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 § 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 1-10 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 1, the structure of the thermal conductivity device is unclear. It is not clear how the chamber is of an elliptical shape and also defined in a shape of a venturi at the same time. Please clarify.
For examination on the merits the claim will be interpreted as best understood.
Claims 2-9, depend on claim 1, the claims are ejected at least for the same reasons as to claim 1.
Regarding claim 7, the structure of the chamber is unclear. It is not clear how all sides of the chamber are defined with the arcuate shape and also the chamber is of an elliptical shape and defined in a shape of a venturi at the same time, as described in claim 1 from which claims 7 is dependent on.
Claim 9 is unclear. The phrase “wherein the temperature sensing element is one of a bead with a cylindrical shape, an elliptical shape, a cylindrical shape with a through passage” renders the claim unclear. It is not clear if the temperature sensing element requires each one of a bead with a cylindrical shape, an elliptical shape and a cylindrical shape with a through passage together or if the temperature sensing element shapes are recited in the alternative. Perhaps Applicant means “wherein the temperature sensing element has one of a bead with a cylindrical shape, an elliptical shape or a cylindrical shape with a through passage”? Please clarify.For examination on the merits the claim will be interpreted as best understood.
Regarding claim 10, the structure of the system for estimating the concentration of a fluid is unclear. It is not clear how the chamber is of an elliptical shape and also defined in a shape of a venturi at the same time. Please clarify.
For examination on the merits the claim will be interpreted as best understood.
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.
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.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 3114139 (hereinafter JP) in view of De Coulon et al. (US 2013/0081445) (hereinafter De Cuolon).
Regarding claim 11, JP teaches a method for estimating concentration of a fluid from a system, comprising: channeling fluid from an inlet channel (103) to an outlet channel (104) of a chamber (100), wherein the chamber is of an elliptical shape (see Figure 3) and wherein at least two opposing sides of the chamber are defined in an arcuate shape (see Figure 3) such that the fluid impinges a temperature sensing element positioned in the chamber (100) (see Abstract, page 5, line 34 through page 6, line 10 and page 7, lines 12-15); receiving by a control unit (25) a signal from the temperature sensing element (105) (see page 8, lines 9-32).
However, JP does not explicitly teach indicating by an indication unit connected to the control unit the temperature of the fluid flowing through the chamber; wherein the temperature of the fluid corresponds to the concentration of the fluid.
De Coulon teaches indicating by an indication unit (21) connected to the control unit (22) the temperature of the fluid flowing through the chamber (see paragraphs 0019-0020 and 0026); wherein the temperature of the fluid corresponds to the concentration of the fluid (see Abstract).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the method as taught by JP with indicating by an indication unit connected to the control unit the temperature of the fluid flowing through the chamber; wherein the temperature of the fluid corresponds to the concentration of the fluid as taught by De Coulon. One would be motivated to make this combination in order to provide concentration measurements with greater accuracy by accounting for the relationship between the temperature and the fluid concentration.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-10 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 1, the closest prior art alone or in combination fails to teach or render obvious the specific limitation of the chamber being defined in the shape of a venturi when combined with all the limitations also in claim 1.
Regarding claim 10, the closest prior art alone or in combination fails to teach or render obvious the specific limitation of the chamber being defined in the shape of a venturi when combined with all the limitations also in claim 10.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JANICE M SOTO whose telephone number is (571)270-7707. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00am-4:00pm.
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 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JANICE M SOTO/ Examiner, Art Unit 2855
/JOHN E BREENE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2855
Prosecution Insights