view of Ames et al. (US 2004/0041136 – hereinafter “Ames”).
Regarding claim 13, Bernath disclose the sampling probe according to claim 8 above.
Bernath does not teach wherein the shaft and the tip portion each have wrench flats.
However, Ames teach the analogous art of a shaft and tip portion (Ames; fig. 6, #12, #20, [0036]), wherein the shaft and tip portion each have wrench flats (Ames; fig. 6, #32, #24, [0036]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the shaft and tip portion of Bernath to comprise wrench flats, as taught by Ames, because Ames teach the wrench flats facilitate gripping of the two items by wrenches in order to tighten or loosen the tip portion on the shaft (Ames; [0034]). One of ordinary skill in the art would have expected this modification could have been performed with a reasonable expectation of success since Bernath and Ames both teach a detachable tip portion and
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bernath in view of Hughes et al. (US 2011/0226044 – hereinafter “Hughes”).
Regarding claim 14, Bernath disclose the sampling probe according to claim 8, comprising the shaft and tip portion.
Bernath does not teach wherein at least one of the shaft or the tip portion are made of solid metal.
However, Hughes teach the analogous art of a probe (Hughes; fig. 1, #40, [0022]), comprising a shaft (Hughes; fig. 1, #41, [0022]), where the shaft is made of solid metal (Hughes; fig. 1, #41, [0027]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the shaft of Bernath to be made of metal, as taught by Hughes, because Hughes teach the shaft made of metal may be corrosion resistant, strong, and easy to clean (Hughes; [0027]). One of ordinary skill in the art would have expected this modification could have been performed with a reasonable expectation of success since Bernath and Hughes both teach devices for measuring and analyzing properties in a sample using a probe.
Other References Cited
The prior art of made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure include:
Pierson et al. (US 2018/0000561) disclose a nozzle created on a sleeve.
Mori et al. (US 2004/0235025) disclose a tip portion attached to a probe encased by a sleeve.
Knollenberg (US Patent No. 4,571,079) disclose an aerosol sampling device comprising a sampling portion that is inserted into a containment.
Citations to art
In the above citations to documents in the art, an effort has been made to specifically cite representative passages, however rejections are in reference to the entirety of each document relied upon. Other passages, not specifically cited, may apply as well.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CURTIS A THOMPSON whose telephone number is (571) 272-0648. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F: 7:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m..
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.
E-mail communication Authorization
Per updated USPTO Internet usage policies, Applicant and/or applicant’s representative is encouraged to authorize the USPTO examiner to discuss any subject matter concerning the above application via Internet e-mail communications. See MPEP 502.03. To approve such communications, Applicant must provide written authorization for e-mail communication by submitting the following statement via EFS Web (using PTO/SB/439) or Central Fax (571-273-8300):
Recognizing that Internet communications are not secure, I hereby authorize the USPTO to communicate with the undersigned and practitioners in accordance with 37 CFR 1.33 and 37 CFR 1.34 concerning any subject matter of this application by video conferencing, instant messaging, or electronic mail. I understand that a copy of these communications will be made of record in the application file.
Written authorizations submitted to the Examiner via e-mail are NOT proper. Written authorizations must be submitted via EFS-Web (using PTO/SB/439) or Central Fax (571-273-8300). A paper copy of e-mail correspondence will be placed in the patent application when appropriate. E-mails from the USPTO are for the sole use of the intended recipient, and may contain information subject to the confidentiality requirement set forth in 35 USC § 122. See also MPEP 502.03.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Charles Capozzi can be reached at 571-270-3638. 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
/C.A.T./Examiner, Art Unit 1798
/BENJAMIN R WHATLEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1798
Prosecution Insights