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 Objections
Claims 2 and 4-5 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 2, lines 2-3, “the immersion path” should be changed to —an immersion path—.
In claims 4 and 5, line 1, “claim 1” should be changed to —claim 2—.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “detecting means” in claim 1; “moving means”, in claim 1; “straightening means”, in claim 1; “feeding means for feeding”, in claim 1; “control means to control”, in claim 10; “means to identify”, in claim 12.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “storing unit”, in claim 1; “guiding system”, in claim 1.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 12 is 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.
Regarding Claim 12, 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.
More specifically, the Examiner notes the element (“means to identify”, in claim 12) is subject to interpretation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is not described in the Specification so as to provide the structure or equivalents thereof that perform the corresponding function of the claims identified in the claims subject to such interpretation. Since the claim is subject to this deficiency, the elements subject to such are not accompanied by sufficient structural features so as to define what the corresponding structure performing the claimed function is, then the claim is found to contain subject matter which is 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.
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 12 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding Claim 12, the limitation (“means to identify”) invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The Specification makes no mention whatsoever of any structure or equivalents thereof for performing the corresponding claimed function for any of these elements and none of the elements are accompanied by sufficient structural features so as to define the corresponding structure performing each of the claimed functions. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
For purposes of examination and until Applicant either overcome or cures the deficiency above, the Examiner will interpret claim limitations (“means to identify”) as any device capable to determine/identify a position/location of an optical device.
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 1-9 and 12-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Neyens et al. (US 2016/0216162 A1), hereafter Neyens, in view of Kendall et al. (US 2019/0201968 A1), hereafter Kendall.
Regarding claim 1, Neyens teaches a measuring apparatus (Fig. 3a-c, [0047]) for measuring a temperature of a molten metal bath (Fig. 3a element 52, [0001, 0050]), comprising
an optical device (Fig. 3a, element 10 “metal coated optical fiber, [0047]),
a detecting means, (photo-electric conversion element, [0050]),
a storing unit (Fig. 3a element 20) for the optical device (Fig. 3a element 10),[ 0034, 0049]
a rotatable support (Fig. 5 element 21) for the storing unit (20) for the optical device (10), [0066],
a moving means (Fig. 3 combination of elements 25, 45, “electric motor drive (no shown)”, [0047, 0049, 0069]),
a housing (Fig. 1 element 24, [0067-0068]) and
(Fig. 5 element 23) connected to the housing (Fig. 5 element 24, [0066-0067]),
wherein the optical device (Fig. 1 element 10) comprises an optical fiber (Fig. 1 element 11) laterally surrounded by an inner (Fig. 1 element 14, [0033]) and an outer metal tube (Fig. 2 element 40), (as shown in Fig. 4, [0034])
wherein the outer metal tube (Fig. 2 element 40),
wherein the housing (Fig. 5 element 24) encloses the detecting means, [0049, 0069], the storing unit (Fig. 5 element 20) for the optical device (Fig. 5 element 10), the rotatable support (Fig. 5 element 21) for the storing unit (20) for the optical device (10), the moving means (“The feeding device comprises an electrical motor drive (not shown) which can rotate the coil in a desired direction, especially for recoiling the fiber 10”, since the coil 20 is inside the housing (24), as shown in Fig. 5, is interpreted that the electrical motor is also inside the housing 24, [0069]), and
wherein the moving means (Fig. 3 combination of elements 25, 45, “electric motor drive (no shown)”), is adapted to feed and retract the optical device (10), [0047, 0049, 0069]),, and comprises
a) at least one motor for forward and backward driving the rotatable support (21) for the storing unit (20) for the optical device (10), [0069]
b) a feeding means (Fig. 3 element 45) for feeding the optical device (10) driven by at least one motor for forward and backward driving, (element 45 is a motor that drives element 10 + 40 in both directions, [0047]).
Neyens fail to teach wherein the outer metal tube has an outer diameter of in the range of 2 mm to 8 mm and a wall-thickness in the range of 0.1 mm to 0.6 mm, a straightening means, wherein the housing encloses the straightening means.
However, Neyens teaches the outer metal tube has a wall-thickness in the range of 0.8 mm to 1.0 mm and an outer diameter that is more than 10mm, therefore the outer diameter is in the range of 10.8 mm to 11 mm, [0034]. But, it has been held that to be a prima facie case of obviousness that the normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of ranges is the optimum combination of ranges. Additionally, 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, (see MPEP 2144.05 Section II-A).
Therefore, it would been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the outer diameter and thickness of the outer metal tube (as disclosed by Neyens) with wherein the outer metal tube has an outer diameter of in the range of 2 mm to 8 mm and a wall-thickness in the range of 0.1 mm to 0.6 mm without deviating from the general teaching concept of Neyens since such a modification constitutes only a change of form, proportions, or degree, which has been held to be a matter of obviousness (see MPEP 2144.05 Section II-A) in order to attain a particular design choice and as result of routine optimization in order to decrease the size of the measuring device, thus decrease the size of the device.
Kendall related to measuring devices of temperature of a molten metal bath teaches a straightening means (Fig. 1 element 4), [0060], wherein the housing encloses the straightening means, [0044]. Additionally, it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Therefore, it would been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the housing of the modified device of Neyens by including a straightening means, wherein the housing encloses the straightening means. (as taught by Kendall) for several advantages such as: the motors, rollers, straightening device are arranged inside one single housing , thus enable a compact device, ([0044], Kendall).
Regarding claim 2, Neyens in the combination outlined above teaches the measuring apparatus according to claim 1.
Neyens further teaches wherein the optical device (Fig. 3a, element 10) comprises a coiled portion (Figs. 2-5 shows the portion where element 10 is around the coil element 20) and an uncoiled portion (Figs. 2-5 shows the portion where element 10 is in a straight path), and wherein the uncoiled portion defines the immersion path of the optical device, (the uncoiled portion “straight path” as shown in Figs. 3-4 comprises the immersion part “50” of the optical fiber 10, [0035, 0050]).
Regarding claim 3, Neyens in the combination outlined above teaches the measuring apparatus according to claim 2.
Neyens further teaches wherein the immersion path does not comprise portions which are kinked, (as shown in Figs. 3a-c the immersion path 50 is straight, [0064-0065]). Additionally, 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, (see MPEP 2144.05 Section II-A).
Regarding claim 4, Neyens in the combination outlined above teaches the measuring apparatus according to claim 1.
The modified device of Neyens is silent wherein the immersion path does not comprise a curvature with a radius smaller than 200- times the outer diameter of the optical device.
However, Kendall further teaches that the device provide straightening inside of the immersion nozzle or a second straightening by the straightening device between the feeding and straightening device and the metal bath thereby the portion of bending in the metal bath caused by said effects on the way from the feeding and straightening device to the metal bath can be reduced, [0038-0039, 0066], Kendall). Additionally, the guide tube of the optical fiber can be straight or curved with a curvature radius higher than the coil or spool radius, particularly high enough to avoid plastic deformation of the optical cored wire. This enables to prevent or counteract further bending induction into the optical cored wire, ([0074], Kendall). Moreover, 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 (see MPEP 2144.05 Section II-A).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the immersion path (as taught by the modified device of Neyens) wherein the immersion path does not comprise a curvature with a radius smaller than 200- times the outer diameter of the optical device without deviating from the general teaching concept of the modified device Neyens et al. since such modification constitutes only a change of form, proportions, or degree, which has been held to be a matter of obviousness (see MPEP 2144.05 Section II-A) as result of routine optimization in order to avoid plastic deformation of the optical cored wire, thus reduce multidirectional bending of the optical cored wire, prevent or counteract further bending induction into the optical cored wire and generate a precise measurement, ([0066, 0074, 0110], Kendall) (see MPEP 2144.05).
Regarding claim 5, Neyens in the combination outlined above teaches the measuring apparatus according to claim 1.
Neyens further teaches wherein the immersion path starts at the end of the outer winding (Fig. 5 element 25) of the optical device on the storing unit (Fig. 3a element 20) for the optical device (Fig. 3a element 10), (the uncoiled portion define the immersion path, therefore as shown in Figs. 3a-c the immersion path start at the end of element 25, [0066]).
Regarding claim 6, Neyens in the combination outlined above teaches the measuring apparatus according to claim 1.
Even though Neyens do not clearly teach wherein the minimal radius of the curvature of the guiding system (Fig. 5 element 23) is larger than 4-times the radius of the inner winding of the optical device (Fig. 5 element 10) on the storing unit (Fig. 5 element 20) for the optical device, Neyens teaches the inner diameter of the flexible tube 23 is at least five times larger than the outer diameter of the coated optical fiber 10, [0067-0068]).
However, 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 (see MPEP 2144.05 Section II-A).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the guiding system (as taught by the modified device of Neyens) with wherein the minimal radius of the curvature of the guiding system is larger than 4-times the radius of the inner winding of the optical device on the storing unit for the optical device, without deviating from the general teaching concept of the modified device of Neyens since such a modification constitutes only a change of form, proportions, or degree, which has been held to be a matter of obviousness (see MPEP 2144.05 Section II-A) in order to attain a particular design choice and in order to avoids a spring back effect thus increase the device accuracy, ([0067], Neyens).
Regarding claim 7, Neyens in the combination outlined above teaches the measuring apparatus according to claim 1.
Neyens further teaches wherein the guiding system (Fig. 5 element 23) comprises at least one guiding tube, [0066-0067].
Regarding claim 8, Neyens in the combination outlined above teaches the measuring apparatus according to claim 1.
Neyens teaches wherein the ratio of the inner diameter of the at least one guiding tube (Fig. 5 element 23) and the diameter of the outer metal tube (Fig. 3a element 40) of the optical device (Fig. 3a element 10) is not larger than 2, (the outer metal tube has a wall-thickness in the range of 0.8 mm to 1.0 mm and an outer diameter that is more than 10mm, therefore the outer diameter is in the range of 10.8 mm to 11 mm, [0034]. Also, the inner diameter of the flexible tube 23 is at least five times larger than the outer diameter of the coated optical fiber 10, [0068], and as well, the optical fiber is metal coated and the diameter of the metal coated fiber is, as a rule, more than 1 mm, for example 1-15 mm, preferably 1-3 mm, [0010]. (Therefore, the inner diameter 23 is 5 x (range of 1mm – 15mm) = range of 5mm to 75mm and the ratio of (Inner diameter 23) / (outer diameter 40) = (range of 5 to 60) / (range of 10.8 mm to 11 mm). Such as, (15 mm / 10.8 mm) is not larger than 2). Additionally, 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 (see MPEP 2144.05 Section II-A).
Regarding claim 9, Neyens in the combination outlined above teaches the measuring apparatus according to claim 1.
Even though Neyens teaches wherein the housing (Fig. 5 element 24) comprises the storing unit (Fig. 3a element 20) for the optical device (Fig. 3a element 10). Neyens is silent about wherein the height of the housing is in the range of 1.2 to 2 times the outer diameter of the storing unit for the optical device.
However, 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 (see MPEP 2144.05 Section II-A).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the height of the housing (as taught by the modified device of Neyens) with wherein the height of the housing is in the range of 1.2 to 2 times the outer diameter of the storing unit for the optical device, without deviating from the general teaching concept of the modified device of Neyens since such a modification constitutes only a change of form, proportions, or degree, which has been held to be a matter of obviousness (see MPEP 2144.05 Section II-A) in order to attain a particular design choice, improved thermal management and in order to avoids a spring back effect, thus increase the device accuracy, ([0067], Neyens).
Regarding claim 12, Neyens in the combination outlined above teaches the measuring apparatus according to claim 1.
Neyens further teaches wherein the measuring apparatus comprises means to identify the position of the leading tip of the optical device, (“The location of the immersion end of the metal coated optical fiber 10 is constantly known and monitored by machine instrumentation throughout the immersion, measuring and removal portions of the immersion cycle. The machine is equipped with position encoders that determine the passage of metal coated optical fiber length and inductive switches that register the metal coated optical fiber end”, [0050]).
Regarding claim 13, Neyens in the combination outlined above teaches the measuring apparatus according to claim 1.
Neyens further teaches wherein the detecting means (photo-electric conversion element, [0050]) is arranged on, in or at the storing unit (Fig. 3a element 20) for the optical device (Fig. 3a element 10), (“a photo-electric conversion element mounted on the opposite end of the coiled consumable metal coated optical fiber 10”, [0050, 0066]). Additionally, it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Regarding claim 14, Neyens in the combination outlined above teaches the measuring apparatus according to claim 1.
Neyens further teaches, the methos of measuring comprising at least the steps of (i) feeding the optical device (Fig. 3a element 10), [0022, 0047]; (ii) measuring the temperature of the molten metal bath(Fig. 3a element 52),, [0050]; (iii) retracting and recoiling the optical device (Fig. 3a element 10), [0049].
Regarding claim 15, Neyens in the combination outlined above teaches the measuring method according to claim 14.
Neyens further teach wherein the method further comprises at least one step of identifying the position of the leading tip of the optical device (Fig. 3a element 10), [0050].
Claims 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Neyens in view of Kendall, and further in view of Yamasaki et al. (US 5,585,914 A1), hereafter Yamasaki.
Regarding claims 10-11, Neyens in the combination outlined above teaches the measuring apparatus according to claim 1.
Neyens further teaches:
(claim 10) wherein the measuring apparatus is configured to control the activities of the at least one motor for forward and backward driving the rotatable support (Fig. 5 element 21) for the storing unit (Fig. 5 element 20) for the optical device (Fig. 5 element 10), (“The feeding device comprises an electrical motor drive (not shown) which can rotate the coil in a desired direction, especially for recoiling the fiber 10”, [0069]) and the at least one motor for forward and backward driving the feeding means, (element 45 is a motor that drives element 10 + 40 in both directions, [0047]).
(claim 11) wherein the measuring apparatus is configured to coordinate the activities of the at least one motor for forward and backward driving the rotatable support (Fig. 5 element 21) for the storing unit (Fig. 5 element 20) for the optical device (Fig. 5 element 10) and the at least motor for forward and backward driving the feeding means, [0049, 0069].
Even though the modified device of Neyens is configured to control and coordinate the activities of the motors, the modifies device of Neyens is silent about (claims 10-11) wherein the measuring apparatus comprises control means, control means.
However, Yamasaki related to temperature measuring devices and thus from the same field of endeavor teaches: (claims 10-11) wherein the measuring apparatus comprises control means, control means (the device comprise a feed speed controller 14 that control the speed of the motor 12, such as it feed the metal covered optical fiber 11, [col. 4, lines 34-44], [col. 8, lines 3-13]).
Therefore, it would been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the modified device of Neyens by including wherein the measuring apparatus comprises control means, control means (as taught by Yamasaki) for several advantages such as: the controller allow to stops the drive of the motor to prevent a possible damage of the gas supply, thus increase the device efficiency ([col. 8, lines 35-36], Yamasaki).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CARLOS G PEREZ-GUZMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-3904. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30 am - 5:00 pm ET.
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, Tarifur Chowdhury can be reached at (571) 272-2287. 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.
/CARLOS PEREZ-GUZMAN/ Examiner, Art Unit 2877
/TARIFUR R CHOWDHURY/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2877