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 drawings are objected to because in Fig. 2 the 131 pointing to aperture containing center electrode 120 should be labeled 121 to be consistent with remaining figures. 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 1 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. When describing the electrolytic tilt sensor electrode arrangement in lines 6-9 of claim 1, the wording suggests that electrodes are not immersed in a solution under "upright" or neutral orientation and that electrodes only contact solution upon tilting of said electrolytic tilt sensor ("... [electrodes] immerse in said electrolyte upon tilting said sensor..."). However, in the instant specification, there is no evidence to suggest such a "floating" orientation of electrodes above a solution and that immersion in the solution only occurs upon tilting the sensor. Additionally, the drawings depict embodiments of several electrolytic tilt sensors whereby the chambers are disclosed as housing the electrolyte solution. The chambers in upright orientation contain electrodes at the floor of the chamber. Thus, in the presence of a solution, the electrodes will always be partially immersed in the solution in upright orientation and not only upon tilting. Claims 2-11 are rejected as being dependent on, and failing to cure the deficiencies of, rejected independent claim 1.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "said electrolytic solution" in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The term “said electrolytic solution” will be interpreted as “said electrolyte solution” referring back to “an electrolyte solution” in line 1. Claims 2-11 are rejected as being dependent on, and failing to cure the deficiencies of, rejected independent claim 1.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "said electrolyte" in line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The term “said electrolyte” will be interpreted as “said electrolyte solution” referring back to “an electrolyte solution” in line 1. Claims 2-11 are rejected as being dependent on, and failing to cure the deficiencies of, rejected independent claim 1.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "said tilt sensor" in line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The term “said tilt sensor” will be interpreted as “said electrolytic tilt sensor” referring back to “an electrolytic tilt sensor” in line 1. Claims 2-11 are rejected as being dependent on, and failing to cure the deficiencies of, rejected independent claim 1.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "said sensor" in line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The term “said sensor” will be interpreted as “said electrolytic tilt sensor” referring back to “an electrolytic tilt sensor” in line 1. Claims 2-11 are rejected as being dependent on, and failing to cure the deficiencies of, rejected independent claim 1.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the solution" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The term “the solution” will be interpreted as “the electrolyte solution” referring back to “an electrolyte solution” in line 1 of claim 1. Claims 4-8 are rejected as being dependent on, and failing to cure the deficiencies of, rejected dependent claim 2.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the solvent" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The term “the solvent” will be interpreted as “a solvent”.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the solvent" in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The term “the solvent” will be interpreted as “a solvent”.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "said electrolyte" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The term “said electrolyte” will be interpreted as “said electrolyte solution” referring back to “an electrolyte solution” in line 1 of claim 1.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "said electrolyte" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The term “said electrolyte” will be interpreted as “said electrolyte solution” referring back to “an electrolyte solution” in line 1 of claim 1.
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 1-4 and 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barsky et al (US Pat No 6249984) in view of Kany et al (US Pat No 8227398)
Regarding claim 1, Barsky teaches an electrolytic tilt sensor (Figs 1-2) which includes electrodes (members 32 and 34) and an electrolytic solution housed inside a housing or envelope. The electrodes are partially immersed in the electrolytic solution when the tilt sensor is in upright position (Col 1 lines 20-41) and conducts current based on impedance changes with respect to changes in orientation of the sensor (and thus changes in immersion of electrodes in solution). In Col. 8 lines 60-62, Barsky defines that the electrode materials can be KOVAR® alloy and Alloy 52. KOVAR® is an iron-nickel-cobalt based alloy. Alloy 52 is a nickel-iron alloy. Barsky does not go into significant detail regarding the composition of the electrolytic solution 30 but that it may be selected from nonaqueous, semi-aqueous and noncorrosive solutions (Col 9 lines 8-15). Further, the electrolytic solution “generally has a non-deleterious effect on the nonprecious metal components”, thus suggesting the electrolytic solution should inhibit significant deterioration and corrosion to the electrodes of the sensor. Kany discloses a corrosion inhibition system and composition for surfaces of metals and alloys that one of ordinary skill in the art could subsequently apply to the tilt sensor solution of Barsky motivated by the anticorrosive properties of Kany’s composition. In Col. 5 lines 18-33, Kany discloses a composition for a diluted use solution which comprises surfactant and a corrosion inhibitor/coinhibitory. Kany discloses in Col 7 lines 1-34 that the surfactant can be anionic, nonionic, cationic, and/or zwitterionic and amphoteric (or combinations thereof) and are included as an adjuvant to increase detergency and wetting (Col. 6 lines 63-67). Kany also discloses that the corrosion inhibitor can be a hydrotrope (Col. 4 lines 14-23 and Col 7 lines 56-62) and serves to impart physical stability to the systems and compositions. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date, to provide the corrosion inhibition composition of Kany as the electrolytic solution of Barsky as a known electrolytic solution capable of inhibiting corrosion to the electrodes of the tilt sensor, selecting for anionic surfactant and hydrotrope in the composition as known adjuvants for detergency and providing stability to the composition. Thus, Barsky and Kany teach the disclosed “The combination of an electrolytic tilt sensor and an electrolyte solution comprising at least one of a rare earth metal salt, an anionic surfactant, and a hydrotrope, wherein the electrolytic tilt sensor includes electrodes made from at least one of nickel, copper, and alloys thereof, and arranged to extend above said electrolytic solution in upright orientation of said tilt sensor and immerse in said electrolyte upon tilting said sensor, and conduct current depending on angle or direction of tilt of said sensor.”.
Regarding claim 2, Barsky and Kany teach the combination (sensor and solution) of claim 1. Further, as described in the rejection of claim 1 above, Kany discloses the surfactant can also include nonionic species (Col. 7 lines 9-19). It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date, to include a nonionic surfactant in the solution as a known component in the disclosed composition of Kany to improve wetting and detergency of the provided solution in the sensor of Barsky. Thus, Barsky and Kany teach the disclosed “The combination of claim 1, wherein the solution further comprises a nonionic surfactant.”.
Regarding claim 3, Barsky and Kany teach the combination of claim 1. Kany discloses in Col. 7 lines 1-8 and Col. 4 lines 7-9 that the anionic surfactant can be “ a carboxylate, sulfonate, sulfate, or phosphate group as the negatively charged hydrophilic moiety”, “phosphate esters”, or “selected from the group consisting of alkoxylated hydrocarbyl carboxylate, sulfonate, sulfate and phosphate esters”. Kany discloses that the hydrotropes can be “monofunctional and polyfunctional alcohols as well as glycol and glycol ether compounds”, “alkyl alcohols such as ethanol, isopropanol and the like, polyfunctional organic alcohols like glycerol, hexylene glycol, polyethylene glycol, propylene glycol, sorbitol and the like”, “difunctional alcohols such as alkyl glycols”, or “HLB surfactants such as toluene sulfonates, xylene sulfonates, cumene sulfonates, octyl sulfonates and the simpler ethoxylated phosphate esters” (Col 7 lines 60-67 through Col 8 lines 1-4). It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date, to select for any of the overlapping identities of disclosed surfactants and/or hydrotropes as known compounds for providing such a composition, as informed by Kany, to be an electrolyte solution in the sensor of Barsky to inhibit corrosion of the metallic electrodes. Thus, Barsky and Kany teach the claimed “The combination of claim 1, wherein the rare earth metal salt is selected from the group consisting of cerium salt, terbium salts, praseodymium salt, a salt of a rare earth element in the tetravalent oxidation state, a nitrate of yttrium, gadolinium, cerium, europium, terbium, samarium, neodymium, praseodymium, lanthanum, holmium, ytterbium, dysprosium, or erbium, and mixtures thereof, the anionic surfactant is selected from the group consisting of alkoxylated hydrocarbyl carboxylate, sulfonate, sulfate and phosphate esters, and mixtures thereof, and the hydrotrope is selected from the group consisting of monofunctional alcohol, polyfunctional alcohol, glycol, glycol ether, polyfunctional organic alcohol, toluene sulfonate, xylene sulfonate, cumene sulfonate, octyl sulfonate, and mixtures thereof.”.
Regarding claim 4, Barsky and Kany teach the combination of claim 2. Kany discloses in Col. 7 lines 1-8 and Col. 4 lines 7-9 that the anionic surfactant can be “ a carboxylate, sulfonate, sulfate, or phosphate group as the negatively charged hydrophilic moiety”, “phosphate esters”, or “selected from the group consisting of alkoxylated hydrocarbyl carboxylate, sulfonate, sulfate and phosphate esters”. Kany discloses that the hydrotropes can be “monofunctional and polyfunctional alcohols as well as glycol and glycol ether compounds”, “alkyl alcohols such as ethanol, isopropanol and the like, polyfunctional organic alcohols like glycerol, hexylene glycol, polyethylene glycol, propylene glycol, sorbitol and the like”, “difunctional alcohols such as alkyl glycols”, or “HLB surfactants such as toluene sulfonates, xylene sulfonates, cumene sulfonates, octyl sulfonates and the simpler ethoxylated phosphate esters” (Col 7 lines 60-67 through Col 8 lines 1-4). Kany discloses in Col. 7 lines 9-19 that the nonionic surfactants can encompass “a wide variety of polymeric compounds which include, but not exclusively, ethoxylated alkylphenols, ethoxylated aliphatic alcohols, ethoxylated amines, ethoxylated etheramines, carboxylic esters, carboxylic amides and polyoxyalkylene oxide block copolymers”. The nonionic surfactant is “preferably” an alkoxylated or ethoxylated alcohol. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date, to select for any of the overlapping identities of disclosed nonionic surfactants with an anionic surfactant and/or a hydrotrope as known compounds for providing such an electrolytic composition, as informed by Kany, to be an electrolyte solution in the sensor of Barsky to inhibit corrosion of the metallic electrodes. Thus, Barsky and Kany teach the claimed “The combination of claim 2, wherein the rare earth metal salt is selected from the group consisting of cerium salt, terbium salt, praseodymium salt, a salt of a rare earth element in the tetravalent oxidation state, a nitrate of yttrium, gadolinium, cerium, europium, terbium, samarium, neodymium, praseodymium, lanthanum, holmium, ytterbium, dysprosium, or erbium, and mixtures thereof, the anionic surfactant is selected from the group consisting of alkoxylated hydrocarbyl carboxylate, sulfonate, sulfate and phosphate esters, and mixtures thereof, the hydrotrope is selected from the group consisting of monofunctional alcohol, polyfunctional alcohol, glycol, glycol ether, polyfunctional organic alcohol, toluene sulfonate, xylene sulfonate, cumene sulfonate, octyl sulfonate, and mixtures thereof, and the nonionic surfactant is selected from the group consisting of ethoxylated alkylphenol, ethoxylated aliphatic alcohol, ethoxylated amine, ethoxylated etheramine, carboxylic ester, carboxylic amide, polyoxyalkyleneoxide block-copolymer, alkylated alkylethoxylate, and mixtures thereof.”
Regarding claim 10, Barsky and Kany teach the combination of claim 1. In Figs. 1-4, Barsky depicts an embodiment of an electrolytic tilt sensor (member 20) which includes a containment assembly (member 22) that has a metallic container (member 24) and header (member 26) which define a chamber (member 28) partially filled with an electrolytic solution (member 30). From the abstract, the metallic envelope comprises a metal container and a metal header welded to the enclosure, hermetically sealing the envelope, The envelope defines a chamber that contains an electrolytic solution and a plurality of electrodes. The sensor depicts in Figs. 1-4 possesses 5 total electrodes (members 32 and 34) which include a center electrode and four sensing electrodes that are arranged in quadrature around the center (thus peripherally arranged around said center electrode, see also Col 4 lines 3-15). Thus, Barsky and Kany teach the claimed “The combination of claim 1, wherein said electrolytic tilt sensor comprises an envelope containing said electrolyte, and five said electrodes protruding into said electrolyte through said envelope, with a center electrode and four other electrodes peripherally arranged around said center electrode”.
Regarding claim 11, Barsky and Kany teach the combination of claim 1. In Figs. 1-4, Barsky depicts an embodiment of an electrolytic tilt sensor (member 20) which includes a containment assembly (member 22) that has a metallic container (member 24) and header (member 26) which define a chamber (member 28) partially filled with an electrolytic solution (member 30). From the abstract, the metallic envelope comprises a metal container and a metal header welded to the enclosure, hermetically sealing the envelope, The envelope defines a chamber that contains an electrolytic solution and a plurality of electrodes. Although the sensor depicted in the figures possesses 5 total electrodes where 4 sensing electrodes are peripherally arranged around the center electrode, Barsky discloses that “at least two electrodes are provided” (Col. 3 line 64). Further, Barsky states that the “number and arrangement of the electrodes are design variables that are known and would be selected by those skilled in the art” (Col. 8 lines 38-40). It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date, to modify the number of electrodes from 5 total, maintaining the provided arrangement, such that at least two provided (for instance 3 total) to fit the needs of the user and arrive at the invention as claimed as the number of electrodes represents a result-effective variable as informed by Barsky (see MPEP2144.05IIb). Thus, Barsky and Kany teach the claimed “The combination of claim 1, wherein said electrolytic tilt sensor comprises an envelope containing said electrolyte, and three said electrodes protruding into said electrolyte through said envelope, with a center electrode and two other electrodes peripherally arranged around said center electrode”.
Claims 1-7 and 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barsky et al (US Pat No 6249984) in view of Kany et al (US Pat No 8227398) and Phelps et al (US Pat No 7291217).
Regarding claim 1, Barsky teaches an electrolytic tilt sensor (Figs 1-2) which includes electrodes (members 32 and 34) and an electrolytic solution housed inside a housing or envelope. The electrodes are partially immersed in the electrolytic solution when the tilt sensor is in upright position (Col 1 lines 20-41) and conducts current based on impedance changes with respect to changes in orientation of the sensor (and thus changes in immersion of electrodes in solution). In Col. 8 lines 60-62, Barsky defines that the electrode materials can be KOVAR® alloy and Alloy 52. KOVAR® is an iron-nickel-cobalt based alloy. Alloy 52 is a nickel-iron alloy. Barsky does not go into significant detail regarding the composition of the electrolytic solution 30 but that it may be selected from nonaqueous, semi-aqueous and noncorrosive solutions (Col 9 lines 8-15). Further, the electrolytic solution “generally has a non-deleterious effect on the nonprecious metal components”, thus suggesting the electrolytic solution should inhibit significant deterioration and corrosion to the electrodes of the sensor. Kany discloses a corrosion inhibition system and composition for surfaces of metals and alloys that one of ordinary skill in the art could subsequently apply to the tilt sensor solution of Barsky motivated by the anticorrosive properties of Kany’s composition. In Col. 5 lines 18-33, Kany discloses a composition for a diluted use solution which comprises surfactant and a corrosion inhibitor/coinhibitory. Kany discloses in Col 7 lines 1-34 that the surfactant can be anionic, nonionic, cationic, and/or zwitterionic and amphoteric (or combinations thereof) and are included as an adjuvant to increase detergency and wetting (Col. 6 lines 63-67). Kany also discloses that the corrosion inhibitor can be a hydrotrope (Col. 4 lines 14-23 and Col 7 lines 56-62) and serves to impart physical stability to the systems and compositions. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date, to provide the corrosion inhibition composition of Kany as the electrolytic solution of Barsky as a known electrolytic solution capable of inhibiting corrosion to the electrodes of the tilt sensor, selecting for anionic surfactant and hydrotrope in the composition as known adjuvants for detergency and providing stability to the composition. Kany is silent on including a rare earth metal salt. Phelps also discloses a composition to be used for protective, corrosion inhibiting needs on metal surfaces (Col 1 lines 37-67), thus relevant to electrolytic tilt sensors. Phelps highlights Cerium as a known non-toxic, non-regulated metal that exhibits more than one oxidation state and thus serves as a great oxidizing species and helps passivate metal surfaces if sufficient oxygen is released (Col. 3 lines 25-45). In Col. 10 lines 1-39, Phelps discloses potential cerium sources which include salts of cerium such as acetate and nitrate. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date, to include a cerium metal salt in the electrolytic composition of Kany, as informed by Phelps, in order to further improve anti-corrosive properties of the composition for use in an electrolytic tilt sensor of Barsky. Thus, Barsky, Kany, and Phelps teach the disclosed “The combination of an electrolytic tilt sensor and an electrolyte solution comprising at least one of a rare earth metal salt, an anionic surfactant, and a hydrotrope, wherein the electrolytic tilt sensor includes electrodes made from at least one of nickel, copper, and alloys thereof, and arranged to extend above said electrolytic solution in upright orientation of said tilt sensor and immerse in said electrolyte upon tilting said sensor, and conduct current depending on angle or direction of tilt of said sensor.”.
Regarding claim 2, Barsky, Kany, and Phelps teach the combination (sensor and solution) of claim 1. Further, as described in the rejection of claim 1 above, Kany discloses the surfactant can also include nonionic species (Col. 7 lines 9-19). It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date, to include a nonionic surfactant in the solution as a known component in the disclosed composition of Kany to improve wetting and detergency of the provided solution in the sensor of Barsky. Thus, Barsky, Kany, and Phelps teach the disclosed “The combination of claim 1, wherein the solution further comprises a nonionic surfactant.”.
Regarding claim 3, Barsky, Kany, and Phelps teach the combination of claim 1. Kany discloses in Col. 7 lines 1-8 and Col. 4 lines 7-9 that the anionic surfactant can be “ a carboxylate, sulfonate, sulfate, or phosphate group as the negatively charged hydrophilic moiety”, “phosphate esters”, or “selected from the group consisting of alkoxylated hydrocarbyl carboxylate, sulfonate, sulfate and phosphate esters”. Kany discloses that the hydrotropes can be “monofunctional and polyfunctional alcohols as well as glycol and glycol ether compounds”, “alkyl alcohols such as ethanol, isopropanol and the like, polyfunctional organic alcohols like glycerol, hexylene glycol, polyethylene glycol, propylene glycol, sorbitol and the like”, “difunctional alcohols such as alkyl glycols”, or “HLB surfactants such as toluene sulfonates, xylene sulfonates, cumene sulfonates, octyl sulfonates and the simpler ethoxylated phosphate esters” (Col 7 lines 60-67 through Col 8 lines 1-4). Phelps discloses the rare earth metal salt can be any of cerium (tetravalent specific to cerium), terbium, praseodymium salts, and/or mixtures thereof (Cols 10-11). Nitrate is listed a precursor for each rare earth metal as well. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date, to select for any of the overlapping identities of disclosed surfactants, hydrotropes, and/or rare earth metal salts as known compounds for providing such a composition, as informed by Kany and Phelps, to be an electrolyte solution in the sensor of Barsky to inhibit corrosion of the metallic electrodes. Thus, Barsky, Kany, and Phelps teach the claimed “The combination of claim 1, wherein the rare earth metal salt is selected from the group consisting of cerium salt, terbium salts, praseodymium salt, a salt of a rare earth element in the tetravalent oxidation state, a nitrate of yttrium, gadolinium, cerium, europium, terbium, samarium, neodymium, praseodymium, lanthanum, holmium, ytterbium, dysprosium, or erbium, and mixtures thereof, the anionic surfactant is selected from the group consisting of alkoxylated hydrocarbyl carboxylate, sulfonate, sulfate and phosphate esters, and mixtures thereof, and the hydrotrope is selected from the group consisting of monofunctional alcohol, polyfunctional alcohol, glycol, glycol ether, polyfunctional organic alcohol, toluene sulfonate, xylene sulfonate, cumene sulfonate, octyl sulfonate, and mixtures thereof.”.
Regarding claim 4, Barsky, Kany, and Phelps teach the combination of claim 2. Kany discloses in Col. 7 lines 1-8 and Col. 4 lines 7-9 that the anionic surfactant can be “ a carboxylate, sulfonate, sulfate, or phosphate group as the negatively charged hydrophilic moiety”, “phosphate esters”, or “selected from the group consisting of alkoxylated hydrocarbyl carboxylate, sulfonate, sulfate and phosphate esters”. Kany discloses that the hydrotropes can be “monofunctional and polyfunctional alcohols as well as glycol and glycol ether compounds”, “alkyl alcohols such as ethanol, isopropanol and the like, polyfunctional organic alcohols like glycerol, hexylene glycol, polyethylene glycol, propylene glycol, sorbitol and the like”, “difunctional alcohols such as alkyl glycols”, or “HLB surfactants such as toluene sulfonates, xylene sulfonates, cumene sulfonates, octyl sulfonates and the simpler ethoxylated phosphate esters” (Col 7 lines 60-67 through Col 8 lines 1-4). Kany discloses in Col. 7 lines 9-19 that the nonionic surfactants can encompass “a wide variety of polymeric compounds which include, but not exclusively, ethoxylated alkylphenols, ethoxylated aliphatic alcohols, ethoxylated amines, ethoxylated etheramines, carboxylic esters, carboxylic amides and polyoxyalkylene oxide block copolymers”. The nonionic surfactant is “preferably” an alkoxylated or ethoxylated alcohol. Phelps discloses the rare earth metal salt can be any of cerium (tetravalent specific to cerium), terbium, praseodymium salts, and/or mixtures thereof (Cols 10-11). Nitrate is listed a precursor for each rare earth metal as well. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date, to select for any of the overlapping identities of disclosed surfactants, hydrotropes, and/or rare earth metal salts as known compounds for providing such a composition, as informed by Kany and Phelps, to be an electrolyte solution in the sensor of Barsky to inhibit corrosion of the metallic electrodes. Thus, Barsky, Kany, and Phelps teach the claimed “The combination of claim 2, wherein the rare earth metal salt is selected from the group consisting of cerium salt, terbium salt, praseodymium salt, a salt of a rare earth element in the tetravalent oxidation state, a nitrate of yttrium, gadolinium, cerium, europium, terbium, samarium, neodymium, praseodymium, lanthanum, holmium, ytterbium, dysprosium, or erbium, and mixtures thereof, the anionic surfactant is selected from the group consisting of alkoxylated hydrocarbyl carboxylate, sulfonate, sulfate and phosphate esters, and mixtures thereof, the hydrotrope is selected from the group consisting of monofunctional alcohol, polyfunctional alcohol, glycol, glycol ether, polyfunctional organic alcohol, toluene sulfonate, xylene sulfonate, cumene sulfonate, octyl sulfonate, and mixtures thereof, and the nonionic surfactant is selected from the group consisting of ethoxylated alkylphenol, ethoxylated aliphatic alcohol, ethoxylated amine, ethoxylated etheramine, carboxylic ester, carboxylic amide, polyoxyalkyleneoxide block-copolymer, alkylated alkylethoxylate, and mixtures thereof.”
Regarding claim 5, Barsky, Kany, and Phelps teach the combination of claim 4. As described in the rejections of claims 1-4 above, Kany teaches the importance of including surfactants to increase detergency and wetting and including hydrotropes to impart physical stability in an anticorrosive composition while Phelps teaches inclusion of a rare earth metal to aid in inhibiting corrosion via oxidative protection. In samples G and H of Kany, the most impactful reduction in corrosion across all metals examined is achieved (see Tables 1 and 2, Cols 11-12). Kany suggests the combination of the nonionic surfactant (ethoxylated C13-alkanol) and an anionic surfactant (ethoxylated alkyl phosphate diester) in samples G and H are responsible for this effect (Col 10 lines 39-49). It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date, to include all of these compounds in combination as known ingredients in an electrolytic solution favored for their anticorrosive properties when included in an electrolytic tilt sensor of Barsky. Thus, Barsky, Kany, and Phelps teach the claimed “The combination of claim 4, comprising the combination of a rare earth metal salt, an anionic surfactant, a hydrotrope, and a nonionic surfactant”.
Regarding claim 6, Barsky, Kany, and Phelps teach the combination of claim 5. Both Kany and Phelps provide a solvent capable of breaking down salts into ionic components, as salts are provided as necessary precursors to provided compounds in both compositions. Further, since their compositions would be applied to the tilt sensor of Barsky which relies on conductance through the composition, one of ordinary skill in the art would ensure decomposition of salts into ions such that current can conduct in solution/solvent. Kany teaches that surfactants (broadly any of anionic, nonionic, cationic, zwitterionic) can generally compose 0.1-98% by weight of the overall solution or composes 0.001-0.98% (or 0.01-0.2%) in the diluted use case. Additionally, Kany teaches inclusion of hydrotropes at 0.01-20% by weight. Overlapping ranges have been held to present a prima facie case of obviousness over the prior art. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date, to select from the overlapping portion of the range as known compositions of surfactants and hydrotropes necessary to an anticorrosive solution to arrive at the invention as claimed. Furthermore, Kany teaches that hydrotropes impart physical stability to the systems and compositions (Col 7, lines 57-62). Thus the amount of included hydrotrope represents a result-effective variable (see MPEP2144.05IIb). It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date, to optimize the amount of included hydrotrope in the composition to maximize the stabilization of the provided solution and arrive at the invention as claimed. While Phelps is silent on the amount of provided rare earth metal salts, Phelps does teach the ability of cerium to passivate metal surfaces and protect from oxidation/corrosion (Col 3 lines 25-46). Thus, the amount of included cerium salt is a result-effective variable (see MPEP2144.05IIb). It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date, to optimize the amount of included cerium salt in the composition to maximize the passivation effect and reduce corrosion and arrive at the invention as claimed. Thus, Barsky, Kany, and Phelps teach the claimed “The electrolyte solution of claim 5, comprising from about 0.01 to about 0.02 weight percent rare earth metal salt, from about 0.1 to about 0.25 weight percent anionic surfactant, and from about 0.025 to about 0.1 weight percent hydrotrope, the solvent being capable of breaking down salts into ions.”
Regarding claim 7, Barsky, Kany, and Phelps teach the combination of claim 2. Both Kany and Phelps provide a solvent capable of breaking down salts into ionic components, as salts are provided as necessary precursors to provided compounds in both compositions. Further, since their compositions would be applied to the tilt sensor of Barsky which relies on conductance through the composition, one of ordinary skill in the art would ensure decomposition of salts into ions such that current can conduct in solution/solvent. Kany teaches that surfactants (broadly any of anionic, nonionic, cationic, zwitterionic) can generally compose 0.1-98% by weight of the overall solution or composes 0.001-0.98% (or 0.01-0.2%) in the diluted use case. Additionally, Kany teaches inclusion of hydrotropes at 0.01-20% by weight. Overlapping ranges have been held to present a prima facie case of obviousness over the prior art. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date, to select from the overlapping portion of the range as known compositions of surfactants and hydrotropes necessary to an anticorrosive solution to arrive at the invention as claimed. Furthermore, Kany teaches that hydrotropes impart physical stability to the systems and compositions (Col 7, lines 57-62). Thus the amount of included hydrotrope represents a result-effective variable (see MPEP2144.05IIb). It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date, to optimize the amount of included hydrotrope in the composition to maximize the stabilization of the provided solution and arrive at the invention as claimed. While Phelps is silent on the amount of provided rare earth metal salts, Phelps does teach the ability of cerium to passivate metal surfaces and protect from oxidation/corrosion (Col 3 lines 25-46). Thus, the amount of included cerium salt is a result-effective variable (see MPEP2144.05IIb). It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date, to optimize the amount of included cerium salt in the composition to maximize the passivation effect and reduce corrosion and arrive at the invention as claimed. Thus, Barsky, Kany, and Phelps teach the claimed “The combination of claim 2, comprising from about 0.01 to about 0.02 weight percent rare earth metal salt, from about 0.1 to about 0.25 weight percent anionic surfactant, from about 0.025 to about 0.1 weight percent hydrotrope, and from about 0.01 to about 0.025 weight percent nonionic surfactant, the solvent being capable of carrying a charge through dissolution of salts into ions.”.
Regarding claim 10, Barsky, Kany, and Phelps teach the combination of claim 1. In Figs. 1-4, Barsky depicts an embodiment of an electrolytic tilt sensor (member 20) which includes a containment assembly (member 22) that has a metallic container (member 24) and header (member 26) which define a chamber (member 28) partially filled with an electrolytic solution (member 30). From the abstract, the metallic envelope comprises a metal container and a metal header welded to the enclosure, hermetically sealing the envelope, The envelope defines a chamber that contains an electrolytic solution and a plurality of electrodes. The sensor depicts in Figs. 1-4 possesses 5 total electrodes (members 32 and 34) which include a center electrode and four sensing electrodes that are arranged in quadrature around the center (thus peripherally arranged around said center electrode, see also Col 4 lines 3-15). Thus, Barsky, Kany, and Phelps teach the claimed “The combination of claim 1, wherein said electrolytic tilt sensor comprises an envelope containing said electrolyte, and five said electrodes protruding into said electrolyte through said envelope, with a center electrode and four other electrodes peripherally arranged around said center electrode”.
Regarding claim 11, Barsky, Kany, and Phelps teach the combination of claim 1. In Figs. 1-4, Barsky depicts an embodiment of an electrolytic tilt sensor (member 20) which includes a containment assembly (member 22) that has a metallic container (member 24) and header (member 26) which define a chamber (member 28) partially filled with an electrolytic solution (member 30). From the abstract, the metallic envelope comprises a metal container and a metal header welded to the enclosure, hermetically sealing the envelope, The envelope defines a chamber that contains an electrolytic solution and a plurality of electrodes. Although the sensor depicted in the figures possesses 5 total electrodes where 4 sensing electrodes are peripherally arranged around the center electrode, Barsky discloses that “at least two electrodes are provided” (Col. 3 line 64). Further, Barsky states that the “number and arrangement of the electrodes are design variables that are known and would be selected by those skilled in the art” (Col. 8 lines 38-40). It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date, to modify the number of electrodes from 5 total, maintaining the provided arrangement, such that at least two provided (for instance 3 total) to fit the needs of the user and arrive at the invention as claimed as the number of electrodes represents a result-effective variable as informed by Barsky (see MPEP2144.05IIb). Thus, Barsky, Kany, and Phelps teach the claimed “The combination of claim 1, wherein said electrolytic tilt sensor comprises an envelope containing said electrolyte, and three said electrodes protruding into said electrolyte through said envelope, with a center electrode and two other electrodes peripherally arranged around said center electrode”.
Claims 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barsky et al in view of Kany et al and Phelps et al as applied to claims 5 and 2, respectively, above, and further in view of Leyrer et al (US PGPub 20170204212) and Bromberg et al (US PGPub 2009148342).
Regarding claim 6, Barsky, Kany, and Phelps teach the combination of claim 5. Both Kany and Phelps provide a solvent capable of breaking down salts into ionic components, as salts are provided as necessary precursors to provided compounds in both compositions. Further, since their compositions would be applied to the tilt sensor of Barsky which relies on conductance through the composition, one of ordinary skill in the art would ensure decomposition of salts into ions such that current can conduct in solution/solvent. Kany teaches that surfactants (broadly any of anionic, nonionic, cationic, zwitterionic) can generally compose 0.1-98% by weight of the overall solution or composes 0.001-0.98% (or 0.01-0.2%) in the diluted use case. Additionally, Kany teaches inclusion of hydrotropes at 0.01-20% by weight. Overlapping ranges have been held to present a prima facie case of obviousness over the prior art. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date, to select from the overlapping portion of the range as known compositions of surfactants and hydrotropes necessary to an anticorrosive solution to arrive at the invention as claimed. Both Kany and Phelps are silent on the inclusion of weight amounts of rare earth metal salt. Leyrer teaches an inverse emulsion solution comprising analogous reagents to Kany and Phelps which can also include corrosion inhibitors and thus serve as an anticorrosive analogously to Kany and Phelps. Leyrer also includes a rare earth metal salt (such as cerium) although for the purpose of polymerization initiation via redox initiator system (paragraphs [0117]) as opposed to an anti-corrosive as disclosed by Phelps. Leyrer includes such oxidizing or reducing agents at amounts of 0.001-5.0% by weight (or 0.01-0.5%, paragraph [0121]). Overlapping ranges have been held to present a prima facie case of obviousness over the prior art. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date, to select from the overlapping portion of the range of the provided rare earth metal salt as a known compositional amount relevant for anticorrosive solutions to arrive at the invention as claimed. Although, Leyrer teaches the inclusion of rare earth salts for redox iniator systems, Bromberg teaches a composition to be applied to a variety of surfaces and can serve as an anti-corrosive through inclusion of corrosion inhibitors (paragraph [0092]) which is an analogous solution comprising surfactants, rare earth metals, and hydrotropes and provides more relevant ranges for upper ends of inclusion of rare earth metals and of hydrotropes. Bromberg describes inclusion of rare earth metal salts such as cerium as an antibacterial metal salt (paragraphs [0085-86]) which can be included in an amount below about 0.5%, below about 0.4%, or below 0.1% (paragraph [0091]). Bromberg lists hydrotropes as an optional ingredient or other product components (paragraphs [0339-345]) which are included in amounts not more than 1% wt and desirably less than 0.1% wt (paragraph [0339]). Thus, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date, to include hydrotrope and rare earth metal salt within the provided overlapping ranges of Kany and Leyrer such that they are not also included more than 0.1%, as informed by Bromberg, as known compositional amounts of such reagents for use in anticorrosive solutions in the tilt sensor of Barsky. Therefore, Barsky, Kany, Phelps, Leyrer, and Bromberg teach the claimed “The electrolyte solution of claim 5, comprising from about 0.01 to about 0.02 weight percent rare earth metal salt, from about 0.1 to about 0.25 weight percent anionic surfactant, and from about 0.025 to about 0.1 weight percent hydrotrope, the solvent being capable of breaking down salts into ions.”
Regarding claim 7, Barsky, Kany, and Phelps teach the combination of claim 2. Both Kany and Phelps provide a solvent capable of breaking down salts into ionic components, as salts are provided as necessary precursors to provided compounds in both compositions. Further, since their compositions would be applied to the tilt sensor of Barsky which relies on conductance through the composition, one of ordinary skill in the art would ensure decomposition of salts into ions such that current can conduct in solution/solvent. Kany teaches that surfactants (broadly any of anionic, nonionic, cationic, zwitterionic) can generally compose 0.1-98% by weight of the overall solution or composes 0.001-0.98% (or 0.01-0.2%) in the diluted use case. Additionally, Kany teaches inclusion of hydrotropes at 0.01-20% by weight. Overlapping ranges have been held to present a prima facie case of obviousness over the prior art. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date, to select from the overlapping portion of the range as known compositions of surfactants and hydrotropes necessary to an anticorrosive solution to arrive at the invention as claimed. Both Kany and Phelps are silent on the inclusion of weight amounts of rare earth metal salt. Leyrer teaches an inverse emulsion solution comprising analogous reagents to Kany and Phelps which can also include corrosion inhibitors and thus serve as an anticorrosive analogously to Kany and Phelps. Leyrer also includes a rare earth metal salt (such as cerium) although for the purpose of polymerization initiation via redox initiator system (paragraphs [0117]) as opposed to an anti-corrosive as disclosed by Phelps. Leyrer includes such oxidizing or reducing agents at amounts of 0.001-5.0% by weight (or 0.01-0.5%, paragraph [0121]). Overlapping ranges have been held to present a prima facie case of obviousness over the prior art. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date, to select from the overlapping portion of the range of the provided rare earth metal salt as a known compositional amount relevant for anticorrosive solutions to arrive at the invention as claimed. Although, Leyrer teaches the inclusion of rare earth salts for redox iniator systems, Bromberg teaches a composition to be applied to a variety of surfaces and can serve as an anti-corrosive through inclusion of corrosion inhibitors (paragraph [0092]) which is an analogous solution comprising surfactants, rare earth metals, and hydrotropes and provides more relevant ranges for upper ends of inclusion of rare earth metals and of hydrotropes. Bromberg describes inclusion of rare earth metal salts such as cerium as an antibacterial metal salt (paragraphs [0085-86]) which can be included in an amount below about 0.5%, below about 0.4%, or below 0.1% (paragraph [0091]). Bromberg lists hydrotropes as an optional ingredient or other product components (paragraphs [0339-345]) which are included in amounts not more than 1% wt and desirably less than 0.1% wt (paragraph [0339]). Thus, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date, to include hydrotrope and rare earth metal salt within the provided overlapping ranges of Kany and Leyrer such that they are not also included more than 0.1%, as informed by Bromberg, as known compositional amounts of such reagents for use in anticorrosive solutions in the tilt sensor of Barsky. Therefore, Barsky, Kany, Phelps, Leyrer, and Bromberg teach the claimed “The combination of claim 2, comprising from about 0.01 to about 0.02 weight percent rare earth metal salt, from about 0.1 to about 0.25 weight percent anionic surfactant, from about 0.025 to about 0.1 weight percent hydrotrope, and from about 0.01 to about 0.025 weight percent nonionic surfactant, the solvent being capable of carrying a charge through dissolution of salts into ions.”.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barsky et al in view of Kany et al and Phelps et al as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Tamareselvy et al (US PGPub 20210355253) and Mohamed Abdel Moneim Deyab (NPL: "Corrosion Inhibition and Adsorption...").
Barsky, Kany, and Phelps teach the combination of claim 2. Kany discloses that the hydrotropes can be “HLB surfactants such as toluene sulfonates, xylene sulfonates, cumene sulfonates, octyl sulfonates and the simpler ethoxylated phosphate esters” (Col 7 lines 60-67 through Col 8 lines 1-4). Kany discloses in Col. 7 lines 9-19 that the nonionic surfactants is “preferably” an ethoxylated alcohol. Phelps discloses the rare earth metal salt can be any of cerium (tetravalent specific to cerium), terbium, praseodymium salts, and/or mixtures thereof (Cols 10-11). Nitrate and acetate are specifically listed as precursors for cerium as well. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date, to select for any of the disclosed overlapping compounds as known acceptable hydrotropes and rare metal earth salts (such as ethoxylated alcohol, cerium nitrate, and cerium acetate) for use in an anticorrosive solution. Further, Kany discloses defoaming agents can be included such as polydimethylsiloxane (Col. 8 lines 5-19) whereby the defoaming agent serves to reduce the stability of protein foam. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date, to include a defoaming agent such as polydimethylsiloxane in order to reduce protein foam stability of the provided anticorrosive solution. Additionally, Kany discloses in Col. 7 lines 1-8 and Col. 4 lines 7-9 that the anionic surfactant can be “ a carboxylate, sulfonate, sulfate, or phosphate group as the negatively charged hydrophilic moiety”, “phosphate esters”, or “selected from the group consisting of alkoxylated hydrocarbyl carboxylate, sulfonate, sulfate and phosphate esters”. Sodium dodecylbenzene sulfonate would thus classify as a potential hydrocarbyl sulfonate although not specifically mentioned which also applies to sodium lauryl ether sulfate but for hydrocarbyl sulfates. Tamareselvy discloses a similar detergent based solution which can be utilized for corrosion inhibition (paragraphs [0025-26]). Tamareselvy discloses acceptable anionic surfactants in paragraphs [0083-85] which includes alkyl benzenes sulfonates and a particularly preferred alkyl aryl sulfonate is sodium dodecyl benzene sulfonate (paragraph [0083]). It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date, sodium dodecylbenzene sulfonate as a known acceptable anionic surfactant as informed by Tamareselvy in the composition informed by Kany and Phelps for use as an anticorrosive electrolyte solution in the sensor of Barsky. None of Barsky, Kany, Phelps, nor Tamareselvy mention use of sodium lauryl ether sulfate, though Kany does mention use of sulfate compounds. Mohamed Abdel Moneim Deyab teaches corrosion inhibition by sodium lauryl ether sulfate on L80 carbon steel in solution. Sodium lauryl ether sulfate is an anionic surfactant (see abstract). It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date, to further include sodium lauryl ether sulfate as a known anionic surfactant capable of limiting metallic corrosion in a provided solution and arrive at the invention as claimed. Thus, Barsky, Kany, Phelps, Tamareselvy, and Mohamed Abdel Moneim Deyab teach the claimed “The combination of claim 2, wherein the electrolyte comprises a mixture of cerium nitrate, cerium acetate, sodium dodecylbenzene sulfonate, sodium lauryl ether sulfate, sodium xylene sulfonate, alcohol ethoxylate, and polydimethylsiloxane”.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over either Barsky et al in view of Kany et al or Barsky et al in view of Kany et al and Phelps et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Chen et al (CN106352852A).
Barsky, Kany, and Phelps teach the combination of claim 1. Barsky does not mention any coating for their electrodes. Chen teaches a similar inclination sensor (an electrolytic tilt sensor) composed of an electrode which is housed in a shell whereby the shell has a cavity filled with an electrolyte solution. The provided electrode of Chen possesses a coating layer capable of enhancing oxidation resistance, making it more resistance to corrosion. The coating layer is an oxide of a metal wherein the metal is gold, silver, platinum, rhodium, palladium, or cesium. Multiple coating layers can be formed whereby second and/or third coatings can be nickel, cobalt, or nickel-cobalt alloy. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date, to provide a metal coating such as silver, gold, or nickel, as informed by Chen, on the electrodes of the sensor of Barsky to improve the oxidation and corrosion resistance of the electrodes. Thus, Barsky, Kany, Phelps, and Chen teach the claimed “The combination of claim 1, wherein said electrodes are additionally coated with metal selected from the group consisting of tin, gold, silver, nickel, electroless nickel, and mixtures thereof.”.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Noa W. F. Grooms whose telephone number is (571)272-9981. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-3:30PM EST.
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, Curtis Mayes can be reached at (571) 272-1234. 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.
/NWFG/Examiner, Art Unit 1759
/MELVIN C. MAYES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1759
Prosecution Insights