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 § 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.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 24 recites the broad recitation “the oven has an external height of between 50 and 90 mm and internal height of the insert in the range of 66 to 28 mm”, and the claim also recites “preferably 51 and 88 mm and particularly preferably 55 and 56 mm” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 17-19 and 28-34 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Baumgartner (US 10,036,058).
Regarding claim 17, Baumgartner teaches a testing device comprising a housing (100), an insulation system (120, 114 and 112) and an insert (224) for a sample vessel (140), the insulation system (120, 114 and 112) is arranged at least partially around the insert (224), wherein at least one heating element (190) is arranged between the insulation system (120, 114 and 112) and the insert (224) and at least partially surrounding the insert (224). (Refer to Figure 4A)
Regarding claim 18, the at least one heating element (196) is a tubular cartridge. (Refer to Figure 6B)
Regarding claim 19, the tubular cartridge (190) is arranged in a spiral around the insert (224).
Regarding claim 28, the insert (224) is made of a thermally conductive material.
Regarding claim 29, the thermal conductive material has a thermal conductivity higher than 10 W/(m*K). (Refer to Col. 11, Lines 43-48)
Regarding claim 30, the insert (224) has a wall thickness of 1 to 3 mm.
Regarding claim 31, the insert comprises a temperature sensor (422).
Regarding claim 32, the temperature sensor (422) is arranged in a wall of the insert (224).
Regarding claim 33, the oven has a temperature protection switch (126).
Regarding claim 34, the temperature protection switch (126) is arranged below the insert.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries 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.
Claim(s) 20-27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baumgartner.
Refer above for the teachings of Baumgartner.
Baumgartner fails to teach the insert has an inner diameter of between 16 mm and 31 mm and the insert has an inner diameter of between 22 to 24 mm. Baumgartner further fails to teach the oven has an outer diameter of between 60 and 62 mm and the oven has an outer diameter of 61 mm. Baumgartner further fails to teach the oven has an external height of between 50 and 90 mm, preferably 51 and 88 mm and particularly preferably 55 and 56 mm, and an internal height of the insert in the range of 66 to 28 mm and preferably 33 mm and the oven has an external height of between 51 and 88 mm.
Standard laboratory vials diameters range from 10 mm to 42 mm and approximate heights range from 35 mm to 75 mm depending on the volume of the vials.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide a insert that has a an inner diameter of between 16 mm and 31 mm and the insert has an inner diameter of between 22 to 24 mm in order to accommodate standard laboratory vials depending on the desired volume to be tested.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to provide a oven that has an external height of between 50 and 90 mm, preferably 51 and 88 mm and particularly preferably 55 and 56 mm, and an internal height of the insert in the range of 66 to 28 mm and preferably 33 mm and the oven has an external height of between 51 and 88 mm in order to ensure the vials/tubes are fully enclosed in the system.
Claim(s) 35-41 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baumgartner in view of Gruenke (US 7416894).
Refer above for the teachings of Baumgartner.
Baumgartner fails to teach a fully automated titration system wherein the titration system is a Karl-Fischer-titration system. Baumgartner fails to teach titrating the sample.
Gruenke teaches a Karl Fischer (KF) oven technique, the sample is firstly heated by a freely programmable temperature profile. An inert and dry carrier gas flowing through the sample space takes up the liberated water and transports it into the connected titration cell. The water is determined in the cell filled with Karl Fischer reagent. The determination can be carried out both volumetrically and also coulometrically by the Karl Fischer method.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to apply the oven technique of Baumgartner in combination with the Karl Fischer titration technique disclosed in Gruenke in order to improve stability of the sample.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JYOTI NAGPAUL whose telephone number is (571)272-1273. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am to 5pm, 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, 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.
/JYOTI Mutreja/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1798
Prosecution Insights