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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on November 25, 2024 is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 7-10 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
There are two separate requirements set forth in the second paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112:
(A) the claims must set forth the subject matter that applicants regard as their invention; and
(B) the claims must particularly point out and distinctly define the metes and bounds of the subject matter that will be protected by the patent grant.
With regard to claims 7-10 and 20, each of these claims recites a phrase “can be” or “can otherwise be”, which is a modal verb combination used to express general possibility that indicates that something is sometimes true, or has the capacity to exist or happen in a certain state (emphasis added).
With regard to claims 7-9, 11, 12 and 19, each of these claims recites a word “which” that is not clear to a hypothetical person possessing the ordinary level of skill in the pertinent art to identify which feature it refers to since the device of the claims has too many features such as “device”, “test substance”, “test board”, “test wires”, and “through holes”.
The essential purpose of patent examination is to determine whether or not the claims are precise, clear, correct, and unambiguous to ensure that the scope of the claims is clear so the public is informed of the boundaries of what constitutes infringement of the patent. Therefore, the uncertainties of claim scope should be removed as much as possible.
For examining purposes, this application will be examined as best understood.
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.
Claims 1-4, 9, 10, 16 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hunt et al. (US 2023/0071753 A1).
Hunt et al. teaches a device and testing apparatus for liquid and vapor wire exposure testing comprising:
PNG
media_image1.png
628
864
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
312
420
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
484
486
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
704
476
media_image4.png
Greyscale
With regard to claim 1, a device (FIG. 1, testing device 1) for wire corrosion testing of a test substance (test fluid) in its liquid and vapor states (FIG. 1, liquid (solution) form 4 and vapor (gaseous) form 6), which comprises a test board (FIG. 10 in view of FIG. 1, lid 64) configured for the wire corrosion testing of the test substance (test fluid) in its liquid and/or vapor states (FIG. 1, liquid (solution) form 4 and vapor (gaseous) form 6), the test board (FIG. 10 in view of FIG. 1, lid 64) capable of being equipped (FIG. 4, hubs 72, 74 and 76, central member 77, and posts 78 and 80) with first and second electrical test wires (FIG. 10 in view of FIG. 1, test wires 8 and 9) positioned thereabout for immersion respectively in liquid and vapor states (FIG. 1, liquid (solution) form 4 and vapor (gaseous) form 6) of the substance (test fluid), and conduct of electricity (FIG. 1, electrical system 15) therethrough and monitoring (FIG. 1, monitoring system 20) thereof during testing for analysis (For more details, please read: Abstract; paragraphs: [0002], [0007], [0021]-[0033], and [0060]-[0078]; and claims 1, 24, 28-33 and 36).
With regard to claim 16, a method for wire corrosion testing of a substance (test fluid) in its liquid and vapor states (FIG. 1, liquid (solution) form 4 and vapor (gaseous) form 6), which comprises the following steps, which are not necessarily conducted in series: providing the test board (FIG. 10 in view of FIG. 1, lid 64); positioning thereon its first and second electrical test wires (FIG. 10 in view of FIG. 1, test wires 8 and 9); providing a vessel (FIG. 10 in view of FIG. 1, housing 110) for receipt of the substance (test fluid) for testing, and the inserting the test board (FIG. 10 in view of FIG. 1, lid 64), with its first and second electrical test wire (FIG. 10 in view of FIG. 1, test wires 8 and 9) positioned thereon; providing the substance (test fluid) for the wire corrosion testing to the vessel (FIG. 10 in view of FIG. 1, housing 110), with an upper surface of the substance (test fluid) made present in the vessel (FIG. 10 in view of FIG. 1, housing 110); inserting the test board (FIG. 10 in view of FIG. 1, lid 64), with its first and second electrical test wires (FIG. 10 in view of FIG. 1, test wires 8 and 9) positioned thereon, into the vessel (FIG. 10 in view of FIG. 1, housing 110) such that the first electrical test wire (FIG. 10 in view of FIG. 1, test wire 8) is immersed in the substance (test fluid), and the second electrical test wire (FIG. 10 in view of FIG. 1, test wire 9) is above the surface of the substance (test fluid); conducting electricity (FIG. 1, electrical system 15) through the first and second electrical test wires (FIG. 10 in view of FIG. 1, test wires 8 and 9), and monitoring (FIG. 1, monitoring system 20) the first and second electrical test wires (FIG. 10 in view of FIG. 1, test wires 8 and 9) during testing for analysis (For more details, please read: Abstract; paragraphs: [0002], [0007], [0021]-[0033], and [0060]-[0078]; and claims 1, 24, 28-33 and 36).
With regard to claims 2 and 17, the test board (FIG. 10 in view of FIG. 1, lid 64) is equipped (FIG. 4, hubs 72, 74 and 76, central member 77, and posts 78 and 80) with the first and second electrical test wires (FIG. 10 in view of FIG. 1, test wires 8 and 9), and has upper and lower through holes (FIG. 10 in view of FIG. 5, feed-through holes 91, 92, 93, 94) for residence, respectively, in vapor and liquid phases of the test substance (test fluid) during testing, across which at least a substantial portion of the first and second electrical test wires (FIG. 10 in view of FIG. 1, test wires 8 and 9) are positioned thereabout (For more details, please read: Abstract; paragraphs: [0002], [0007], [0021]-[0033], and [0060]-[0078]; and claims 1, 24, 28-33 and 36).
With regard to claims 3, 4 and 17, the test board (FIG. 10 in view of FIG. 1, lid 64) has a substantially flat configuration (FIGS. 4, 5 and 10).
With regard to claim 9, a modular unit (FIG. 10 in view of FIG. 1, scaffold 30) for receiving the test board (FIG. 10 in view of FIG. 1, lid 64) such that wire corrosion testing of the test substance (test fluid) can be carried out.
With regard to claim 10, the modular unit (FIG. 10 in view of FIG. 1, scaffold 30) is employed with a multi-modular docking station dock (FIG. 4, hubs 72, 74 and 76, central member 77, and posts 78 and 80) with which a modular unit (FIG. 10 in view of FIG. 1, scaffold 30) for conducting corrosion deposit testing of a test substance (test fluid) can otherwise be connected (For more details, please read: Abstract; paragraphs: [0002], [0007], [0021]-[0033], and [0060]-[0078]; and claims 1, 24, 28-33 and 36).
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 5-8, 11-15 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hunt et al.
Hunt et al. teaches all that is claimed as discussed in the rejections of claims 1-4, 9, 10, 16 and 17 above including the test board (FIG. 10 in view of FIG. 1, lid 64), but it does not specifically teach the following features:
The test board is chiefly rectangular in shape.
A protruding board portion forming a head projecting from a shoulder of the test board, and which can be employed as a connection tab.
A test cell housing that holds at most about 50 mL of the test substance as a liquid phase.
Aa test body thickness of at most about 4 mm, an overall length of at most about 12 cm, and an overall width of at most about 6 cm.
It is noted that:
With regard to claims 5, 6 and 18, the feature upon which applicant relies (i.e., “chiefly rectangular in shape”) is just a mere change in shape and not sufficient by itself to patentably distinguish over Hunt et al.; In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). In fact, the court held that the configuration of the claimed disposable plastic nursing container was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device and testing apparatus for liquid and vapor wire exposure testing of Hunt et al. to use a test board chiefly rectangular in shape since such an arrangement is beneficial to provide desirable and exemplary choices for a test board for liquid and vapor wire exposure testing. Such an implementation can significantly increase the effectiveness of cost-effective manufacturability and construction, structural strength and physical compactness with desirable levels of stability and optimal space efficiency.
With regard to claims 7, 8 and 18, Hunt et al. teaches the test board (FIG. 10 in view of FIG. 1, lid 64), which has a protruding board portion (FIG. 10 in view of FIG. 1, tapered rim 114) forming a head projecting from a shoulder of the test board (FIG. 10 in view of FIG. 1, lid 64), and which can be employed as a connection tab (to allow the lid to fit snugly within the top of a housing 110) (Paragraph: [00075]).
With regard to claim 19, Hunt et al. teaches a modular unit (FIG. 10 in view of FIG. 1, scaffold 30) for receiving the test board (FIG. 10 in view of FIG. 1, lid 64) such that wire corrosion testing of the test substance (test fluid) can be carried out.
With regard to claims 11-15 and 19, Hunt et al. teaches the test board (FIG. 10 in view of FIG. 1, lid 64) and a test cell housing (FIG. 10 in view of FIG. 1, housing 110) that holds the test substance (test fluid) as a liquid phase. It is noted that the features upon which applicants rely (i.e., “holds at most about 50 mL of the test substance”, and “a test body thickness of at most about 4 mm, an overall length of at most about 12 cm, and an overall width of at most about 6 cm”) will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such potential is critical. “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955); see also Peterson, 315 F.3d at 1330, 65 USPQ2d at 1382 (“The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages.”); In re Hoeschele, 406 F.2d 1403, 160 USPQ 809 (CCPA 1969) (Claimed elastomeric polyurethanes which fell within the broad scope of the references were held to be unpatentable thereover because, among other reasons, there was no evidence of the criticality of the claimed ranges of molecular weight or molar proportions.). For more recent cases applying this principle, see Merck & Co. Inc. v. Biocraft Laboratories Inc., 874 F.2d 804, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 975 (1989); In re Kulling, 897 F.2d 1147, 14 USPQ2d 1056 (Fed. Cir. 1990); and In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 43 USPQ2d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Please see MPEP 2144.05 II. OPTIMIZATION OF RANGES: Optimization Within Prior Art Conditions or Through Routine Experimentation.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device and testing apparatus for liquid and vapor wire exposure testing of Hunt et al. to use a test cell housing that holds at most about 50 mL of the test substance as a liquid phase since such an arrangement is beneficial to provide desirable and exemplary choices for a test board for liquid and vapor wire exposure testing. Such an implementation can significantly increase the effectiveness of the optimum combination of manufacturability and construction, structural strength and physical compactness with desirable levels of stability and optimal space efficiency.
With regard to claim 20, Hunt et al. teaches the modular unit (FIG. 10 in view of FIG. 1, scaffold 30) is employed with a multi-modular docking station dock (FIG. 4, hubs 72, 74 and 76, central member 77, and posts 78 and 80) with which a modular unit (FIG. 10 in view of FIG. 1, scaffold 30) for conducting corrosion deposit testing of a test substance (test fluid) can otherwise be connected (For more details, please read: Abstract; paragraphs: [0002], [0007], [0021]-[0033], and [0060]-[0078]; and claims 1, 24, 28-33 and 36).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Applicants’ attention is invited to the followings whose inventions disclose similar devices.
Yi et al. (CN 118777743 A) teaches an immersed liquid cooling high speed connector SI test box and test method.
Liu et al. (CN 209416890 U) teaches an electrochemical corrosion test electrode device.
Al-Janabi (CN 110869739 A) teaches a multiphase testing system is used to test the corrosion environment by providing a test fluid mixture.
CONTACT INFORMATION
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HOAI-AN D. NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571) 272-2170. The examiner can normally be reached MON-THURS (7:00 AM - 5:00 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, LEE E. RODAK can be reached at 571-270-5628. 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.
HOAI-AN D. NGUYEN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2858
/HOAI-AN D. NGUYEN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2858
Prosecution Insights