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 § 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.
Claim(s) 20-24,27, 32-36 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hasha et. Al (U.S. Patent Number 5,209,105; hereinafter referred to as Hasha), and further in view of Miller et al. (U.S. Patent Number 4,601,194).
With respect to claim 20, Hasha discloses and illustrates a system for detecting and/or quantifying gas emissions from a pipe connection (see at least Figures 4A, 6A, 6B, 11, and 12) the system comprising: an apparatus comprising, a body (70) configured or configurable for location on and around the pipe connection (see at least Figure 4A), wherein the body comprises or takes the form of a cuff, wrap or band configured to engage an outer circumferential surface portion of the pipe connection so as to form a sealed enclosure around an interface between components of the pipe connection and/or a void between mating surfaces of the pipe connection when the body is located thereon (see at least Figure 4A), and wherein the body is configurable in a first configuration in which the body is planar or part-annular (see at least Figure 8 or 10), and wherein the body is reconfigurable into a second configuration in which the body is annular (see at least Figure 4A), the body in the second configuration forming an enclosed void (see at least Figure 4A), an inlet arrangement (28) configured to facilitate ingress of a test fluid having a known composition of the gas into the enclosed void (see at least Figure 4A), and an outlet arrangement configured to facilitate exhaust of the test fluid together with air and/or any gas emitted from the pipe connection from the enclosed void (117, 118), wherein the apparatus comprises or is couplable to a pressurized test fluid supply configured to supply the test fluid to the enclosed void via the inlet arrangement (pressurized via pumps 121, 122; see at least Figures 11 and 12). Hasha fails to disclose that the device includes a gas analyzer. However, Miller teaches a method for leak testing which includes gas analyzer (gas detector 9). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time the invention was to use Hasha’s system with Miller’s gas analyzer in order to have real-time analysis, thereby increasing the overall tunability and efficiency of the system.
With respect to claim 21, while Hasha fails to disclose the system of claim 20 wherein the gas analyzer comprises or takes the form of a portable gas analyzer, Miller discloses a portable gas analyzer in at least column 4, lines 14-29 of Miller. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time the invention was filed to utilize a gas analyzer as disclosed in Miller with the system disclosed in Hasha to use Hasha’s system with Miller’s gas analyzer in order to have real-time analysis, thereby increasing the overall tunability and efficiency of the system
With respect to claim 22, while Hasha does not explicitly disclose the system of claim 20, comprising a wireless or wired communication arrangement configured to communicate a quantitative base line measurement and/or subsequent quantitative measurement(s) of gas emissions in the enclosed void to one or more remote location. However, Miller discloses a remote operation of the system components. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time the invention was filed to utilize the remote operation capabilities of Miller with the system of Hasha as remote operation of certain components allows for safer overall operation of the system.
With respect to claim 23, the system of claim 20, wherein the system comprises, is coupled to or operatively associated with a processing system configured or operable to control the apparatus and/or the system is disclosed in at least column 4, lines 1-22 of Hasha.
With respect to claim 24, a method of detecting and/or quantifying gas emissions from a pipe connection, using the system of claim 20, wherein the method comprises: locating the apparatus on the pipe connection to be tested (see at least Figures 4A, 6A, 6B, 11, and 12 of Hasha); flowing the test fluid into the enclosed void through the inlet arrangement (see at least column 11, lines 1-14 and see at least Figure 4A of Hasha), where it co-mingles with the air and any gas emitted from the pipe connection already present in the enclosed void, a co-mingled product formed by the test fluid together with the air and any gas already present in the enclosed void flowing out through the outlet arrangement until a measured gas composition reading in the enclosed void has stabilized (see at least column 13 line 44 through column 14, line 8 of). Hasha fails to disclose carrying out one or more quantitative measurements in the enclosed void using the gas analyzer. However, Miller discloses the use of a gas analyzer to carry out measurements. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time the invention was filed to utilize a gas analyzer as disclosed in Miller with the system disclosed in Hasha in order to have a means for real time analysis of the system in Hasha. Since Hasha discloses that measurements are recorded for analysis later, adding a gas analyzer would make for a more efficient gas analysis system.
With respect to claim 27, Hasha does not disclose the method of claim 24, wherein the method comprises carrying out a plurality of quantitative measurements in the enclosed void using the gas analyzer to quantify a rate of gas emission from the pipe connection. However, Miller discloses the use of a gas analyzer to carry out measurements. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time the invention was filed to utilize a gas analyzer as disclosed in Miller with the system disclosed in Hasha to have a means for real time analysis of the system in Hasha. Since Hasha discloses that measurements are recorded for analysis later, adding a gas analyzer would make for a more efficient gas analysis system.
With respect to claim 32, the system of claim 20, wherein at least one of: the inlet arrangement comprises or takes the form of an inlet valve or a coupling adapter; and the outlet arrangement comprises or takes the form of an outlet valve or a coupling adapter is shown in at least Figures 11 and 12 of Hasha.
With respect to claim 33, the system of claim 20, wherein the inlet arrangement and the outlet arrangement are spaced on the body is shown in at least Figures 4A, 11, and 12 of Hasha.
With respect to claim 34, the system of claim 33, wherein the inlet arrangement and the outlet arrangement are spaced on the body, such that when located on the pipe connection the inlet arrangement and the outlet arrangement define a separation angle is shown in at least Figures 4A, 11, and 12 of Hasha.
With respect to claim 35 Hasha fails to disclose the system of claim 20, comprising a releasable securement arrangement configured to retain the body on the pipe connection. However, Miller teaches a flexible wrap arrangement as the enclosure around the pipe in at least column 7, lines 28 through 48. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time the invention was filed to utilize the releasable wrap of Miller with the system of Hasha to obtain an easier means to attach the enclosure around the pipe for an easier to use testing system.
With respect to claim 36, Hasha fails to disclose the system of claim 35, wherein the releasable securement arrangement comprises or takes the form of a hook and loop fastener arrangement. However, Miller teaches a flexible wrap arrangement as the enclosure around the pipe in at least column 7, lines 28 through 48. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time the invention was filed to utilize the releasable wrap of Miller with the system of Hasha to obtain an easier means to attach the enclosure around the pipe for an easier to use testing system.
Claim(s) 28-31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hasha further in view of Miller as applied to claim 20 above, and further in view of Norwood (U.S. Patent Number 4,892,601).
With respect to claim 28, the apparatus of claim 20 wherein the body is at least partially constructed from a polymeric material is not explicitly disclosed in Hasha. Miller discloses the use of a resilient material, but not specifically a polymeric material. However, Norwood discloses the use of a closed cell foamed polychloroprene rubber strip as a part of a sealing arrangement. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time the invention was filed to utilize the closed cell foam polychloroprene rubber strip of Norwood with the system of Hasha in view of Miller as the material is disclosed to be able to withstand stresses yet not be compromised, thus it would make for a better and more robust sealing material.
With respect to claim 29, the apparatus of claim 28 wherein the body is at least partially constructed from an elastomeric material is not explicitly disclosed in Hasha. Miller discloses the use of a resilient material, but not specifically a polymeric material. However, Norwood discloses the use of a closed cell foamed polychloroprene rubber strip as a part of a sealing arrangement. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time the invention was filed to utilize the closed cell foam polychloroprene rubber strip of Norwood with the system of Hasha and Miller as the material is disclosed to be able to withstand stresses yet not be compromised, thus it would make for a better and more robust sealing material.
With respect to claim 30, the apparatus of claim 29, wherein the body is at least partially constructed from polychloroprene is not explicitly disclosed in Hasha. Miller discloses the use of a resilient material, but not specifically a polymeric material. However, Norwood discloses the use of a closed cell foamed polychloroprene rubber strip as a part of a sealing arrangement. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time the invention was filed to utilize the closed cell foam polychloroprene rubber strip of Norwood with the system of Miller as the material is disclosed to be able to withstand stresses yet not be compromised, thus it would make for a better and more robust sealing material.
With respect to claim 31, the apparatus of claim 30, wherein the body is at least partially constructed from closed cell polychloroprene is not explicitly disclosed in Hasha. Miller discloses the use of a resilient material, but not specifically a polymeric material. However, Norwood discloses the use of a closed cell foamed polychloroprene rubber strip as a part of a sealing arrangement. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time the invention was filed to utilize the closed cell foam polychloroprene rubber strip of Norwood with the system of Miller as the material is disclosed to be able to withstand stresses yet not be compromised, thus it would make for a better and more robust sealing material.
Claim(s) 37 and 38 are is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hasha further in view of Miller as applied to claim 20 above, and further in view of Silkoff et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2022/0162070; hereinafter referred to as Silkoff).
With respect to claim 37, Hasha fails to disclose the system of claim 20, wherein the pressurized test fluid supply comprises a compressed fluid cylinder. Miller does not further teach this limitation. However, Silkoff teaches a means of generating NO2 using a compressed cylinder (see at least paragraph [0355] of Silkoff). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time the invention was filed to use the compressed cylinder of Silkoff with the systems of Hasha and Miller in order to provide a better compressed gas delivery system with the system of Hasha.
With respect to claim 38, Hasha fails to disclose the system of claim 37, wherein the compressed fluid cylinder comprises a compressed air cylinder having ambient air of known composition of the gas being detected and quantified. Miller does not further teach this limitation. However, Silkoff teaches a means of generating NO2 using a compressed cylinder that can compressed air (see at least paragraph [0355] of Silkoff). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time the invention was filed to use the compressed cylinder of Silkoff with the systems of Hasha and Miller in order to provide a better compressed gas delivery system with the system of Hasha.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 20-24, and 27-38 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the same combination of references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
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 RODNEY T FRANK whose telephone number is (571)272-2193. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-5:30pm.
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, Peter Macchiarolo can be reached at (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 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.
RODNEY T. FRANK
Examiner
Art Unit 2855
/PETER J MACCHIAROLO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2855
August 26, 2026
Prosecution Insights