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.
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) 1-4, 8-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhao (CN-106769977), in view of, Ying (CN-205749271).
In regards to claim 1, Zhao teaches a system comprising: (abstract)
a handheld sensing device comprising: (abstract; 1, fig(s) 1, 5, ‘handheld high-precision gas quantitative leak detector body’)
a trace-gas sensor configured to measure ambient trace-gas concentrations; (abstract; 7, 8, 88 fig(s) 1-5, ‘sensor module’, ‘measurement module’, ‘electrical measurement device’; para(s) [0029, 0037])
a handle, wherein the trace-gas sensor is disposed on a first end of the handle; and (abstract; 14, 16,124 fig(s) 1, 5, ’holding handle’, ‘non-slip rubber sleeve’)
a grip disposed on a second end of the handle, wherein the first end of the handle is distal from the second end of the handle; (13, 15, 16 fig(s) 1, 5)
a control electronics comprising: (2 fig(s) 1, 5, ‘central processing unit’; para [0032])
a processor having addressable memory, the processor in communication with the trace-gas sensor; and (2 fig(s) 1, 5-6, ‘central processing unit’; para [0032])
wherein the power supply is configured to provide power to the handheld sensing device. (3-5 fig(s) 1, 5, ‘power supply module’, ‘power management module’, ‘power protection module’; para(s) [0033-004])
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the invention for Zhao to provide a high-precision gas leak detector in order to measure volatile concentration levels of the desired gas or fluid.
Zhao does not teach:
an attachment device physically separated from the handheld sensing device;
wherein the attachment device is configured to communicate with the handheld sensing device via at least one of a cable and a wireless connection;
wherein the attachment device is configured to be mounted remotely from the handheld sensing device; and wherein the attachment device houses at least one of the control electronics and a power supply, and
Ying teaches:
an attachment device physically separated from the handheld sensing device; (1-2 fig. 1, ‘analyzer/analysis processor’, ‘high-capacity battery’)
wherein the attachment device is configured to communicate with the handheld sensing device via at least one of a cable and a wireless connection; ( 3 fig. 1, ‘signal receiver’, ‘infrared transmitter sensor’)
wherein the attachment device is configured to be mounted remotely from the handheld sensing device; and wherein the attachment device houses at least one of the control electronics and a power supply, and (1-3, 6-7 fig. 1, ‘analyzer/analysis processor’, ‘high-capacity battery’, ‘signal receiver’; abstract; para(s) [0018-0019])
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the invention for Ying to provide an attachment device for a high-precision gas leak detector in order to measure volatile concentration levels of the desired gas or fluid.
In regards to claim 2, Zhao & Ying teach a system of claim 1, (see claim rejection 1) wherein the trace-gas sensor comprises tunable laser spectroscopy to detect gaseous molecules with high sensitivity. (Ying: abstract, ‘portable infrared gas analyzer infrared emission’)
In regards to claim 3, Zhao & Ying teach a system of claim 1, (see claim rejection 1) wherein the cable comprises is a shielded coiled cable connecting between the attachment device and the handheld sensing device. (Ying: 7 fig. 1, ‘transmission line’)
In regards to claim 4, Zhao & Ying teach a system of claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to: (Zhao: 2 fig(s) 1, 5-6, ‘central processing unit’; para [0032])
receive the measured ambient trace-gas concentrations; and (Zhao: abstract; 8, 71, 871 fig(s) 1, 4-5, ‘measurement module’, ‘gas flow sensor’, ‘measurement sensor’; para(s) [0004, 0020, 0039-0040])
detect elevated ambient trace-gas concentrations based on the measured ambient trace- gas concentrations. (Zhao: abstract; 8, 71, 871 fig(s) 1, 4-5, ‘measurement module’, ‘gas flow sensor’, ‘measurement sensor’; para(s) [0004, 0020, 0039-0040])
In regards to claim 8, Zhao & Ying teach a system of claim 1, (see claim rejection 1) wherein at least a portion of the handle is flexible to allow access in a confined area. (Zhao: 14, 16 fig. 1, ‘hand handle’, ‘non-slip rubber sleeve’)
In regards to claim 9, Zhao & Ying teach a system of claim 1, (see claim rejection 1) wherein the handheld sensing device further comprises:
a first transceiver, wherein the processor is in communication with the trace- gas sensor via the first transceiver, and wherein the first transceiver is configured to send the measured ambient trace-gas concentrations. (Ying: 1-3, 6-7 fig. 1, ‘analyzer/analysis processor’, ‘high-capacity battery’, ‘signal receiver’; abstract; para(s) [0018-0019])
In regards to claim 10, Zhao & Ying teach a system of claim 9, (see claim rejection 9) wherein the attachment device further comprises:
a second transceiver, wherein the processor is in communication with the trace-gas sensor via the first transceiver and the second transceiver, and (Ying: 9 fig. 1, ‘infrared transmitter sensor’)
wherein the second transceiver is configured to receive the measured ambient trace-gas concentrations. and (Ying: 9, 15 fig. 1, ‘infrared transmitter sensor’, ‘transmitter tube’)
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) 5-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhao (CN-106769977), in view of, Ying (CN-205749271), in view of, Leen (US-11307137).
Zhao & Ying teach:
In regards to claim 5, Zhao & Ying teach a system of claim 1, (see claim rejection 1)
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the invention for Zhao & Ying to provide a high-precision gas leak detector in order to measure volatile concentration levels of the desired gas or fluid.
Zhao & Ying don’t teach:
wherein the attachment device is configured to attach to any one of a surface or a wearable device worn by an operator.
Leen teaches:
wherein the attachment device is configured to attach to any one of a surface or a wearable device worn by an operator. (10 fig. 1, ‘gas detector’; 45-56 col. 9, ‘it is known to carry portable gas detector devices in backpacks and the like.)
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the invention for Leen to provide a wearable device for a high-precision gas leak detector in order to measure volatile concentration levels of the desired gas or fluid.
In regards to claim 6, Zhao, Ying, & Leen teach a system of claim 5, (see claim rejection 5) wherein the wearable device comprises one or more of: a belt pack, a hip pack, and a backpack worn by the operator. (Leen: 10 fig. 1, ‘gas detector’; 45-56 col. 9, ‘it is known to carry portable gas detector devices in backpacks and the like.)
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) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhao (CN-106769977), Ying (CN-205749271), in view of, Huang (CN-216696225-U).
Zhao & Ying teach:
In regards to claim 7, Zhao & Ying teach a system of claim 1, (see claim rejection 1)
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the invention for Zhao & Ying to provide a high-precision gas leak detector in order to measure volatile concentration levels of the desired gas or fluid.
Zhao & Ying don’t teach:
wherein the handle is extendible for telescoping action.
Huang teaches
wherein the handle is extendible for telescoping action (‘teaches a gas detection device with an extendible handle’; claim 1, ‘A gas probe convenient detection device, wherein it comprises: a handle (100); a telescopic rod rod (200), which is connected with the handle (100) and can be extended or shortened; a detecting component’)
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the invention for Huang to provide an extendible handle for a high-precision gas leak detector in order to measure volatile concentration levels of the desired gas or fluid.
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) 11-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhao (CN-106769977), Ying (CN-205749271), in view of, Kim (KR-20170062813).
Zhao & Ying teach:
In regards to claim 11, Zhao & Ying teach a system of claim 1, (see claim rejection 1) wherein the control electronics further comprise:
a global positioning system (GPS); and (Ying: 4 fig. 1, ‘signal receiver’)
a connected device, wherein the connected device is in communication with at least one of: the handheld sensing device, the attachment device, and the control electronics, (Ying: 1-2 fig. 1, ‘analyzer/analysis processor’, ‘high-capacity battery’)
wherein the processor receives the measured ambient trace-gas concentrations from the trace-gas sensor. (Zhao: abstract; 7, 8, 88 fig(s) 1-5, ‘sensor module’, ‘measurement module’, ‘electrical measurement device’; para(s) [0029, 0037])
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the invention for Zhao & Ying to provide a high-precision gas leak detector in order to measure volatile concentration levels of the desired gas or fluid.
Zhao & Ying don’t teach:
wherein the connected device acquires the location data from the GPS, wherein the connected device is configured to display a map showing a location of a trace-gas source,
Kim teaches:
wherein the connected device acquires the location data from the GPS, wherein the connected device is configured to display a map showing a location of a trace-gas source, (para(s) [0022, 0057, 0075], 407 fig. 5, ‘map provision unit’)
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the invention for Kim to provide a GPS function for a high-precision gas leak detector in order to measure volatile concentration levels of the desired gas or fluid and to map the locality of the desired parameter.
In regards to claim 12, Zhao, Ying, & Kim teach a system of claim 11, (see claim rejection 11) wherein the connected device comprises a data visualization display displaying the map, wherein the data visualization display comprises at least one of: a smartphone, a tablet, a portable computer, an augmented reality (AR) device, a smartwatch, and a virtual reality (VR) device. (Kim: para(s) [0022, 0057, 0075], 407 fig. 5, ‘map provision unit’)
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) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhao (CN-106769977), Ying (CN-205749271), Kim (KR-20170062813), in view of, , Leen (US-11307137).
Zhao, Ying, & Kim teach:
In regards to claim 13, Zhao, Ying, & Kim teach a system of claim 11, (see claim rejection 11) wherein the processor is further configured to:
receive a location data from the GPS corresponding to the received measured ambient trace-gas concentrations; (Kim: para(s) [0022, 0057, 0075], 407 fig. 5, ‘map provision unit’)
determine the location of the trace-gas source based on the detected elevated trace-gas concentration relative to ambient trace-gas concentration, the received location data, (Kim: para(s) [0022, 0057, 0075], 407 fig. 5, ‘map provision unit’)
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the invention for Zhao, Ying, & Kim to provide a high-precision gas leak detector in order to measure volatile concentration levels of the desired gas or fluid.
Zhao, Ying & Kim don’t teach:
receive a meteorological data corresponding to the received measured ambient trace-gas concentrations;
and the received meteorological data.
Leen teaches:
receive a meteorological data corresponding to the received measured ambient trace-gas concentrations;
and the received meteorological data. (Leen: 10, 44 fig. 1, ‘gas detector’, ‘anemometer’; 45-56 col. 9, ‘it is known to carry portable gas detector devices in backpacks and the like.’; ‘an optional anemometer 46, such as a sonic anemometer which provides real-time wind speed and direction information to the controller 18 such that the wind data may be used to modify the data collected by the detector 10. In the embodiment of FIG. 1, the anemometer 44 communicates with the controller 18 through a wireless connection 84. In other embodiments’)
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the invention for Leen to provide meteorological device or function for a high-precision gas leak detector in order to measure volatile concentration levels of the desired gas or fluid and to modify the data collected by the detector.
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) 14-15, 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhao (CN-106769977), in view of, Ying (CN-205749271).
In regards to claim 14, Zhao teaches a method comprising:
measuring, by a trace-gas sensor of the handheld sensing device, ambient trace-gas concentrations; and (abstract; 7, 8, 88 fig(s) 1, 5, ‘sensor module’, ‘measurement module’, ‘electrical measurement device’; para(s) [0029, 0037])
receiving, by a processor having addressable memory, the measured ambient trace-gas concentrations; (2 fig(s) 1, 5, ‘central processing unit’; para [0032])
wherein the trace-gas sensor is disposed on a first end of a handle of the handheld sensing device, wherein a grip is disposed on a second end of the handle of the handheld sensing device, wherein the first end of the handle is distal from the second end of the handle; (3-5 fig. 1, ‘power supply module’, ‘power management module’, ‘power protection module’; para(s) [0033-004]; abstract; 13-16,124 fig. 1, 5, ‘snake tube’, ’holding handle’, ‘leak detector probe’, ‘non-slip rubber sleeve’)
wherein the power supply is configured to provide power to the handheld sensing device. (3-5 fig(s) 1, 5, ‘power supply module’, ‘power management module’, ‘power protection module’; para(s) [0033-004])
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the invention for Zhao to provide a high-precision gas leak detector in order to measure volatile concentration levels of the desired gas or fluid.
Zhao does not teach:
mounting an attachment device remotely from a handheld sensing device, wherein the attachment device is physically separated from the handheld sensing device;
wherein the attachment device is configured to communicate with the handheld sensing device via at least one of a cable and a wireless connection; and
wherein the attachment device houses at least one of the processor and a power supply, and
Ying teaches:
mounting an attachment device remotely from a handheld sensing device, wherein the attachment device is physically separated from the handheld sensing device; (1-2 fig(s) 1, ‘analyzer/analysis processor’, ‘high-capacity battery’)
wherein the attachment device is configured to communicate with the handheld sensing device via at least one of a cable and a wireless connection; and ( 3 fig(s) 1 ‘signal receiver’, ‘infrared transmitter sensor’)
wherein the attachment device houses at least one of the processor and a power supply, and(1-3, 6-7 fig(s) 1, ‘analyzer/analysis processor’, ‘high-capacity battery’, ‘signal receiver’; abstract; para(s) [0018-0019])
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the invention for Ying to provide an attachment device for a high-precision gas leak detector in order to measure volatile concentration levels of the desired gas or fluid.
In regards to claim 15, Zhao & Ying teach a method of claim 14, (see claim rejection 14) further comprising:
detecting, by the processor, elevated ambient trace-gas concentrations based on the measured ambient trace-gas concentrations. (Zhao: abstract; 8, 71, 871 fig(s) 1, 4-5, ‘measurement module’, ‘gas flow sensor’, ‘measurement sensor’; para(s) [0004, 0020, 0039-0040])
In regards to claim 18, Zhao & Ying teach a method of claim 14, (see claim rejection 14) wherein the attachment device is physically separated from the handheld sensing device except the cable, and wherein the cable is a shielded coiled cable connecting between the attachment device and the handheld sensing device. (Ying: 7 fig. 1, ‘transmission line’)
In regards to claim 19, Zhao & Ying teach a method of claim 14, (see claim rejection 14) wherein the receiving the measured ambient trace-gas concentrations further comprises: sending, by a first transceiver of the handheld sensing device, the measured ambient trace-gas contractions, and receiving, by a second transceiver of the attachment device, the measured ambient trace-gas contractions. (Ying: 3, 9 fig. 1, ‘signal receiver’, ‘infrared transmitter sensor’)
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) 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhao (CN-106769977), Ying (CN-205749271), Kim (KR-20170062813), in view of, Leen (US-11307137).
Zhao & Ying teach:
In regards to claim 16, Zhao & Ying teach a method of claim 15, further comprising: (Zhao: abstract)
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the invention for Zhao & Ying to provide a high-precision gas leak detector in order to measure volatile concentration levels of the desired gas or fluid.
Zhao & Ying do not teach:
receiving, by the processor, a location data from a global positioning system (GPS) corresponding to the received measured ambient trace-gas concentrations;
receiving, by the processor, a meteorological data corresponding to the received measured ambient trace-gas concentrations; and
determining, by the processor, a location of a trace-gas source based on the detected elevated ambient trace-gas concentration, the received location data, and the received meteorological data.
Kim teaches:
receiving, by the processor, a location data from a global positioning system (GPS) corresponding to the received measured ambient trace-gas concentrations; (para(s) [0022, 0057, 0075], 407 fig. 5, ‘map provision unit’)
determining, by the processor, a location of a trace-gas source based on the detected elevated ambient trace-gas concentration, the received location data, (para(s) [0022, 0057, 0075], 407 fig. 5, ‘map provision unit’)
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the invention for Kim to provide GPS capabilities for a high-precision gas leak detector in order to measure volatile concentration levels of the desired gas or fluid.
Kim does not teach:
receiving, by the processor, a meteorological data corresponding to the received measured ambient trace-gas concentrations; and
and the received meteorological data.
Leen teaches:
receiving, by the processor, a meteorological data corresponding to the received measured ambient trace-gas concentrations; and (Leen: 10, 44 fig. 1, ‘gas detector’, ‘anemometer’; 45-56 col. 9, ‘it is known to carry portable gas detector devices in backpacks and the like.’; ‘an optional anemometer 46, such as a sonic anemometer which provides real-time wind speed and direction information to the controller 18 such that the wind data may be used to modify the data collected by the detector 10. In the embodiment of FIG. 1, the anemometer 44 communicates with the controller 18 through a wireless connection 84. In other embodiments’)
and the received meteorological data. (Leen: 10, 44 fig. 1, ‘gas detector’, ‘anemometer’; 45-56 col. 9, ‘it is known to carry portable gas detector devices in backpacks and the like.’; ‘an optional anemometer 46, such as a sonic anemometer which provides real-time wind speed and direction information to the controller 18 such that the wind data may be used to modify the data collected by the detector 10. In the embodiment of FIG. 1, the anemometer 44 communicates with the controller 18 through a wireless connection 84. In other embodiments’)
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the invention for Leen to provide meteorological device or function for a high-precision gas leak detector in order to measure volatile concentration levels of the desired gas or fluid and to modify the data collected by the detector.
In regards to claim 17, Zhao, Ying, & Kim teach a method of claim 16, (see claim rejection 16) further comprising:
displaying, by a connected device in communication with the processor, a map showing the determined location of the trace-gas source. (Ying: para(s) [0022, 0057, 0075], 407 fig. 5, ‘map provision unit’)
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) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhao (CN-106769977), in view of, Ying (CN-205749271).
In regards to claim 20, Zhao teaches a system comprising: (abstract)
a handheld sensing device comprising a trace-gas sensor configured to measure ambient trace- gas concentrations; and (abstract; 1, fig(s) 1, 5, ‘handheld high-precision gas quantitative leak detector body’)
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the invention for Zhao to provide a high-precision gas leak detector in order to measure volatile concentration levels of the desired gas or fluid.
Zhao does not teach:
an attachment device physically separated from the handheld sensing device;
wherein the attachment device is configured to communicate with the handheld sensing device via at least one of a cable and a wireless connection; and
wherein the attachment device houses at least one of: a control electronics comprising a processor in communication with the trace-gas sensor and a power supply configured to provide power to the handheld sensing device.
Ying teaches:
an attachment device physically separated from the handheld sensing device; (1-2 fig(s) 1 ‘analyzer/analysis processor’, ‘high-capacity battery’)
wherein the attachment device is configured to communicate with the handheld sensing device via at least one of a cable and a wireless connection; and ( 1-3 fig(s) 1, ‘signal receiver’, ‘infrared transmitter sensor’)
wherein the attachment device houses at least one of: a control electronics comprising a processor in communication with the trace-gas sensor and a power supply configured to provide power to the handheld sensing device. (1-3, 6-7 fig. 1, ‘analyzer/analysis processor’, ‘high-capacity battery’, ‘signal receiver’; abstract; para(s) [0018-0019]; ‘analyzer/analysis processor’, ‘high-capacity battery’)
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the invention for Ying to provide an attachment device for a high-precision gas leak detector in order to measure volatile concentration levels of the desired gas or fluid.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The references cited Chen (EP-4455632-B1), Satratmann (EP-4686933), and John (US-20230393057) references further describe a gas detection device as described by the claims.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEVIN C BUTLER whose telephone number is (571)270-3973. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5.
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, Stephanie E Bloss can be reached at (571)272-3555. 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.
/K.C.B/Examiner, Art Unit 2852
/STEPHANIE E BLOSS/Supervisory Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2852
Prosecution Insights