LEAK DETECTION IN A VISCOUS FLOW
FIRST OFFICE ACTION
This action takes into account the Applicant’s preliminary amendment of March 18, 2024.
DRAWINGS
The drawings have been considered and approved.
TITLE
The title is objected to because it is not clearly descriptive of the claimed invention.
ABSTRACT
The abstract has been considered and approved.
SPECIFICATION
The specification is objected to because the specification fails to set forth section headings as per 37 CFR 1.77(b).
CLAIMS
In the event that the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the rationale supporting the rejection would be the same.
35 U.S.C. § 103
In accordance with 35 U.S.C. 103, 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 of this title, 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 14 - 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wong (5,767,391).
With respect to independent claim 14, Wong sets forth a device for leak detection (see Fig. 1) comprising:
a vacuum pump (5);
a test chamber (2) configured to receive a test specimen (1) and adapted to be evacuated by the vacuum pump; and
a gas detector (3) detecting the gas evacuated from the test chamber by the vacuum pump,
wherein the test chamber is provided with a vacuum connection (8a) for evacuating the test chamber, the vacuum connection being connected to the vacuum pump (5), and
wherein a common pump volume connected to the vacuum connection (ie. volume within piping from connection 8a to pump 5) is provided fluidically between the vacuum connection (8a) and the vacuum pump (5) in that the pump volume is evacuated by the vacuum pump.
While Wong teaches a vacuum connection (8a) connected to the vacuum pump for evacuating the test chamber (1), Wong fails to teach a plurality of vacuum connections connected to the vacuum pump for evacuating the test chamber.
Nonetheless, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to use a plurality of vacuum connections in place of the single connection.
The motivation being that using a plurality of connections allows for quicker evacuation of the test chamber and ensures that the evacuation is carried out if one of vacuum connections becomes blocked.
With respect to claim 15, Wong sets forth that the vacuum connection (8a) opens into the pump volume (the volume of test specimen 1).
With respect to claim 16, Wong sets forth that the pump volume (the volume of test specimen 1) is formed in a wall of the test chamber (2).
With respect to claim 17, Wong sets forth that the vacuum connection (8a) is connected to the pump volume (the volume of test specimen 1) by a vacuum line (Fig. 1).
In addition, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art armed with the Wong teaching to use a plurality of vacuum lines, as pointed out above, wherein the lines are of substantially equal length so as to create an uniform vacuum draw between the different lines.
With respect to claim 18, Wong sets forth that the pump volume (the volume of test specimen 1) is connected to the vacuum pump (5) via a common pump line (Fig. 1).
With respect to claim 19, Wong sets forth that the vacuum connection (8a) is formed as a hole (opening within pipe) in the housing wall of the test chamber (2) delimiting the test chamber volume (1).
With respect to claim 20, Wong sets forth that the vacuum connection (8a) is at a bottom of the test chamber (2).
With respect to claim 21, Wong sets forth that the vacuum connection (8a) is arranged in a homogenously distributed manner (Fig. 1).
With respect to independent claim 22, Wong suggest a method for vacuum leak detection with a vacuum leak detection de-vice comprising a vacuum pump (5), a gas detector (3) and a test chamber (2), the vacuum pump evacuating the test chamber and the gas detector detecting a test gas in the gas evacuated from the test chamber by the vacuum pump, the test chamber comprising a vacuum connection (8a) connected to a common pump volume (the volume of test specimen 1 and pipe leading to pump 5), the pump volume being formed fluidically between the test chamber and the vacuum pump, the method comprising the steps of:
placing a test specimen (1) in the test chamber (2); and
evacuating (via vacuum pump 5) the pump volume and the test chamber such that a gas pressure gradient extending from the test chamber (2) into the pump volume (ie. pressure amount decrease) is greater than any gas pressure gradient extending transversely through the test chamber inside the test chamber (ie. pressure amount within chamber 2).
While Wong teaches a vacuum connection (8a) connected to the vacuum pump for evacuating the test chamber (1), Wong fails to teach a plurality of vacuum connections connected to the vacuum pump for evacuating the test chamber.
Nonetheless, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to use a plurality of vacuum connections in place of the single connection.
The motivation being that using a plurality of connections allows for quicker evacuation of the test chamber and ensures that the evacuation is carried out if one of vacuum connections becomes blocked.
With respect to claim 23, Wong suggests that the flow rate of the gas evacuated from the test chamber is higher inside the pump volume (ie. pipe connecting chamber 2 to pump 5) than inside the test chamber (2) because the gas flows from the chamber through the pipe to the pump (5) and the area of the pipe is much less than the area of the chamber. Thus, the flow rate through the pipe is increased compared to the flow within the chamber.
With respect to claim 24, Wong suggests that the difference between the gas pressures at two different locations inside the test chamber is negligibly small during the vacuum leak detection as claimed because the claim does not specify the positions of the two different locations. Thus, the two different locations could be directly adjacent to one another. In addition, Wong does not suggest that any one position in the chamber is any different than any other position in the chamber.
With respect to claim 25, Wong suggests that the vacuum pressure generated inside the vacuum pump is lower than 72 mbar since a vacuum is typically lower than 72 mbar.
With respect to claim 26, Wong suggests that the vacuum pressure generated inside the test chamber is higher than in the pump volume and is in particular lower than 80 mbar since the
test chamber is of a larger volume than the pump volume and a vacuum is typically lower than 80 mbar.
CITED DOCUMENTS
The Applicant’s attention is directed to the “PTO-892” form for the relevant art made of record at the time of this Office Action.
CONTACT INFORMATION
Any inquiry concerning this communication from the Examiner should be directed to PETER J MACCHIAROLO whose telephone number is (571)272-2375. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. For questions about Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center at 866-217-9197.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, the Applicant is advised to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) Form.
/Eric S. McCall/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2855