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 .
Claims
Claims 16-30 are pending.
Claims 1-15 are cancelled.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference characters "14" and "16" have both been used to designate a “sniffer probe”.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “14” has been used to designate both a sniffer probe and a handle.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure.
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives.
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps.
Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the abstract is not a concise statement describing what is new or an improvement to the art it pertains. Currently, the abstract includes multiple paragraphs. Furthermore, Examiner suggest removing reference numerals as they may change during prosecution. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
The specification is objected to because the specification fails to set forth section headings as per 37 CFR 1.77(b).
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 16-30 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.
Regarding claim 16, the claim recites “A leak detection device comprising a gas detector and a sniffer probe connected to the gas detector in a gas-conductive manner, wherein the sniffer probe is provided with a receiver configured to receive first data, provided on a test specimen or transmitted by a test specimen, with first information on properties of the test specimen which are relevant for leak detection with the gas detector.”, however it is unclear if the receiver is mounted or attached to the test specimen” or receiving first data from a component attached to the test specimen. Therefore, the claim has been rendered indefinite.
Regarding claim 18, the claim recites “the first data are stored as electronic data in a first digital memory of the test specimen or are attached to the test specimen as optically readable coded data, e.g. in the form of a barcode, DataMatrix code or QR code.”, however it is unclear if the limitations following the term “e.g.” are actually being claimed or not. Therefore, the claim has been rendered indefinite.
Regarding claim 27, the claim recites “A method for leak detection with a leak detection device according to claim 16 and a test specimen to be examined having a first memory in which first data with first information on properties of the test specimen are stored,”, however it is unclear how the test specimen is being tested and also includes a first memory to store data about itself. Therefore, the claim has been rendered indefinite.
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 16-19, 21-27 and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Enquist US20100288020.
Regarding claim 16, Enquist discloses a leak detection device (system-1) comprising a gas detector (gas sensor-13) and a sniffer probe (sniffer probe-4) connected to the gas detector in a gas-conductive manner (connection line-11), wherein the sniffer probe is provided with a receiver (marker detector-8) configured to receive first data, provided on a test specimen (test object-3) or transmitted by a test specimen, with first information on properties of the test specimen which are relevant for leak detection with the gas detector. (Figs 1-2, Paragraph 0023-0053)
Regarding claim 17, Enquist discloses the receiver (marker detector-8) is a radio receiver or an optical receiver. (Paragraphs 0033-0044)
Regarding claim 18, Enquist discloses the first data are stored as electronic data in a first digital memory of the test specimen or are attached to the test specimen as optically readable coded data, e.g. in the form of a barcode, DataMatrix code or QR code. (Paragraphs 0033-0044)
Regarding claim 19, Enquist discloses the properties are the leak rate or the size of the leak to be detected, a test fluid contained in the test specimen, the age or the temperature of the test specimen, or the age or the temperature of a test fluid contained in the test specimen. (Paragraph 0033-0044, 0049, 0051, 0053)
Regarding claim 21, Enquist discloses the test specimen is a cooling device such as a refrigerator or an air conditioning. (Paragraph 0022)
Regarding claim 22, Enquist discloses the leak detection device (system-1) is provided with a second memory (recording unit-17) which contains, in addition to various first information items stored on test specimen and to be received by the receiver, respective second information from which the gas detector (gas sensor-13) selects at least one respective second information depending on the transmitted first information in order to carry out the gas detection with reference to the transmitted first information of the test specimen. (0049-0053, 0059-0060)
Regarding claim 23, Enquist discloses the gas detector (gas sensor-13) is a mass spectrometer (Paragraph 0047), the first information is the test fluid (paragraph 0033-0044) and the second information is the respective molecular mass for each test fluid (Paragraph 0049-0060), wherein the memory (recording unit-17) of the gas detector stores for different test fluids the respective molecular masses of the gas detector to be evaluated.
Regarding claim 24, Enquist discloses the gas detector (gas sensor-13) is an optical spectroscopic gas detector (Paragraph 0047), the first information is the test fluid (Paragraph 0033-0044) and the second information is the respective wavelength range for each test fluid (Paragraph 0049-0060), wherein the memory (recording unit-17) of the gas detector stores for different test fluids the respective wavelength ranges of the gas detector to be evaluated. (Paragraph 0047-0060)
Regarding claim 25, Enquist discloses the leak detection device (System-1) comprises an evaluation device (base unit-10) configured to obtain the first data from the first memory (Paragraph 0033-0044) when the distance between the sniffer probe (sniffer probe-4) and the test specimen (test object-3) falls below a specific distance, when a signal amplitude of the signal received with the receiver (detector-8) increases or is exceeded, or when an actuating button on the sniffer probe is actuated. (Paragraph 0029-0039, 0043-0048, 0058)
Regarding claim 26, Enquist discloses a combination of a leak detection device (system-1) according to claim 16 and a test specimen (test object-3) having a memory containing the first information (Paragraph 0033-0044, Fig 1-4 and Abstract).
Regarding claim 27, Enquist discloses a method for leak detection with a leak detection device (system-1) according to claim 16 and a test specimen (test object-3) to be examined having a first memory (Paragraph 0033-0044) in which first data with first information on properties of the test specimen are stored, comprising the following steps: approaching the sniffer probe (sniffer probe-4) to the test specimen, drawing in gas from the environment of the test specimen by the sniffer probe, receiving the first data from the first memory of the test specimen with the receiver of the sniffer probe, analyzing the drawn in gas with the gas detector (gas sensor-13) taking into account the first information from the received first data. (Paragraph 0029-0039, 0043-0048, 0058)
Regarding claim 30, Enquist discloses the distance to the test specimen (test object-3) falls below a specific distance, when a signal amplitude of the data signal received with the receiver (detector-8) with the first data increases or is exceeded, or when an actuating button on the sniffer probe (sniffer probe-4) is actuated, the receiver receives the first data from the first memory (marker-7) and transmits said data to an evaluation device (base unit-10) of the leak detection device (system-1). (Paragraph 0029-0039, 0043-0048, 0058)
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.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Enquist US20100288020 in view of Agilent “Calibrated Helium Leaks: Uncertainty, Tolerances, and Test Uncertainty Ratios”, USA, 15 April 2021, pages 1-5,
https://www.agilent.com/cs/library/technicaloverviews/public/techoverview-calibratedleak-hld-59943020enagilent.pdf?srsltid=AfmBOor4uW8nLtxJ0M7zxdl_GXWHLZ4oYnKNhj1UXz39Aq68od9Jy0F (hereianfter “Agilent“)
Regarding claim 20, Enquist discloses the device according to claim 16.
However, Enquist fails to disclose the test specimen is a test leak device with a test leak of known size for calibrating the leak detector. Agilent discloses the test specimen is a test leak device with a test leak of known size for calibrating the leak detector. (Pages 2-4, Figs 2-3)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include the design of Agilent into Enquist for the purpose of increasing detection accuracy. The modification would allow for ensuring the device works properly before operational use.
Claims 28-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Enquist US20100288020 in view of Weber US5099437.
Regarding claim 28, Enquist discloses the device according to claim 27.
However, Enquist fails to disclose measured values determined from the measurement signal of the gas detector are compared with the received first information in order to perform a calibration of the leak detector. Weber discloses measured values determined from the measurement signal of the gas detector (Sensor-18) are compared with the received first information (scanner-16 scan tag-14) in order to perform a calibration of the leak detector. (See Figs 2-3, Col 6 line 32-60 and Col 7 line 31-37)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include the design of Weber into Enquist for the purpose of increasing detection accuracy. The modification would allow for ensuring the device works properly before operational use.
Regarding claim 29, Enquist discloses the device according to claim 27.
However, Enquist fails to disclose second data with respective second information are read out from a second memory of the gas detector depending on the received first information, in order to evaluate the measurement signal of the gas detector depending on the read-out second information. Weber discloses second data with respective second information are read out from a second memory (PDC-24 includes random access memory) of the gas detector (Sensor-18) depending on the received first information, in order to evaluate the measurement signal of the gas detector depending on the read-out second information. (Col 3 line 56-Col 4 line 55)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include the design of Weber into Enquist for the purpose of increasing detection accuracy. The modification would allow for ensuring the device works properly before operational use.
Conclusion
The prior art as cited on the PTO-892 is made of record and not relied upon but considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NIGEL H PLUMB whose telephone number is (571)272-8886. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7am-5pm.
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, John Breene can be reached at 571-272-4107. 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 (USA or CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/NIGEL H PLUMB/Examiner, Art Unit 2855
/Eric S. McCall/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855
Prosecution Insights