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 § 102
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.
Claims 1-3, 5, 15-16, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Szurley (US 11,313,754).
As to claim 1, Szurley discloses a refrigerant leak detector comprising:
an acoustic emission sensor 160 capable of detecting an elastic wave generated from a refrigerant leak site in a refrigerant pipe; and
a jig 120 comprising a lower end portion 124 configured to contact an outer circumferential surface of the pipe and an upper end portion 122 in contact with the acoustic emission sensor 160, wherein the lower end portion 124 comprises a curved surface configured to contact the pipe, and wherein the upper end portion 122 comprises a flat surface that supports the acoustic emission sensor (Figs. 1-3).
As to claim 2, Szurley discloses the upper end portion 120 comprising a step portion formed on the flat surface (see annotated figure).
As to claim 3, the diameter of the step portion is smaller than a diameter of the sensor 160 (see annotated figure).
As to claim 5, the step portion comprises a staircase structure of two or more steps (see annotated figure).
As to claims 15-16, Szurley teaches first and second inclined surfaces as claimed (see annotated figure).
As to claim 18, Szurley discloses a refrigerant leak detector comprising:
one or more sensor 160;
one or more jig 120 configured to contact an outer circumferential surface of a refrigerant pipe and support the one or more sensors 160, wherein the one or more jig 120 comprises a curved surface configured to contact the pipe and a flat surface that is located in a direction opposite to the curved surface and supports the one or more sensor 160 (Figs. 1-3).
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.
Claims 4 and 6-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Szurley as applied in the rejections above.
As to claim 4, Szurley is silent regarding specific dimensions of the device. However, any specific dimension of the device is recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e. a variable which achieves a recognized result. In this case, the recognized result is that a certain size will provide effective sensing. Therefore, since the general conditions of the claim were disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum workable range by routine experimentation, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use a step diameter that is .48 - .72 times the diameter of the sensor 160.
As to claims 6-10, Szurley teaches most of the limitations of the claims as discussed above, but does not explicitly teach a hole formed in the center of the flat surface. However, its has been held that “[w]hen there is a design need or market pressure to solve a problem and there are a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, a person of ordinary skill in the art has a good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp.” An obviousness determination is not the result of a rigid formula disassociated from the consideration of the facts of the case. Indeed, the common sense of those skilled in the art demonstrates why some combinations would have been obvious where others would not. Therefore, choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation for success, is likely to be obvious to a person if ordinary skill in the art (see MPEP 2143).
When utilizing the sensor of Szurley it would have been readily apparent that modifying the structure of the jig would affect the detection capabilities of the sensor 160. Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify Szurley by trying use of the sensor with a hole in the flat surface, since choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success, is within the abilities of one having ordinary skill. See MPEP 2143(I)(E).
As to claims 11-12, Szurley is silent regarding the material of the jig 120. However, it would have been an obvious design choice to modify the reference by having the jig 120 made of brass and the emission sensor made of a different material, since applicant has not disclosed that use of a particular material provides any unexpected result, and it appears that the device would perform equally well with any suitable construction materials.
As to claims 13-14, Szurley is silent regarding specific dimensions of the device. However, any specific dimension of the device is recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e. a variable which achieves a recognized result. In this case, the recognized result is that a certain size will provide effective sensing. Therefore, since the general conditions of the claim were disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum workable range by routine experimentation, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use a flat surface diameter that is .63 - 3.15 times the pipe diameter.
Claims 17 and 19-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Szurley in view of Welch (US 2023/0109334).
As to claims 17 and 19, Szurley teaches most of the limitations of the claim as discussed in the rejection of claim 1 above, but does not explicitly teach an air conditioner comprising the refrigerant leak detector. However, Welch teaches that it is known to utilize an air conditioner comprising an acoustic leak sensor (paragraphs 51 and 61). Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify Szurley such that an air conditioner comprises the refrigerant leak detector as claimed and taught by Welch in order to ensure that a potentially harmful refrigerant leak of the air conditioner can be detected.
As to claims 20-21, the modified apparatus includes a plurality of refrigerant leak detectors, and associated communication units/detection kits that are associated with a controller that determines a leak location based on a ratio of signal values measured by the detectors (Figs. 1 and 6; col. 6, lines 1-54; col. 11, lines 58-67).
Annotated Figure
PNG
media_image1.png
499
855
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN BRADFORD whose telephone number is (571)270-5199. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00 - 4:00 ET.
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, Jerry-Daryl Fletcher can be reached at (571)270-5054. 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.
/JONATHAN BRADFORD/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763