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 . 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 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.
Drawings
Drawings are objected. In USPTO patent drawings, using drawings entirely filled in with solid black (instead of traditional hatching) is prohibited. See MPEP § 1503.02 and 37 CFR 1.84(m), 37 CFR 1.84(h).
Appropriate action is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 3 and 13 are objected.
Numeral 18 in claim 3 should be removed or kept in the parenthesis.
Claim 11 also does not have any antecedent basis for “the face”.
Appropriate action is required.
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 1,6, 11,13,18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Levine, US10520133B1 in view of Volckens, US 11474005 B2 .
Claim 1
Levine in figs.1-8 teaches:
A blind hole remote sampling point apparatus (10,11 and/or 110,111) comprising:
a housing 38,138 with a channel 22,122 for fluid flow (e.g., air);
a mounting retainer 11,16,111;
a particulate air outlet (outlet of 22,122 for sampling of surrounding atmosphere e.g., col.1 L.45-46, col.2 l.25-27) ;
an air inlet 20,130;
wherein the sampling point housing 38,138 mechanically couples to the retainer 11,16,111 for mounting to a structure (e.g., 12,112 in figs.4,7).
Levine does not specifically teach an RFID device; the RFID device configured to monitor performance characteristics of the blind hole remote sampling point.
In the similar field of endeavor, Volckens in e.g., fig.8 teaches a remote sampling apparatus (802) comprising an RFID device (824 and col.29 l.54-56); the RFID device 824 configured to monitor performance characteristics of the remote sampling point 810.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Volckens‘s RFID device for Levine‘s blind hole remote sampling point. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to Communications between the sampling assembly and the sampling device and using them to transfer information related to sampling device configuration (e.g., cyclone configuration, sampling filter characteristics, etc.) users, samples, sample processes, instructions for sampling, ambient condition measurements, and/or the like (Volckens :e.g., col.29 l.58-62).
Claim 6
Levine in view of Volckens teaches the apparatus of claim 1 further comprising a face 34,16 with a recessed portion to allow a mechanical coupling of an insert 18 and an orifice 20 to allow fluid flow.
Claim 11
Levine in view of Volckens teaches the apparatus of claim 1 wherein the face 34,16 has ribbing 40 around the perimeter 34.
Claim 13
Levine teaches:
A method of blind hole remote sampling comprising:
using a housing 10 with a channel 22 for fluid flow, with a mounting retainer 11,18; a particulate air outlet (outlet 22 to a detector),
mechanically coupling the sampling point housing 10 to the retainer 11 for mounting to a structure 12;
Levine does not specifically teach an RFID device; the RFID device configuring an RFID device to monitor performance characteristics of the blind hole remote sampling point.
In the similar field of endeavor, Volckens in e.g., fig.8 teaches a remote sampling apparatus 802 comprising an RFID device 824; the RFID device 824 configured to monitor performance characteristics of the blind hole remote sampling point 810.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Volckens‘s RFID device for Levine‘s blind hole remote sampling point. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to Communications between the sampling assembly and the sampling device and using them to transfer information related to sampling device configuration (e.g., cyclone configuration, sampling filter characteristics, etc.) users, samples, sample processes, instructions for sampling, ambient condition measurements, and/or the like (Volckens :e.g., col.29 l.58-62).
Claim 18
Levine in view of Volckens teaches the method of claim 13 further comprising recessing a portion of a face 34 to allow mechanically coupling an insert 16 and an orifice 20 allowing fluid flow.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Levine, US10520133B1 in view of Volckens, US 11474005 B2 and COX, CN 108139302 A.
Claim 2
Levine in view of Volckens teaches the apparatus of claim 1, the modified Levine does not specifically teach wherein the mounting retainer is made of specifically barbed ribs. But COX in e.g., figs. 1 and 17-18 teaches a sampling device 1000 using two barbed ribs 1008 and 80,1010. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use COX‘s barbed ribs for the modified Levine‘s mounting retainer wherein the modified Levine’s mounting retainer is made of barbed ribs. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to use a known mechanism for its superior grip and locking.
Claims 2-4 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Levine, US10520133B1 in view of Volckens, US 11474005 B2 and Fritz , US4968200A.
Claim 2
Levine in view of Volckens teaches the apparatus of claim 1, the modified Levine does not specifically teach wherein the mounting retainer is made of specifically barbed ribs.
However, this barbed ribs are well-known family of mechanical components, i.e., barbed ribs used to provide a secure mechanical grip in materials to anchor, seal, and prevent pull-out in soft materials like plastics and wood (e.g., barbed dowels, fasteners).
In the similar field of endeavor, Fritz teaches an assembly for securing attachment of an anchor rod 2 within a barbed rib portion 1. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Fritz‘s barbed ribs for the modified Levine‘s mounting retainer wherein the modified Levine’s mounting retainer is made of barbed ribs. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to use a known mechanism for its superior grip and locking.
Claim 3
Levine in view of Volckens and COX (or alternatively over Fritz) teaches the apparatus of claim 2 , the modified Levine as cited above teaches the series of barbed ribs , but does not specifically teach wherein barbed ribs are ribs stacked horizontally along its circumference separated by channels. However, this is a well-known family of mechanical components, i.e., barbed ribs with vertical relief slots used to provide a secure mechanical grip in materials like concrete (rebar) or to anchor, seal, and prevent pull-out in soft materials like plastics and wood (e.g., barbed dowels, fasteners). The slots allow the ribs to flex, which eases installation and enables expansion1. In the similar field of endeavor, Fritz teaches wherein the series of barbed ribs 11 are stacked horizontally along its circumference 1 separated by vertical relief channels 6. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Fritz‘s ribs stacked horizontally along its circumference separated by vertical relief channels for the modified Levine‘s barbed ribs. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to use a well-known technique of flex barbed ribs to secure mechanical grip.
Claim 4
Levine in view of Volckens and Fritz teaches the apparatus of claim 3, the modified Levine in view of Fritz2 teaches wherein the barbed ribs 11 are configured to expand their outer diameter when the expander 13 is inserted into the retainer 1,2. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Fritz‘s barbed ribs and vertical relief channels for the modified Levine‘s retainer and the modified Levine’s barbed ribs are configured to expand their outer diameter when the modified Levine‘s housing is inserted into the modified Levine‘s mounting retainer for the same reason and motivation as cited above for claim 3.
Claim 5 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Levine, US10520133B1 in view of Volckens, US 11474005 B2 and Cox, US20120282019A1.
Claim 5
Levine in view of Volckens teaches the apparatus of claim 1 but the modified Levine does not specifically teach wherein the particulate air outlet is a barbed connection. Cox teaches the particulate outlet 20 is a barbed connection (with barbs 17). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Cox‘s barbed connection for the modified Levine‘s outlet. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to use a known mechanism for its superior grip and locking.
Claim 14
Levine in view of Volckens teaches the method of claim 13 but the modified Levine does not specifically teach comprising incorporating barbed ribs on the mounting retainer. Cox teaches incorporating barbed ribs 60,61 on the mounting retainer 15. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Cox‘s barbed connection for the modified Levine‘s outlet. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to use a known mechanism for its superior grip and locking.
Claim 17
Levine in view of Volckens teaches the method of claim 13 but the modified Levine does not specifically teach wherein connecting to the particulate air outlet using a barbed connection. Cox teaches the particulate outlet 20 is a barbed connection (with barbs 17). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Cox‘s barbed connection for the modified Levine‘s outlet. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to use a known mechanism for its superior grip and locking.
Claim 7 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Levine, US10520133B1 in view of Volckens, US 11474005 B2 and Gillespie, US 8574146 B2.
Claim 7
Levine in view of Volckens teaches the apparatus of claim 6 but the modification does not specifically teach wherein the insert is a thin film circuit.
In the similar field of endeavor, Gillespie teaches using electronics on a thin film or thin film circuit (col.34 l.51-52)3. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Duck‘s thin film circuit for the modified Levine‘s insert. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to drastically alter the physical, optical, or electrical properties of an object while using minimal material, allowing for major cost savings, reduced weight, and extreme miniaturization.
Claim 8 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Levine, US10520133B1 in view of Volckens, US 11474005 B2 and Doyle, US 9415389 B2.
Claim 8
Levine in view of Volckens teaches the apparatus of claim 6, although the modified Levine does not specifically teach wherein the insert is injection molded, using devices as injection mold is well known, for example In the similar field of endeavor, Doyle teaches it, i.e., injection molded (e.g., col.7 l.25-30). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Doyle‘s injection mold for the modified Levine‘s apparatus parts. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to offering the lowest cost-per-part for high volumes, requires minimal post-processing, and produces identical parts with high precision and strength.
Claim 20
Levine in view of Volckens teaches the method of claim 18 although the modified Levine does not specifically teach comprising making the insert using injection molding, using devices as injection mold is well known, for example In the similar field of endeavor, Doyle teaches it (e.g., col.7 l.25-30). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Doyle‘s injection mold for the modified Levine‘s apparatus parts. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to offering the lowest cost-per-part for high volumes, requires minimal post-processing, and produces identical parts with high precision and strength.
Claim 9 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Levine, US10520133B1 in view of Volckens, US 11474005 B2 and Cox , US20120282019A1.
Claim 9
Levine in view of Volckens teaches the apparatus of claim 1 wherein the inlet 20 is an orifice that is designed to prevent obstructions from entering the sampling tube (e.g., col.4 l.34-40) but does not specifically cite it is chamfered and sized according to results of a calculation program used to validate design and performance of a particle detection system. But first In the similar field of endeavor, Cox teaches using chamfered inlet (72)4, and It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Cox‘s chamfered inlet for the modified Levine‘s inlet. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to facilitates the insertion of the raised end within the inner cavity of the tubular body (Cox ¶0036).
Secondly this is an apparatus and based on MPEP2113: For a PBP claim to be valid and distinct from prior art, the process limitation must impart a unique, structural characteristic to the final product. Simply stating the intended use or a standard process isn't enough if the prior art product has the same structure.). third, it is a common practice to size different dimension in a device according to results of a calculation program used to validate design and performance of a system and based on MPEP 2143 (C), courts have ruled that Use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way is within the purview of a skilled artisan. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421,82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Claim 12
Levine in view of Volckens teaches the apparatus of claim 1 wherein the inlet is a chamfered hole. and It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Cox‘s chamfered inlet for the modified Levine‘s inlet. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to facilitates the insertion of the raised end within the inner cavity of the tubular body (Cox ¶0036).
Claim 10 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Levine, US10520133B1 in view of Volckens, US 11474005 B2 and Taylor, US 20180344963 A1.
Claim 10
Levine in view of Volckens teaches the apparatus of claim 1, but does not specifically teach wherein the housing has tabs that mechanically couple to receptacles on the mounting retainer allowing the housing to twist lock in place, but using tabs to allowing a part to twist lock it in place is a well-known technique, for example In the similar field of endeavor, Taylor teaches the fitting 510 has tabs 530 that mechanically couple to chassis portion on the assembly 101 allowing the fitting 510 to twist lock in place (e.g., ¶0041). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Taylor‘s twist clocking mechanism for the modified Levine‘s housing that the modified Levine’s tabs mechanically couple to receptacles on the modified Levine‘s mounting retainer allowing the modified Levine‘s housing to twist lock in place. One of ordinary skill in the art know such mechanism and would have been motivated to make this modification in order to provide a highly secure, vibration-resistant, and tamper-proof connection across various industries.
Claim 15 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Levine, US10520133B1 in view of Volckens, US 11474005 B2 and Cox, US20120282019A1 and Fritz , US4968200A.
Claim 15
Levine in view of Volckens Cox teaches the method of claim 14 but does not teach comprising stacking the series of barbed ribs horizontally along its circumference and separating them by vertical relief channels. However, this is a well-known family of mechanical components, i.e., barbed ribs with vertical relief slots used to provide a secure mechanical grip in materials like concrete (rebar) or to anchor, seal, and prevent pull-out in soft materials like plastics and wood (e.g., barbed dowels, fasteners). The slots allow the ribs to flex, which eases installation and enables expansion5. In the similar field of endeavor, Fritz teaches wherein the series of barbed ribs 11 are stacked horizontally along its circumference separated by vertical relief channels 6.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Fritz‘s ribs stacked horizontally along its circumference separated by vertical relief channels for the modified Levine‘s barbed ribs. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to use a well-known technique of flex barbed ribs to secure mechanical grip.
Claim 16
Levine in view of Volckens Cox and Fritz teaches the method of claim 15 the modified Levine in view of Fritz6 teaches wherein the barbed ribs 11 are configured to expand their outer diameter when the expander 13 is inserted into the retainer 1,2. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Fritz‘s barbed ribs and vertical relief channels for the modified Levine‘s retainer and the modified Levine’s barbed ribs are configured to expand their outer diameter when the modified Levine‘s housing is inserted into the modified Levine‘s mounting retainer for the same reason and motivation as cited above for claim 15.
Claim 19 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Levine, US10520133B1 in view of Volckens, US 11474005 B2 and Duck, US 20250020550 A1.
Claim 19
Levine in view of Volckens teaches the method of claim 18 but the modified Levin does not teach comprising making the insert out of thin film. Duck teaches using 568 is thin film (¶0106).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Duck‘s thin film for the modified Levine‘s insert. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to drastically enhance the performance of a base material without adding significant bulk, weight, or cost.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Wu , US5702216A.
Wu teaches wherein the series of barbed ribs 34,53 are stacked horizontally along its circumference separated by vertical relief channels 32. Wu teaches wherein the barbed ribs 34,53 are configured to expand their outer diameter when the housing is inserted into the mounting retainer (The slotted ribbed sleeve expands radially as an internal wedge member is driven into the sleeve).
Peeters, US 20060290496 A1
Peeters in fig.11 teaches thin film circuit.
Ajay , US 10161837 B2
Ajay teaches using chamfered inlet (fig.12 and col.35 l.64-67), for example the tip has the effect of functionally making the outlet point in a downstream direction with respect to the flow within the pipe (col.35 l.64-67).
A sample of well-known mechanism of expansion plug, annular snap-fit sleeves with axial relief slots such as: Dowel with Nylon Expansion plastic anchor wall plug
https://www.aliexpress.com/item/1005010002570299.html
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Fatemeh E. Nia whose telephone number is (469)295-9187. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 am to 4:00 pm.
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 DeHerrera can be reached at (303) 297-4237. 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.
/FATEMEH ESFANDIARI NIA/Examiner, Art Unit 2855
1 See conclusion for expansion plug, annular snap-fit sleeves with axial relief slots such as: Dowel with Nylon Expansion plastic anchor wall plug
2 SEE ALSO Wu in conclusion.
3 See also Peeters in the conclusion
4 See also Ajay in conclusion
5 See conclusion for expansion plug, annular snap-fit sleeves with axial relief slots such as: Dowel with Nylon Expansion plastic anchor wall plug
6 SEE ALSO Wu in conclusion.
Prosecution Insights