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
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) 1-2, 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by TOMOIGAWA (US 20200056799).
Regarding claim 1,
Referring to Figs. 1-3, Tomoigawa teaches a sensor assembly 20 comprising: a chamber 6 fluidly coupled to a sampling tube 9, the chamber configured to receive one or more gases (e.g. refrigerant, see abstract, pars. 2, 24, 29) from the sampling tube 9, wherein the chamber comprises: a second opening (e.g. at 10) configured to allow egress of the received one or more gases through; and a gas sensor 11 disposed within the chamber, the gas sensor configured to sense the one or more gases to generate a signal (see par. 24).
Regarding claim 2,
Tomoigawa teaches a flushing tube 10 fluidly coupled to the chamber, the flushing tube configured to facilitate a flow of ambient air to the chamber to evacuate the one or more gases therefrom (e.g. the tube 10 is capable of receiving a flow of ambient air via suction port 18 and the function of fan 40), wherein the flushing tube evacuates the one or more gases from the chamber and the gas sensor when the flushing tube is configured to receive the one or more gases that includes the ambient air from a conduit 1 (e.g. is capable of evacuating the one or more gases from the chamber and the gas sensor when the flushing tube, as the flushing tube is capable of receiving the one or more gases that includes the ambient air from the conduit 1).
Regarding claim 6,
Tomoigawa teaches a blower 40 configured to move a fluid through the sensor assembly.
Claim(s) 7, 10-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Uehara (US 20190331378).
Regarding claim 7,
Referring to Figs. 2, 10 Uehara teaches a conduit unit 10 comprising: a conduit S3: a first opening 18b along a direction of a gravitation force (see Fig. 2), the first opening 18b is fluidly coupled to a sampling tube 36b positioned exterior to the conduit S3; and a second opening (e.g. at 18a) in furtherance to the first opening and along a direction of fluid flow, the second opening fluidly coupled to a flushing tube 36 positioned exterior to the conduit s3 (see Fig. 10).
Regarding claim 10,
Uehara teaches wherein the second opening is fluidly coupled to the flushing tube (see Fig. 10), wherein the flushing tube includes a bend and faces a blower 26 in order to facilitate a flow of one or more gases that includes ambient air (e.g. capable of facilitating a flow of gas that includes ambient air.
Regarding claim 11,
Uehara teaches a blower 26, wherein the blower is configured to facilitate a flow of one or more gases to the flushing tube, wherein the blower is configured to be activated at periodical intervals of time (e.g. capable of being activated at periodic intervals of time).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 3-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tomoigawa.
Regarding claim 3,
Tomoigawa does not teach a drainpipe fluidly coupled to the chamber, the drainpipe configured to allow escape of the one or more gases therefrom when the ambient air is received from the flushing tube.
However, the examiner takes official notice that the use of, and advantages of, drainpipes would be well known in the art before the filing date of the invention; it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to modify Tomoigawa with the motivation of, for example, venting unwanted condensation or the like, as the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding claim 4,
Tomoigawa does not teach wherein a first opening of the conduit comprises a filter, the filter configured to screen out dust and moisture from the one or more gases reaching the chamber.
However, the examiner takes official notice that the use of, and advantages of, filters would be well known in the art before the filing date of the invention; it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to modify Tomoigawa with the motivation of, for example, filtering unwanted particles, as the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding claim 5,
Tomoigawa does not teach wherein the flushing tube comprising a plurality of heat exchanging vanes to reduce temperature of the one or more gases reaching the chamber.
However, the examiner takes official notice that the use of, and advantages of, heat exchanging vanes would be well known in the art before the filing date of the invention; it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to modify Tomoigawa with the motivation of, for example, controlling the temperature the one or more gases, as the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Claim(s) 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Uehara.
Regarding claims 8-9,
Uehara teaches wherein the one or more gases comprises a refrigerant (see abstract).
The remaining subject matter of claims 8-9 is directed towards essentially the same subject matter as claim 4 and has been addressed in the rejection of claim 4.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEVE S TANENBAUM whose telephone number is (313)446-6522. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 11 AM - 7 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, Frantz Jules can be reached at (571) 272-6681. 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.
/Steve S TANENBAUM/Examiner, Art Unit 3763
/FRANTZ F JULES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3763