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 Interpretation
The claim interpretation as explained in the previous office action was not traversed by the applicant. Therefore, the Claim interpretation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is maintained.
Response to Arguments
The amendment filled on 07/01/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-11 and 13-17 remain pending in the application.
Applicant’s arguments, see Page 6, filed 07/01/2026, with respect to claim objections have been fully considered and are persuasive. Accordingly, the claim objections of Claims 2 and 4-5 have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see Pages 6-7, filed 07/01/2026, with respect to 35 U.S.C § 112(b) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Accordingly, the claim rejection of 35 U.S.C § 112(b) of Claim 12 have been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments under 35 U.S.C § 103:
In page 6-8, applicant argues that “Independent claim 1 recites a measuring apparatus, for measuring a temperature of a molten metal bath, which comprises an optical device. The optical device comprises an optical fiber that is laterally surrounded by an inner metal tube and an outer metal tube, and the outer metal tube has an outer diameter in the range of 2 mm to 8 mm. Neyens does not teach or suggest a measuring apparatus comprising an optical device as recited in claim 1. Instead, Neyens is directed to an optical device (metal coated optical fiber 10) comprises an optical fiber surrounded by a single metal tube (protective metal tube 14) having an outer diameter of approximately 1.32 mm and a wall thickness of approximately 0.127 mm. See Neyens at, e.g., Fig. 1 and paragraph [0033]. Neyens further discloses a second metal tube, disposable guiding tube 40, having a significantly larger diameter (10.8-11.0 mm) and wall thickness (0.8-1.0 mm). See id. at, e.g., Fig. 2 and paragraph [0034].
Neyens' disposable guiding tube 40 is not part of Neyens' optical device (metal coated optical fiber 10). Rather, it constitutes a disposable guiding tube that is a separate and distinct component from that of the optical device in Neyens' overall device (machine 100). See id. At [0034]. Specifically, Neyens teaches the metal coated optical fiber 10 and the outer disposable guiding tube 40 are not in a fixed arrangement and, as such, can move independent of each other and thus can be independently inserted through the slag layer 51 and into the molten bath 52 at different velocities, while maintaining a gas seal 31 at the opposite end. See id.; see also [0047] ("Motor 25 drives the optical fiber 10 and motor 45 drives the disposable guiding tube 40, so that the velocity of the outer disposable guiding tube 40 in either direction is independent of the velocity of the optical fiber 10 in either direction.") and [0051] ("After the measurement is complete, both the consumable metal coated optical fiber 10 and the outer disposable guiding metal tube 40 are withdrawn from the steel with different speeds in such a way that the metal coated optical fiber 10 stays relatively deeper in the bath."). Neyens simply does not teach or suggest an optical device comprising an optical fiber laterally surrounded by an inner metal tube and an outer metal tube as recited in claim 1.
In pages 8-9, applicant argues “As discussed above, independent claim 1 is allowable over Neyens and Kendall because neither reference teaches, suggests or otherwise renders obvious a measuring apparatus as recited in the claim. Yamasaki does not remedy the deficiencies of Neyens and Kendall with respect to the subject matter of claim 1, whether considered individually or in any combination thereof. As such, independent claim 1 should be allowable over any combination of Neyens, Kendall and Yamasaki. Claims 10 and 11 should also be allowed over Neyens, Kendall and Yamasaki at least because they depend from an allowable claim and recite additional features. In view of the above, Applicant respectfully requests the rejections of claims 10 and 11 as unpatentable over Neyens in view of Kendall and Yamasaki be reconsidered and withdrawn.”.
Examiner response to arguments under 35 U.S.C § 103:
In response to applicant’s arguments mentioned above regarding (a) , the examiner respectfully disagrees since the Neyens’s measuring device Fig. 3a comprises an optical device (Fig. 3a, combinations of elements 10 + 40) based on amended claim 1, comprising an optical fiber (Fig. 1 element 11) laterally surrounded by an inner metal tube (Fig. 1 element 14, [0033]) and an outer metal tube (Fig. 2 element 40), (as shown in Fig. 4, [0034]). The combination of element 10 + 40 are interpreted as the optical device since based on the claimed limitations in claim 1, the “optical device” comprises an optical fiber laterally surrounded by an inner metal tube and an outer metal tube. Therefore, the amended claim 1 does not comprise any limitations about the inner and/or outer metal tube that preclude the tubes to be disposable and/or a separated “no integrated” element. Claim 1, claimed the optical fiber is laterally surrounded by the inner and outer tubes and does not comprise any limitation about the arrangement to be fixed, integrated other than laterally surrounded. Therefore, as a PHOSITA comprehends the combination of elements 10 + 40 of element 3a of Neyens can be interpreted as the optical device comprising an optical fiber laterally surrounded by an inner metal tube and an outer metal tube.
Even though Neyens fails to teach the diameters of the outer metal tools, 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.
Therefore, the rejection is maintained.
In response to applicant’s arguments mentioned above regarding (b), with respect to dependent claims and rejection under 35 U.S.C § 103 of claims 10-11 is that since they depend from independent claim 1 and the reference fail to teach the independent claim 1 as argued, the references also fail to teach the dependent claims. Applicant’s attention is respectfully directed to examiner’s response to the arguments related to independent claims 1. Additionally, Applicant's arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references.
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.
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.
Claims 1-9 and 12-17 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 (Figs. 2 and 3a, combination of elements 10 + 40, [0047-0048]),
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. 2, combination of elements 10 + 40) comprises an optical fiber (Fig. 1 element 11) laterally surrounded by an inner metal tube (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 fails 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] and 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 an 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 2.
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 allows 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 2.
Neyens further teaches wherein the immersion path starts at the end of the outer winding (as shown in Fig. 2 element 20 by the outermost loop on the outside of the wrapped optical fiber as coil) of the optical device on the storing unit (Fig. 3a element 20) defines optical device (the uncoiled portion defines the immersion path, [0034, 0049, 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 an inner winding of the optical device 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 also, 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 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, a method for measuring comprising:
(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 teaches 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].
Regarding claim 16, Neyens in the combination outlined above teaches the measuring apparatus according to claim 2.
Neyens further teaches wherein the coiled portion of the optical device (Figs. 2-5 shows the portion where element 10 is around the coil element 20) is arranged in at least one winding on the storing unit for the optical device (as shown in Fig. 20 the fiber is comprises multiple loops, [0034, 0049, 0066]).
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 an inner winding of the optical device 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 17, Neyens in the combination outlined above teaches the measuring apparatus according to claim 2.
Neyens further teaches wherein the coiled portion of the optical device (Figs. 2-5 shows the portion where element 10 is around the coil element 20) is arranged in multiple windings on the storing unit for the optical device (as shown in Fig. 20 the fiber is comprises multiple loops, [0034, 0049, 0066]),
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 an inner winding of the optical device 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).
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
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Takayama et al. (US 6004031 A), discloses a temperature measuring device which accurately determines the temperature of molten metal at an elevated temperature and provides a level measuring device which determines an arbitrary level using the temperature measuring device. Wherein the temperature measuring device includes an optical fiber, a metallic protective tube covering the optical fiber, and a heat insulation coating covering the metallic protective tube such that the optical fiber is covered with the metallic protective tube and the heat insulation coating to form a double-covered optical fiber.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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
Prosecution Insights