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 § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-4 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a) (1) as being anticipated by D1 (JP 2017 181996).
For claim 1, D1 discloses a rubber product (Para. [0026]) comprising a gas chromic material that changes a color thereof reversibly (Chromic layer 14 changes color by gas. Para. [0027, 0028]) or changes an electric resistance value thereof, due to oxidation-reduction reaction.
For claim 2, D1 discloses the rubber product according to claim 1, being a sealing member for sealing a gap between two members, wherein the sealing member includes a gas chromic material that changes a color thereof reversibly or changes an electric resistance value thereof, due to oxidation-reduction reaction, and has a ring shape (Gas chromic material can be used as s seal. Para. [0029].)
For claim 3, D1 discloses the rubber product according to claim 1, being transparent (Para. [0084].)
For claim 4, D1 discloses the rubber product according to claim 1, being a sealing member that is in contact with hydrogen gas (Para. [0097].)
For claim 10, D1 discloses a leak detection member comprising a cylindrical elastic portion having a cylindrical shape that is formed by an elastic material including a gas chromic material that changes a color thereof reversibly (A rubber product of any shape has chromic material that changes color when exposed to gas or light. Abstract. Para. [0026, 0027-0028].) or changes an electric resistance value thereof, due to oxidation-reduction reaction, and at least one pair of electrodes that are disposed on an outer peripheral surface of the cylindrical elastic portion.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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) 5-6, and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over D2 (Ma et al., CN 102435402) in view of D1 (JP 2017 181996).
For claim 5, D2 discloses a test jig for performing a leakage test of a sealing member having a ring shape that seals a gap between two members (Sealing ring is placed in seal groove 8. P3, para. [0028]), comprising a mounting table (2) that has a mounting surface on which the sealing member is mounted (Figure 1), an upper disposed member (1) that is disposed on the upper side of the sealing member mounted on the mounting table (Figure 1), and a leakage detection member that is positioned on the outer side of the sealing member mounted on the mounting table, wherein the leakage detection member includes a gas chromic material that changes a color thereof reversibly or changes an electric resistance value thereof, due to oxidation-reduction reaction, and when leakage from the sealing member occurs, a part of the leakage detection member where the leakage from the sealing member is observed changes a color thereof.
D1 teaches a rubber product (Paar. [0026]), a leak detection member, comprising a gas chromic material that changes a color thereof reversibly (Chromic layer 14 changes color by gas. Para. [0027, 0028]) for visible and easy detection of leak. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify D2 with a leak detection member such that the leak detection member is positioned on the outer side of the sealing member mounted on the mounting table, wherein the leakage detection member includes a gas chromic material that changes a color thereof reversibly, as taught by D1 with a reasonable expectation of success of having a visible and easy detection of leak.
For claim 6, the combination teaches the test jig according to claim 5, comprising a sheet member having a sheet shape that is disposed on at least one side of the mounting table side and the upper disposed member side of the sealing member, wherein the sheet member disposed on the at least one side constitutes at least a part of the leakage detection member (D1 teaches chromic sheet that changes color [Abstract. Para. [0002, 0003] for visible and easy detection. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify D2 with features of D1. D2 modified with D1 teaches the claimed limitation.)
For claim 8, the combination teaches the test jig according to claim 5, wherein the upper disposed member is made of a transparent member (D1 teaches the chromic sheet product is transparent, para. [0084]. D2 modified with features of D1 teaches the claimed limitations.)
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over D2 (Ma et al., CN 102435402) in view of D1 (JP 2017 181996) and D3 (EP 3 848 691).
For claim 9, the combination teaches a test apparatus for a sealing member comprising the test jig according to claim 5, but does not disclose a photographing unit that records changes of the leakage detection member in the test jig.
D3 teaches a method of imaging for leak detection that allows easy identification and characterization of leaks (Abstract.) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify D2 with a photographing unit that records changes of the leakage detection member in the test jig, as taught by D3 with a reasonable expectation of success of having easy identification and characterization of leaks.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 7 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure and provides example of invention. A few of the prior art cited but not applied include Bokeman (US 2007-0224081); Bennett (US 20100127460); Hawwa (US 2020-0018662).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATHAN CUMAR whose telephone number is (571)270-3112. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday, 8:00 am to 5:00 pm EST.
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, KRISTINA FULTON can be reached at 571-272-7376. 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.
/NATHAN CUMAR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3675
Prosecution Insights