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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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.
Claims 1, 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (CN217403916, translation provided) in view of Andrews et al. (US20210340486).
Claim 1: Wang teaches gas detection equipment (analyzer 18) including a sampling assembly (chassis 1, Figs. 1-4) including a plurality of sampling inlets (sampling air inlets 4, Fig. 3), a solenoid valve assembly (solenoid valve set 13 including V1-V6, Fig. 4) and a sampling outlet (air outlet 6), the plurality of sampling inlets being configured to be in communication with a plurality of detected gas sources (the twelve sampling gas inlets 4 are used for connecting gas sampling pipelines of different sampling points; middle pg. 6), respectively, the solenoid valve assembly being connected between the plurality of sampling inlets and the sampling outlet (the electromagnetic valves V1-V6 are between the inlets ), the solenoid valve assembly being configured to selectively control at least one of the plurality of sampling inlets to be communicated with or discommunicated from the sampling outlet (the solenoid valves are controlled such that the inlets 4 are connected to the outlet 6 and analyzer 18; pg. 7).
Wang fails to teach that the sampling assembly is attached to a main body and a plurality of sampling assemblies detachably connected to the main body.
However, Andrews teaches a main body (rack 205) including a plurality of sampling assemblies (disposable cassettes 107, 111) are housed within enclosures 401, enclosures 401 are grouped to form a row 207 of rack 205; Fig. 1B [0091] ). The Rack 205 can include functional blocks (rows 207) which can provide mounting for modules 116A, 118A [0073] including the cassettes 107, 111 to be detachably mounted therein ([0173]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use a housing wherein the assemblies can be detachably mounted, as taught by Andrews, in order to provide common rails for pneumatic, electrical, and control communication connection (Andrews [0071]).
Claim 4: Wang in view of Andrews teaches the device of claim 1. Wang fails to teach wherein each of the plurality of sampling assemblies is detachably and slidably disposed on the main body.
However, Andrews teaches that the cassettes (107/111, 699/700) are detachably and slidably mounted in a thermal enclosure 101A, Figs. 1B, 14-D2, 14E, [0012, 0167-0169].
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to mount the assemblies of claim 1 slidably and detachably, as taught by Andrews, in order to facilitate insertion and removal of the cassette/assembly into a correct position by sliding into an accommodating access panel (Andrews, [0169]).
Claims 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang in view of Andrews further in view of Bak (KR101930219, translation provided).
Claim 2: Wang in view of Andrews teaches the device of claim 1, but fails to teach wherein the plurality of sampling inlets of each of the plurality of sampling assemblies are protrusive out beyond the main body, and the sampling outlet of each of the plurality of sampling assemblies is located within the main body.
However, Bak teaches a gas sampling apparatus including a plurality of samplers 100a, 100b, a cabinet (pg. 12, tenth full paragraph), and an analyzer 200, Fig. 9. The samplers are housed within a main body (housing 102 or cabinet, pg. 12) wherein the sampling inlets (collecting pipes 110 and exposed input ports 121) are protrusive outside of the housing 102, Figs. 9 and 11, and the outlet (sampling pipe 150) is located within the main body.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to position the inlets of the assemblies outside of the housing and the outlet of the assemblies within the housing in order to utilize a single component in order to supply the collected samples to an analyzer (Bak, end pg. 9- top pg. 10).
Claim 3: Wang in view of Andrews teaches the device of claim 1, but fails to teach wherein each of the plurality of sampling assemblies further includes a cleaning inlet, the cleaning inlet is in communication with the solenoid valve assembly, and the cleaning inlet is in communication with a cleaning gas source.
However, Bak teaches a cleaning inlet (third input port 181 and cleaning gas pipe 180) in communication with a cleaning gas source (cleaning system for supplying a cleaning substance such as an inert gas, middle pg. 9) and valve assembly (cleaning gas control valve 183, among additional valves throughout Fig. 9).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use a cleaning inlet and cleaning gas source, as taught by Bak, with the device of claim 1, in order to controllably purge the sampling pipes (Bak, end pg. 10- top pg. 11).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang in view of Andrews further in view of Keller (US20180000463).
Claim 7: Wang in view of Andrews teaches the gas detection equipment of claim 1, but fails to teach at least one rail assembly, wherein the at least one rail assembly is arranged between the main body and at least one of the plurality of sampling assemblies, each of the at least one rail assembly includes a first rail and a second rail, the main body includes the first rail, and at least one of the plurality of sampling assemblies includes the second rail which is slidably connected to the first rail.
However, Keller teaches a body 82 and base 70 which are removably coupled together such that the base 70 can be inserted into and removed from the guide slot 88 of the base 82, Figs. 5-6, 8A-8F. The guide slot 88 receives a guide rail 75 of the base 70. Therefore, it is known in the art to detachably and slidably connect two elements using guide rails (slot and rail).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to slidably couple the assemblies claim 1 using mating rails, as taught by Keller, in order to prevent inadvertent removal of the inserted assembly (Keller [0080]).
Claims 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang in view of Andrews further in view of Keller further in view of Schmid (US5626406).
Claim 8: Wang in view of Andrews further in view of Keller teaches the gas detection equipment of claim 7, but fails to teach wherein the first rail includes a first limitation unit, the second rail includes a second limitation unit, each of the plurality of sampling assemblies is movable relative to the main body in a first direction from a retracted position to a withdrawn position outside the main body, and when at least one of the plurality of sampling assemblies is in the withdrawn position, the second limitation unit is abutted against the first limitation unit in the first direction.
However, Schmid teaches a slide assembly which uses a locking tab 116 and a wedge-shaped latch 120 in order to restrict movement between slides 16 and 18 (Fig. 5). Therefore, it is known to limit sliding moving by using a first limitation (the intermediate slide 16 is restricted from movement (col. 6, lines 25-41) and includes a square hole 90) on a first (stationary) rail and a second limitation unit (latch 120) on a second, retractable rail (chassis slide 18 includes the locking tab 116 including latch 120) which engage in order to limit the retracting/separating movement between the rails (col. 7, lines 5-19). Therefore, it is known in the art to limit guide-rail movement and prevent complete separation of guide rails using limitation units such as latches.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use the teaching of Schmid with the device of claim 7 in order to control extension or retraction of the slide/guide/rail members relative to each other (Schmid col. 1, lines 16-19).
Claim 9: Wang in view of Andrews further in view of Keller further in view of Schmid teaches the device of claim 8. Wang in view of Andrews further in view of Keller fails to teach wherein the second limitation unit is movable between a locked position and a release position, when the second limitation unit is in the locked position, the second limitation unit is abutted against the first limitation unit in the first direction, and when the second limitation unit is in the release position, the second limitation unit does not abut the first limitation unit in the first direction.
However, Schmid teaches wherein the second limitation unit (latch 120) is movable between a locked position and a release position, when the second limitation unit is in the locked position, the second limitation unit is abutted against the first limitation unit in the first direction (when the latch 120 protrudes into and abuts the hole 90, Fig. 5), and when the second limitation unit is in the release position (when the tabs 116 are depressed), the second limitation unit does not abut the first limitation unit in the first direction (end col. 6- top col. 7).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use the teaching of Schmid with the device of claim 8 in order to control extension or retraction of the slide/guide/rail members relative to each other (Schmid col. 1, lines 16-19).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-5 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-4, 7, 12 of copending Application No. 18/772866. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
Pending Claims
18/772866
Claim 1: A gas detection equipment including: a main body; and a plurality of sampling assemblies detachably connected to the main body, each of the plurality of sampling assemblies including a plurality of sampling inlets, a solenoid valve assembly and a sampling outlet, the plurality of sampling inlets being configured to be in communication with a plurality of detected gas sources, respectively, the solenoid valve assembly being connected between the plurality of sampling inlets and the sampling outlet, the solenoid valve assembly being configured to selectively control at least one of the plurality of sampling inlets to be communicated with or discommunicated from the sampling outlet.
Claim 1: A gas detection equipment including: a main body; a plurality of sampling assemblies detachably connected to the main body, each of the plurality of sampling assemblies including a plurality of sampling inlets, a solenoid valve assembly and a sampling outlet, the plurality of sampling inlets being configured to be in communication with a plurality of detected gas sources, respectively, the solenoid valve assembly being configured to be in communication with the plurality of sampling inlets and the sampling outlet, the solenoid valve assembly being configured to selectively control at least one of the plurality of sampling inlets to be communicated with or discommunicated from the sampling outlet; a dispensing device disposed on the main body and in communication with the sampling outlet of each of the plurality of sampling assemblies; a detection device disposed on the main body and in communication with the dispensing device, the dispensing device being configured to selectively control the sampling outlet of each of the plurality of sampling assemblies to be communicated with or discommunicated from the detection device, to detect a gas from each of the plurality of detected gas sources; and a processing unit disposed on the main body, connected to the detection device, and configured to receive detected data from the detection device for calculation and analysis.
Claim 2: The gas detection equipment of claim 1, wherein the plurality of sampling inlets of each of the plurality of sampling assemblies are protrusive out beyond the main body, and the sampling outlet of each of the plurality of sampling assemblies is located within the main body.
Claim 4: The gas detection equipment of claim 1, wherein the plurality of sampling inlets of each of the plurality of sampling assemblies are protrusive out beyond the main body, and the sampling outlet of each of the plurality of sampling assemblies is located within the main body.
Claim 3: The gas detection equipment of claim 1, wherein each of the plurality of sampling assemblies further includes a cleaning inlet, the cleaning inlet is in communication with the solenoid valve assembly, and the cleaning inlet is in communication with a cleaning gas source.
Claim 7: The gas detection equipment of claim 1, wherein each of the plurality of sampling assemblies further includes a first cleaning inlet, the first cleaning inlet is in communication with the solenoid valve assembly, the dispensing device further includes a plurality of second cleaning inlets, and the first cleaning inlet and the second cleaning inlet are in communication with a cleaning gas source.
Claim 4: The gas detection equipment of claim 1, wherein each of the plurality of sampling assemblies is detachably and slidably disposed on the main body.
Claim 2: The gas detection equipment of claim 1, wherein the plurality of sampling assemblies are detachably and slidably disposed on the main body.
Claim 5: The gas detection equipment of claim 1, wherein each of the plurality of sampling assemblies further includes a dispensing unit, the solenoid valve assembly is arranged between the plurality of sampling inlets and the dispensing unit, the dispensing unit includes a plurality of dispensing inlets, the sampling outlet and a cleaning inlet, the plurality of dispensing inlets are connected between the solenoid valve assembly and the sampling outlet and between the solenoid valve assembly and the cleaning inlet, and the cleaning inlet is in communication with a cleaning gas source.
Claim 12: The gas detection equipment of claim 3, wherein the plurality of sampling inlets of each of the plurality of sampling assemblies are protrusive out beyond the main body, and the sampling outlet of each of the plurality of sampling assemblies is located within the main body; the gas detection equipment further includes a first pump, and the first pump is in communication with the dispensing device to transport the plurality of detected gas sources through the plurality of sampling assemblies to the dispensing device, respectively; the dispensing device includes a plurality of dispensing inlets, and each of the plurality of dispensing inlets is in communication with the sampling outlet of one of the plurality of sampling assemblies; each of the plurality of sampling assemblies further includes a first cleaning inlet, the first cleaning inlet is in communication with the solenoid valve assembly, the dispensing device further includes a plurality of second cleaning inlets, and the first cleaning inlet and the second cleaning inlet are in communication with a cleaning gas source; the gas detection equipment further includes a second pump, and the second pump is configured to transport the cleaning gas source to the first cleaning inlet and the second cleaning inlet; the gas detection equipment further includes a display, and the display is disposed on the main body and in communication with the processing unit to display the calculation and analysis from the processing unit; the gas detection equipment further includes an alerting device, and the alerting device is disposed on the main body and in communication with the processing unit, and the alerting device provides an alert when an abnormal condition occurs; the alerting device is a lighting device.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Allowable Subject Matter
No prior art appears to read on the invention of claim 5. However, claim 5 is rejected herein on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting.
Claim 6 and 10 are 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The closest prior art includes Wang, Andrews and Bak.
Wang in view of Andrews teaches the device of claim 1. Wang teaches an outlet 6 and a plurality of inlets 4 on a same panel 103 of a chassis 101, Fig. 1. Bak teaches a gas sampling apparatus 100 including a first sampler 100a, a second sampler 110b, a cleaning inlet 180, 181, a plurality of sampling inlets 110 and a plurality of valves 125, 132, 181, 182, 184, Figs. 9, 11.
Whether considered alone or in combination, the prior art fails to teach, suggest, or make obvious a dispensing unit as well as the particular arrangement of the solenoid valve assembly between the plurality of sampling inlets and the dispensing unit, the dispensing unit includes a plurality of dispensing inlets, the sampling outlet and a cleaning inlet, the plurality of dispensing inlets are connected between the solenoid valve assembly and the sampling outlet and between the solenoid valve assembly and the cleaning inlet, and the cleaning inlet is in communication with a cleaning gas source.
A person having ordinary skill in the art would not modify the device of Wang to include a dispensing unit or move the outlet 6 to a location opposite without hindsight. Likewise, a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would not modify the device of Bak to include a dispensing unit nor move the cleaning inlet to a position opposite without hindsight.
Claim 5 would be allowable if the nonstatutory double patenting rejection is overcome. Claims 6 and 10 depend from claim 5 but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JEAN MORELLO whose telephone number is (313)446-6583. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-4.
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.
/JEAN F MORELLO/Examiner, Art Unit 2855
/KRISTINA M DEHERRERA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2855 6/4/26
Prosecution Insights