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 3, 5 – 7 and 9 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.
Claims 5 and 6 recite the limitations "the inner cylinder" and “the outer cylinder” in claim 5, and “the inner cylinder” in claim 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claims.
Claim 7 recites “wherein the temperature sensing element is a bead having at least one of a cylindrical shape, elliptical shape, and a cylindrical shape with a through passage.” This limitation is unclear because the third recited option “a cylindrical shape with a through passage” is a subspecies of the first recited option, “a cylindrical shape.” It is not clear whether claim 7 requires the bead to have a cylindrical shape and/or a through passage, or whether the recited shapes are intended as mutually exclusive alternatives. Clarification is required.
Claims 3, 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential structural cooperative relationships of elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the necessary structural connections. See MPEP § 2172.01.
The omitted structural cooperative relationships in claim 3 are:
the relationships between the recited “concentric cylinders” and the plurality of passages” it is unclear whether the passages formed within the walls of the cylinders, in the annular space between the cylinders, or in some other configuration relative to the concentric cylinders.
The omitted structural cooperative relationships in claim 8 are:
the relationship between “the chamber” recited in claim 1 and the “enclosure” recited in claim 8; it is unclear whether claim 8 redefines or further limits the chamber of claim 1 or introduces a separate enclosure element in addition to the chamber.
The omitted structural cooperative relationships in claim 9 are:
it is unclear what reference point, axis, or geometric relationship is used to measure the recited “angle of 90 degrees” between the plurality of passages, the inlet channel, and the outlet channel, as three or more structures cannot be unambiguously described as being spaced apart from one another “at an angle” without further specifying the point or axis from which the angle is measured.
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 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nakama et al. (US 2016/0103105 A1 – hereafter “Nakama”).
As per claim 1, Nakama discloses in at least figure 1 a thermal conductivity detector (1) device (see abstract), comprising: a chamber (metal block 3) defined with an inlet channel and an outlet channel (fluid inlet of sample-side cell 9a via tube 13a; discharge channel 19; see paras. [0031] – [0033], [0037]); a plurality of passages defined between the inlet channel and the outlet channel (the sample-side passage through cell space 9a, fluid outlet 14a, and tube 15a; and the reference-side passage through cell space 9b, fluid outlet 14b, and tube 15b, both converging through buffer 5 and resistance tube 7 to discharge channel 19; see paras. [0033 – 0038]; wherein the plurality of passages is structured to direct a fluid from the inlet channel to impinge on the temperature sensing element, which detects a temperature of the fluid (see para [0038]. Although figure 1 depicts an embodiment having two inlets (13a, 13b) and two temperature sensing elements (11a, 11b), claim 1’s use of the open-ended transitional term “comprising” does not exclude such a configuration, and the disclosed structure includes at least one inlet channel, one outlet channel, and a plurality of passage directing fluid to impinge on a temperature sensing element, as claimed.
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 2 and 10 – 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakama in view of Takahashi (US 2020/0088662 A1– hereafter “Takahashi”).
Regarding claim 2, the claim recites “The device of claim 1, wherein the inlet channel and the outlet channel are fluidly connected to the chamber and are positioned diametrically opposite to each other.” Nakama fails to explicitly teach the inlet channel, and the outlet channel are positioned diametrically opposite each other.
Takahashi teaches a thermal conductivity detector structure, wherein the inlet channel and the outlet channel are fluidly connected to the chamber and are positioned diametrically opposite each other, with the temperature sensing element disposed along the flow path between them (see Fig. 4).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art of before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify Nakama’s in view of Takahashi to position the inlet channel and the outlet channel diametrically opposite each other, in order to implement Nakama’s generically disclosed chamber using a known channel arrangement taught as suitable for directing fluid flow across a temperature sensing element, yielding predictable results.
As per claim 10, Nakama teaches a system for estimating concentration of a fluid, comprising: a thermal conductivity detector device that includes a chamber (metal block 3) having an inlet channel and an outlet channel (fluid inlet of sample side cell space 9a via tube 13a; discharge channel 19), and a temperature sensing element (filament 11a) disposed proximal to the outlet channel (see fig. 1, para [0032]); a plurality of passages defined between the inlet channel and the outlet channel (see paras. [0033 – 0038]), wherein the plurality of passages is structured to direct a fluid from the inlet channel to impinge on the temperature sensing element and the temperature sensing element is configured to detect the temperature of the fluid (see para. [0038]); a control unit communicatively coupled to the temperature sensing element (data processing unit 37, coupled to filaments via amplifier 35, see para. [0028]), the control unit configured to receive a signal from the temperature sensing element corresponding to the temperature of the fluid impinging the temperature sensing element (see para [0028]).
Nakama further teaches that the temperature of the temperature sensing element changes according to the thermal conductivity of the fluid, which itself changes according to the sample component present in the fluid (see para. [0038]), such that the temperature of the fluid corresponds to the concentration of the fluid.
However, Nakama does not teach the control unit configured to indicate the temperature of the impinging fluid through an indication unit.
Takahashi teaches a control unit configured to indicate the temperature of the impinging fluid through an indication unit (detection signals output to a work station, see para [0062]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art of before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify Nakama’s device in view of Takahashi to indicate, by the control unit, the temperature of the impinging fluid through an indication unit, wherein the temperature corresponds to the concentration of the fluid, as taught by Takahashi, in order to provide a concentration readout for the fluid being measured.
As per claim 11, Nakama teaches a method for estimating concentration of a fluid, comprising: channeling a fluid from an inlet channel to an outlet channel of a chamber through a plurality of passages defined between the inlet channel and the outlet channel such that the fluid impinges a temperature sensing element positioned in the chamber (see paras. [0033 – 0038]); receiving by a control unit a signal from the temperature sensing element (see para. [0028]).
Nakama further teaches that the temperature of the temperature sensing element changes according to the thermal conductivity of the fluid, which itself changes according to the sample component present in the fluid (see para. [0038]), such that the temperature of the fluid corresponds to the concentration of the fluid.
However, Nakama does not teach indicating by an indication unit connected to the control unit the temperature of the fluid flowing through the chamber.
Takahashi teaches indicating by an indication unit connected to the control unit the temperature of the fluid flowing through the chamber (detection signals output to a work station, see para [0062]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art of before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify Nakama’s method in view of Takahashi to indicate, by an indication unit connected to the control unit, the temperature of the fluid flowing through the chamber, as taught by Takahashi, in order to provide a readout of the temperature which, as taught by Nakama, corresponds to the concentration of the fluid being measured.
Claims 3 and 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakama in view of Lopez et al. (EP 1,837,645 A2 – hereafter “Lopez”).
Regarding claim 3, the claim recites “The device of claim 1, wherein the chamber includes concentric cylinders with the plurality of passages.” Nakama fails to teach the chamber includes concentric cylinders.
Lopez teaches a thermal conductivity sensor structure, wherein the chamber comprises concentric cylinders, including an inverted cup-shaped housing (1) and a tubular shroud (3) located within the housing so as to form an annular space (4) between the outer wall of the shroud and the inner wall of the housing, the annular space forming a passage (see para. [0006]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art of before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify Nakama’s in view of Lopez to construct the chamber using concentric cylinders, in order to implement Nakama’s generically disclosed chamber using a known chamber construction taught as suitable for directing fluid diffusion to a temperature sensing element, yielding predictable results.
Regarding claim 8, the claim recites “The device of claim 1, wherein the chamber is defined as an enclosure and is fluidly connected to the inlet channel, the outlet channel and the plurality of passages.”
Nakama fails to explicitly teach the chamber is defined as an enclosure fluidly connected to the inlet channel, the outlet channel, and the plurality of passages.
Lopez teaches a thermal conductivity sensor structure, wherein the chamber is defined as an enclosure (housing 1) fluidly connected to an inlet port (5), and outlet port (6), and an annular space (4) forming a passage, the fluid to be monitored being introduced into the enclosure through the inlet port and exhausted through the outlet port (see para. [0006 – 0007]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art of before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify Nakama’s in view of Lopez to construct the chamber as an enclosure fluidly connected to the inlet channel, the outlet channel, and the plurality of passages, in order to implement Nakama’s generically disclosed chamber using a known chamber construction taught as suitable for containing the fluid flow path and sensing element yielding predictable results.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 4 is 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.
Claims 5 – 7 and 9 would be allowable if rewritten 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 and to include 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 Manuel Castellon whose telephone number is (571)272-4575. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 am - 4:00 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, 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.
/MANUEL SALVADOR CASTELLON JR/Examiner, Art Unit 2855
/NATALIE HULS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855
Prosecution Insights