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 .
This communication is in response to amendments filed on 05/26/2026.
In the application claims 1-20 are pending.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the amended claims 1 and 14 were fully considered; however, the arguments are moot in view of the new grounds of rejections.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“a conduit component defining a sampling space,” in claim 1 is interpreted to be “conduit components 6 may include conduits 8, outlet boxes 10, and control panels 12” See Specification ¶ 0004 and Fig. 1;
“a conduit component having a sampling space,” in claim 14 is interpreted to be “conduit components 6 may include conduits 8, outlet boxes 10, and control panels 12” See Specification ¶ 0004 and Fig. 1;
“an electrical power source configured to provide electrical power to …” in claims 3 and 20 are interpreted to be “electrical power source 22 may be a battery disposed inside the conduit component 6. Alternatively, the electrical power source 22 may be an external power source disposed outside the conduit component 6 (e.g., an electrical wire providing electrical power to one or more of the sensor 18 and the processor 20).” See Spec ¶ 0025.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claim(s) 1-10, 12-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Elser (US 2022/0069555 A1), in view of Mazzola (US 2020/0355665 A1), and further in view of Collier (US 20130045540 A1).
Consider claim 1, Elser teaches, a system for detecting contamination, Elser teaches, “a sensor for sensing an environmental condition in the interior space of the tube” See ¶ 0012, Elser teaches, “[m]onitoring physical properties at different locations along the cable conduit may provide the possibility to detect failures, like water ingress, condensation, leakages and/or overheating inside the tube.” See ¶ 0017, the system comprising:
a conduit component defining a sampling space, Elser teaches, “interior space, specific environmental conditions, such as a temperature and/or a humidity may be present, which may be measured by the sensor.” See ¶ 0016, (See Figs. 3-5);
a sensor (20) disposed inside the sampling space, Elser teaches, “the sensor is positioned in a cavity in fluid exchange with the interior space of the tube” See ¶ 0043. (See Figs. 3-5)
the sensor (20) being configured to sample. i.e. detect, a fluid within the sampling space to detect the fluid, Elser teaches, “specific environmental conditions, such as a temperature and/or a humidity may be present, which may be measured by the sensor. The sensor may be at least one of a temperature sensor and a humidity sensor. In general, the sensor may measure various physical properties and/or environmental conditions, such as temperatures, humidity, pressure, smoke, conductivity and/or vibrations.” See ¶ 0016; “may provide the possibility to detect failures, like water ingress, condensation, leakages and/or overheating inside the tube.” and
a processor Elser teaches, “single processor or controller or other unit may fulfil the functions of several items” See ¶ 0131, disposed inside the conduit component, Elser teaches, “the sensor comprises an RFID (radio-frequency identification) tag for supplying the sensor with electrical energy and/or for sending measurement values.” See ¶ 0030;
the processor, i.e. sensor 20 with a “single processor or controller or other unit may fulfil the functions of several items” See ¶ 0131, being configured to: receive the sampled value, and transmit the sampled value outside the conduit component as a contamination indication of the conduit component, Elser teaches “the sensor 20 may comprise a wireless sender/receiver 22 for data transmission to a control device 24, which also may have such a wireless sender/receiver 22. Measurement values from the sensor 20 may be sent to the control device 24, which may evaluate the measurement values and may determine the environmental condition in the cable conduit 10, such as temperature, humidity, etc.” See ¶ 0092; Elser teaches, “a control device or control system may collect the measurement values and/or measurement data from the one or more sensors and may evaluate them to determine the environmental condition inside the tube.” See ¶ 0018.
With respect to, the sensor being configured to sample a fluid within the sampling space to detect, as a sampled value, a trace component in the fluid, in an analogous art, Mazzola teaches, “[t]he system also includes a manifold comprising a plurality of flow hoods, wherein each flow hood is configured to be disposed on a top surface of a sensor coupled to a sensor module on the primary substrate and wherein a flow hood in the manifold is configured to be connected to another component in the manifold or on the primary substrate. In some cases, connective tubing is used to couple or connect a flow hood with another flow hood, or to couple or connect one component (e.g., a flow hood) to another component (e.g., a flow meter).” See ¶ 0017, Mazzola teaches, “in order to obtain a high quality measurement while limiting exposure to components that contribute to contamination in the sample, gas sensors for measuring highly reactive or sensitive gases or for measuring gases present in trace amounts are positioned to receive the fluid sample at an earlier point in the flow order or earlier position in the flow sequence, while gas sensors for less reactive or sensitive gases or gases present in relatively large amounts in the fluid sample are positioned to receive the fluid sample at a later point in the flow order or later position in the flow sequence.” See ¶ 0062;
a processor Mazzola teaches, “invention can be implemented in numerous ways, including as a … a processor, such as a processor configured to execute instructions stored on and/or provided by a memory coupled to the processor” See ¶ 0014, to receive the sampled value, Mazzola teaches, “collecting an environmental metric at a sensor point corresponding to a location of at least one sensor in a plurality of sensors is performed using a plurality of secondary substrates,” See ¶ 0021;
and transmit the sampled value outside the conduit component as a contamination indication of the conduit component, the sampled value indicates that a trace component is present, Mazzola teaches, “the secondary substrate comprises a printed circuit board, a top surface of which is depicted at 510. Disposed on the top surface of the secondary substrate is a unique ID chip 520, a set of mounting holes 530, and a power and data interface 540. The unique ID chip 520 serves to provide a unique identifier for the secondary substrate, which can be used in identifying data or measurements obtained by the secondary substrate (e.g., environmental metrics including temperature, pressure and humidity) that are sent to a data processor for analysis.” See ¶ 0065.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art at the time of invention (effective filing date for AIA application) to modify the invention of Elser and sample and have a fluid and gas sensor that can check for traces of carbon dioxide, and carbon monoxide as suggested by Mazzola in an effort to detect possible fire in a conduit and notify the user.
With respect to, the sampling space being susceptible to ingress of external contaminants into the sampling space, Elser teaches, “evaluated to determine a location of a defect of the cable conduit 10. A section of the cable conduit 10, where the environmental condition differs more than a threshold from a desired environmental condition, may be determined as a defect section. For example, a section, where the temperature is much too high or the humidity is much too high may have a hole, where hot air and/or water may get in the interior space 16.” See ¶ 0110, the external contaminants being decomposable to produce one or more of ethanol, ammonia, hydrogen sulfide, carbon dioxide, and carbon monoxide, Mazzola teaches, “the gas sensor modules are configured to couple to gas sensors that detect or measure nitrogen dioxide (NO2), carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen oxide (NO), volatile organic compounds (VOCs), and carbon dioxide (CO2).” See ¶ 0054. Mazzola does not explicitly state, contaminants being decomposable to produce one or more of ethanol, ammonia, hydrogen sulfide, carbon dioxide, and carbon monoxide, nonetheless, in an analogous art, Collier teaches, “an analyzer for validating a measurement of total organic carbon (TOC) in a sample of water” See abstract. “Total organic carbon (TOC) is the amount of carbon bound in an organic compound. TOC, which is typically measured from part per trillion (ppt) to parts per million (ppm) of carbon, is often used as a non-specific indicator of water quality or cleanliness. That is, for higher numbers of TOC, the higher number of potential organic contaminants exist within the water, and the lower the TOC, the lower number of potential organic contaminants exist within the water.” See ¶ 0002, Collier teaches, “All TOC analyzers have in common the purpose of oxidizing or decomposing organic contaminants within a water sample to create carbon dioxide (CO.sub.2) and subsequent measurement of CO.sub.2 using conductivity or NDIR detection methods.” See ¶ 0003. Collier teaches, “samples are drawn in through a needle to an internal oxidation cell where they are exposed to UV light and decomposed to carbon dioxide.” See ¶ 0006
With respect to, a trace component in the fluid as a proxy indicator, (Collier ¶ 0002) of ingress of the external contaminants into the sampling space, the trace component being one or more of ethanol, ammonia, hydrogen sulfide, carbon dioxide, and carbon monoxide, Mazzola teaches, “the gas sensor modules are configured to couple to gas sensors that detect or measure nitrogen dioxide (NO2), carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen oxide (NO), volatile organic compounds (VOCs), and carbon dioxide (CO2).” See ¶ 0054, Collier teaches, “TOC analyzer or other water analytical instrument is directly connected to a water system allowing the analyzer to sample water from a side stream, branch, or "T"-fitting for the purpose of real-time water measurement.” See ¶ 0031, Collier teaches, “an analyzer that allows for the automatic capture of an excursion sample from a water system after exceeding a TOC or conductivity threshold, rather than being captured manually by trained personnel after an alarm condition… the excursion bottles to be filled completely or substantially completely via inclusion of an additional venting feature… a method of automatically capturing a water sample during an excursion event eliminates the need for facility personnel to be available to troubleshoot the water system. With the sample captured, validated, re-validated (if needed or desired), and additional samples captured, users can wait to investigate these excursions when it is convenient rather than treating these situations as emergencies. Such real-time quality testing and response at the point of production builds quality into the process.” See ¶ 0039. Collier teaches, “the analyzer may capture additional bottles 670 for further analysis, and store and/or transmit sample analysis information regarding the excursion sample analyses 680.” See ¶ 0052.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art at the time of invention (effective filing date for AIA application) to modify the combination of Elser-Mazzola and allow decomposing of the contaminant to produce carbon dioxide (CO2), and based on the detecting of sample the value of contaminant, thereby allowing the system to automatically “capture of an excursion sample” in “real-time” without user intervention. “Such real-time quality testing and response at the point of production builds quality into the process.” See ¶ 0039
Consider claim 2, the system of claim 1, wherein the trace component comprises at least one of [ethanol, ammonia, hydrogen sulfide,] carbon dioxide, and carbon monoxide, Mazzola teaches, “the gas sensor modules are configured to couple to gas sensors that detect or measure nitrogen dioxide (NO2), carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen oxide (NO), volatile organic compounds (VOCs), and carbon dioxide (CO2).” See ¶ 0054
Consider claim 3, the system of claim 1, further comprising: an electrical power source configured to provide electrical power to at least one of: the sensor and the processor, Elser teaches, “the sensor and/or the actuator may be supplied with power from a power line, from a local energy storage, such as a battery… ” See ¶ 0027.
Consider claim 4, the system of claim 3, wherein the electrical power source comprises a battery disposed inside the conduit component, Elser teaches, “the sensor and/or the actuator may be supplied with power from a power line, from a local energy storage, such as a battery… ” See ¶ 0027.
Consider claim 5, the system of claim 3, wherein the electrical power source comprises an external power source disposed outside the conduit component, Elser teaches, “the sensor and/or the actuator may be supplied with power from a power line… ” See ¶ 0027. Elser teaches, “power supply of the sensor and/or the actuator also may be provided by wires and/or lines provided outside of the tube.” See ¶ 0033
Consider claim 6, the system of claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to transmit the contamination indication using at least one of Bluetooth, Wi-Fi, and cellular, Elser teaches, “one or more sensors may communicate with the control device via a wireless or wire bound communication channel, for example via Bluetooth. The one or more actuators may communicate with the control device via a wireless or wire bound communication channel, for example via Bluetooth.” See ¶ 0025, Elser teaches, “Wireless protocols such as BLE, LoRa, GSM, IEEE 802.15.4g may be used” See ¶ 0024.
Consider claim 7, the system of claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to transmit the contamination indication using a hard-wired connection to outside the conduit component, Elser teaches, “the data transmission between the sensor 20 and the control device 24 may be performed wired via a data transmission wire and/or line 32.” See ¶ 0096.
Consider claim 8, the system of claim 1, further comprising: at least one electrical wire disposed inside the sampling space, Elser teaches, “the sensor and/or the actuator is supplied with electrical energy from a wire accommodated in the tube.” See ¶ 0031
Consider claim 9, the system of claim 1, wherein the contamination indication comprises at least one of a visual alert and an audio alert, Collier teaches, “In the event that the analyzer detects an excursion and/or potential condition that indicates that the conductivity, TOC or other parameter of water is outside an acceptable range, the analyzer activates alarms to notify the water or production facility.” See ¶ 008.
Consider claim 10, the system of claim 1, wherein the conduit component comprises at least one of a conduit, an outlet box, and a control panel, Elser teaches, “FIG. 1 shows a cable conduit 10, which comprises a tube 12 and two fittings 14, which are provided at ends of the tube 12” See ¶ 0089.
Consider claim 12, the system of claim 1, further comprising: a mount disposed inside the conduit component, the sensor being attachable to the mount, Elser teaches, “the sensor is positioned in a cavity in fluid exchange with the interior space of the tube. Such as cavity may be provided by further components connected to the tube, such as a fitting, a mounted device, a T-connection, etc..” See ¶ 0043. Mazzola teaches, “although not visible in FIG. 1, each sensor module includes an area (e.g., a recessed area or slot) configured to couple to or engage with a particular sensor (e.g., by mounting or inserting the sensor on or into a recessed area or slot).” See ¶ 0022.
Consider claim 13, the system of claim 1, further comprising: an antenna disposed inside the conduit component, Elser teaches, “the sensor comprises an RFID (radio-frequency identification) tag for supplying the sensor with electrical energy and/or for sending measurement values” See ¶ 0030. Examiner takes Official Notice that it is well known in the prior art to for the RFID tags to have an antenna.
Consider claim 14, a method of detecting contamination in a conduit component having a sampling space, the method comprising:
sampling, using a sensor disposed inside the sampling space, a fluid within the sampling space to detect, as a sampled value, a trace component in the fluid;
wherein the sampling space is susceptible to ingress of external contaminants into the sampling space, the external contaminants being decomposable to produce the trace component, the trace component being one or more of ethanol, ammonia, hydrogen sulfide, carbon dioxide, and carbon monoxide;
receiving, at a processor disposed inside the conduit component, the sampled value; and
transmitting, by the processor, the sampled value outside the conduit component as a contamination indication of the conduit component when the sampled value indicates that a trace component is present., See rejection of claim 1.
Consider claim 15, the method of claim 14, wherein the trace component comprises at least one of ethanol, ammonia, hydrogen sulfide, carbon dioxide, and carbon monoxide, See rejection of claim 2.
Consider claim 16, the method of claim 14, wherein the transmitting is via at least one of Bluetooth, Wi-Fi, and cellular, See rejection of claim 6.
Consider claim 17, the method of claim 14, wherein at least one electrical wire is disposed inside the sampling space, See rejection of claim 8.
Consider claim 18, the method of claim 14, wherein the contamination indication comprises at least one of a visual alert and an audio alert, See rejection of claim 9.
Consider claim 19, the method of claim 14, wherein the conduit component comprises at least one of a conduit, an outlet box, and a control panel, See rejection of claim 10.
Consider claim 20, the method of claim 14, wherein an electrical power source is disposed inside the sampling space, See rejection of claim 4;
the electrical power source being configured to provide electrical power to at least one of the sensor and the processor, See rejection of claim 3.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Elser (US 2022/0069555 A1), in view of Mazzola (US 2020/0355665 A1), in view of Collier (US 20130045540 A1), and further in view of Wang (US 2021/0330214 A1).
Consider claim 11, the system of claim 1, wherein the sensor comprises a gas sensor resistor, and wherein the sampled valued comprises a voltage drop across the gas sensor resistor, in an analogous art, Wang teaches, “apparatus comprises an airflow sensor and a controller. The airflow sensor is configured to monitor an exhalation flow” See ¶ 0005, Wang teaches, “carbon dioxide enters the airflow sensor 1020. The resistance of the gas sensitive resistor in the airflow sensor 1020 is changed, e.g., decreased, under the influence of carbon dioxide, such that the input voltage of the gas sensitive resistor exceeds a preset voltage value, thereby controlling the charge generator 1030” see ¶ 0115. Wang teaches, “triggering to send the alarm signal wirelessly in response to an amount of the charges collected by the charge collector reaching a preset charge amount.” See ¶ 0018.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art at the time of invention (effective filing date for AIA application) to modify the combination of Elser- Mazzola and sample by gas sensor resistor the level of carbon dioxide based on the decrease in voltage as suggested by Wang, in an effort to send the alarm signal wirelessly in response to an amount of the charges collected by the charge collector and notify the user.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Omer S. Khan whose telephone number is (571)270-5146. The examiner can normally be reached 10:00 am to 8:00 pm EST.
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, Brian A. Zimmerman can be reached at 571-272-3059. 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.
/Omer S Khan/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2686
Prosecution Insights