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.
Claims 1-16 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. In claim 1, the recitation on line 2, “heating under oxygen containing atmosphere” is not understood. How is heating under accomplished? Also, there should be a comma after “atmosphere” for clarity and separation. On line 3, the recitation “the atmospheric air pressure to burn a surface”, i.e. how does the air pressure burn a surface? Further, the recitation of claim 3 is unclear. What does a “size which at least 90 mass% has a length of longest diameter” and a “storage level” mean? In claims 4 and 11, on line 3, “the outer direction” is unclear as to what is being designated. In claims 5 and 12, it is unclear how the length controls the temperature. In claim 6, “the opening” lacks antecedent basis. In claim 10, on line 3, it would appear that the container is not adjusted but rather the atmosphere is adjusted. Also, the recitation on the last line is not clear since it sounds like the method is provided. Overall, the claim language is difficult to follow and perhaps a full review and revision is in order.
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.
Claim(s) 1 and 4-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN-110186744- (Shi et al), see translation in view of CN-111650295 (Zhu), see translation. As to claims 1 and 10, Shi et al disclose an apparatus and method sintering solid fuel for determining the content of carbon including comprising heating (continuously raising the temperature) under oxygen containing atmosphere the (introducing air in the process device) inorganic solid (solid fuel) stored in an airtight container (closed process chamber 2 with valves 5 and 7) adjusted to a pressure higher than the atmospheric air pressure (acting on the process chamber top part of the lifting pressure rod) to burn a surface of the inorganic solid (continuously heating to raise the temperature to 500 degrees C), introducing a container atmosphere (the gas after combustion treatment introduced in gas chromatograph) after burning to an analyzing apparatus via an inner-air discharging pipe (conveying pipe 14) connected to the airtight container, analyzing an oxygen dioxide level in the container atmosphere after burning (the combustion of nitrogen and oxygen elements in the gas after removing) by gas chromatography (input to gas chromatograph 15) method using the analyzing apparatus, and obtaining a carbon level of the inorganic solid surface from the obtained result of analysis (detecting the carbon in the gas after removing), see translation. Further, it is noted that the process chamber is not specified as “gas tight” and the solid fuel is not specified as “inorganic”. Firstly, it is noted that the process chamber appears to be gas tight since valves 5 and 7 are used to introduce air and discharge it suggesting the chamber is gas tight. Further, In a related prior art device, Zhu discloses a method for detecting carbon content of silicon powder (a known inorganic solid fuel) by burning the silicon powder and collecting the gas and using the carbon dioxide gas after combustion with a gas chromatograph to further detect the carbon content, see translation Abstract. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have used the method of Shi et al to detect the amount of carbon in any type of fuel- organic or inorganic since Zhu teaches detection of carbon content of inorganic materials such as silicon with a similar method of burning the solid and detecting the carbon content and since Shi et al does not limit the type of fuel being tested. As to claims 4 and 11, as best understood, note the part of a wall surface (base 1) of the airtight container (chamber2) is extended in the outer direction (base extends beyond the chamber) to form an extended part, and an opening for inorganic solid which is openable and closable by a lid material (process chamber fits in groove of base) is provided on an outer end surface of the extended part, see after step 5). As to claims 5 and 12, note the drying is at 200 degrees C and burning is at 500 degrees and it is noted that these temperatures are considered a matter of design choice based on the material being tested. As to claims 6, 8,13 and 15, note the Shi et al depiction of fig. 1 which appears to be cylindrical in cross section and note heaters 8 and the opening is on the bottom end. As to claims 7 and 14, the usage of Hastelloy is considered a matter of design choice of known materials capable of withstanding the test conditions. As to claims 9 and 16, usage of the specific known chromatography methods is considered an obvious matter of design choice based on the materials being tested.
Claim(s) 2 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shi et al in view of Zhu as applied to claims 1 above, and further in view of DE 102012202640 (Trauenspoger et al). As to claim 2, Shi et al and Zhu both do not specify the solid as a polycrystalline silicon crushed clump. In another related prior art device, Trauenspoger et al disclose a device for measuring the carbon content of a polycrystalline silicon fracture piece, see Abstract. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have realized that the device of Shi et al could also be applied to determine the carbon content of a polycrystalline silicon fracture piece since it is known in the prior art to determine content of these materials as well. As to claim 3, the size of the clump and storage level are considered obvious design choices to one of ordinary skill in the art based on the particular testing conditions desired.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The additional prior listed on PTO-892 include state of the art carbon testers.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NASHMIYA FAYYAZ whose telephone number is (571)272-2192. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday.
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, Laura Martin can be reached at (571)272-2160. 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.
NF
Examiner
Art Unit 2855
/N.S.F/Examiner, Art Unit 2855
/LAURA MARTIN SWEENEY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2855
Prosecution Insights