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 § 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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 23-25, 27, 29 and 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 105759005 A, hereinafter Zhang in view of United States Patent No. 8,420,013, hereinafter Inoue.
Regarding claim 23, Zhang teaches a total organic carbon analyzer (TOCA) system (figure 1), comprising: a combination of a combustion reactor (item 8) and condensation chamber (item 9) configured to receive at least one stop-flow pulse-injection sample when isolated from other components in the TOCA system, vaporize the stop-flow pulse-injection sample into a vapor sample, and provide the vapor sample when not isolated from the other components in the TOCA system for further processing by the other components in the TOCA system (intended use MPEP § 2114 (II) and is taught in page 7, paragraph 4); at least one multi-way valve (items 7 and 11) arranged between the combination of the combustion reactor and condensation chamber and the other components in the TOCA system (figure 1), the at least one multi-way valve having multi-way valve pass or bypass positions (intended use MPEP § 2114 (II) and is taught in figure 1), a mass flow controller (page 7, paragraph 4, computer) configured to receive signaling containing information about sensed TOCA system measurements (page 7, paragraph 4); and the at least one stop-flow pulse-injection sample being injected using multiple pulses per injection having a volume per injection and a time delay between the multiple pulses per injection so that the stop-flow pulse-injection sample is injected and the vapor sample is condensed at or near substantially similar rates in the combination of the combustion reactor and condensation chamber when isolated from the other components in the TOCA system (intended use MPEP § 2114 (II)).
Zhang fails to teach the at least one multi-way valve is configured to receive valve control signaling containing information either to switch to multi-way valve bypass positions in order to isolate the combination of the combustion reactor and condensation chamber from the other components in the TOCA system and trap the stop-flow pulse-injection sample in the combination of the combustion reactor and condensation chamber, or switch to multi-way valve pass positions in order to deisolate the combination of the combustion reactor and condensation chamber and the other components in the TOCA system so the vapor sample flows from the combination of the combustion reactor and condensation chamber to the other components in the TOCA system for further processing; a mass flow controller configured to provide the valve control signaling to switch the at least one multi-way valve to isolate and deisolate the combination of the combustion reactor and condensation chamber and the other components in the TOCA system.
Inoue teaches a total organic carbon measurement apparatus which has a mass flow controller (Inoue, item 6) which receives signaling information about sensed TOCA system measurements (Inoue, columns 4-5, lines 66-8) and provides valve control signaling (Inoue, columns 4-5, lines 66-8 and column 6, lines 24-40) to the valve(s) to control the valves of the system (Inoue, column 6, lines 24-40) and the opening an closing of the valves (Inoue, column 5, lines 50-56) so that the system can automatically operate (Inoue, columns 4-5, lines 66-8).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have made the mass flow controller of Zhang control the multi-way valves based upon the sensed TOCA system measurements because it would allow the system to automatically operate (Inoue, columns 4-5, lines 66-8).
The examiner notes that one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the controller of Zhang, as modified by Inoue, would isolate and deisolate the combination of the combustion reactor and condensation chamber as described in the claims as Inoue teaches the full control of the system using the controller and as such would operate the valves as described in the claims by opening and closing the valves to achieve the desired result.
Regarding claim 24, Zhang teaches wherein the at least one multi-way valve comprises two 3-way valves (items 7 and 11).
Regarding claim 25, Zhang teaches wherein the two 3-way valves include normally-closed ports coupled together (page 7, paragraph 4, items 7 and 11 are valves and can therefore having the ports “normally-closed”).
Regarding claim 27, these limitations are directed to the function of the apparatus and/or the manner of operating the apparatus, all the structural limitations of the claim has been disclosed by Zhang and Inoue and the apparatus of modified Zhang is capable of having the one stop-flow pulse-injection sample includes low-volume injection pulses. As such, it is deemed that the claimed apparatus is not differentiated from the apparatus of modified Zhang (see MPEP §2114).
Regarding claim 29, the other components are not positively claimed and therefore any limitation on the other components have minimal patentable weight (MPEP § 2115). The claim is therefore taught by modified Zhang.
Regarding claim 30, Zhang teaches wherein the TOCA system comprises an injector (item 1) configured to inject the stop-flow pulse-injection sample into the combination (intended use MPEP § 2114 (II)).
Claim(s) 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang and Inoue as applied to claim 23 above, and further in view of United States Patent No. 4,177,677, hereinafter Ruzicka.
Regarding claim 26, Zhang and Inoue teach all limitations of claim 23; however, they fail to teach the at least one multi-way valve comprises a 4-way valve.
Ruzicka teaches an analyzer with either two three-way valves or a single four-way valve (Ruzicka, column 3, lines 42-50).
Examiner further finds that the prior art contained a device/method/product (i.e., a single four-way valve) which differed from the claimed device by the substitution of component(s) (i.e., two three-way valves) with other component(s) (i.e., a single four-way valve), and the substituted components and their functions were known in the art as above set forth. An ordinarily skilled artisan at the time of invention could have substituted one known element with another (i.e., two three-way valves with a four-way valve), and the results of the substitution (i.e., controlling the flow) would have been predictable.
Therefore, pursuant to MPEP §2143 (I), Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan at the time of invention to substitute the two three-way valves of reference Zhang with a single four-way valve of reference Ruzicka, since the result would have been predictable.
Claim(s) 28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang and Inoue as applied to claim 23 above, and further in view of United States Application Publication No. 2004/0151629, hereinafter Pease.
Regarding claim 28, Zhang and Inoue teach all limitations of claim 23; however, they fail to teach wherein the sensed TOCA system measurements include temperature, pressure and flow measurements.
Pease teaches an analysis device which monitors the temperature, flow rate and pressure in the device so that the controller is able to control the device (Pease, paragraph [0072]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have made the system measure and use the temperature, pressure and flow measurements because it would allow for the controller to better control the device (Pease, paragraph [0072]).
Claim(s) 29 is/are additionally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang and Inoue as applied to claim 23 above, and further in view of EP 3176578, hereinafter Sato.
Regarding claim 29, Zhang teaches a non-dispersive infra-red detector (NDIR) (page 6, paragraph 7) configured to receive the TIC and condensate trap gas (figure 1), detect carbon dioxide contained therein, and provide NDIR signaling containing information about the carbon dioxide detected (intended use MPEP § 2114 (II)).
Zhang and Inoue fail to teach the other components include a total inorganic carbon (TIC) and condensate trap configured to receive the vapor sample when the combination of the combustion reactor and condensation chamber is not isolated from the other components in the TOCA system and provide a TIC and condensate trap gas
Sato teaches a preprocessing apparatus for gas analysis in which a first and second cold trap is utilized with the first cold trap configured to cool the sample water at a first temperature, thereby removing a liquid phase and the second cold trap is configured to further cool to-be-purified target gas containing water vapor, at a second temperature, thereby removing the water vapor to obtain the to-be-purified target gas not containing water vapor (Sato, abstract).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have added a first and second condensate trap for the condensation components of Zhang because it would allow the first condensate trap to cool the sample water at a first temperature, thereby removing a liquid phase and the second condensate trap to further cool to-be-purified target gas containing water vapor, at a second temperature, thereby removing the water vapor to obtain the to-be-purified target gas not containing water vapor (Sato, abstract).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/28/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., the way Zhang works compared to applicant’s invention on pages 5-7) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Regarding applicant’s argument that Inoue does not disclose, teach or suggest a combustion reactor and a condensation chamber, this is not persuasive as Inoue is not utilized for this teaching, but rather the reference of Zhang is utilized for this teaching.
Regarding applicant’s argument that Inoue does not disclose, teach or suggest the valve control signaling from its valve controller to switch the multi-way valve to either of the positions as described in the claim is not found persuasive. Firstly, Inoue is being utilized for the generic teaching of using a mass flow controller which receives signaling information and then provides control signals to valves to control the valves according to the sensed values. Therefore, based upon the generic teaching in Inoue of using a mass flow controller and controlling the valves, one of ordinary skill in the art would have added a mass flow controller along with a controller to control the valves in Zhang. In adding the mass flow controller and controller for controlling the valves, one of ordinary skill in the art would have designed the controller to either open or close the multi-way valves. With the teachings of Zhang combined with Inoue, one of ordinary skill in the art would have arrived at the claimed invention and controlled the valves as described to either open the valve in one way or to move the valves so that they are opened in the opposite direction.
The act of isolating and deisolating the combination and a combustion reactor and a condensation chamber would naturally occur from controlling the valves by opening the valves in one direction versus the other. The fact that Inoue utilizes the valve controlling signaling to control the valves to either provide the sample to the sample container, to the decomposition unit or clean the sample introduction port, does not prevent one of ordinary skill in the art from applying this concept of valve controlling to Zhang to arrive at the claimed invention.
Regarding applicant’s argument that one of ordinary skill in the art would have no reason to look to Inoue to solve problems or cure deficiencies related to Zhang is not found persuasive. Both of the references are dealing with TOC measurements with Zhang teaching the majority of the claimed invention except for the controlling of the valves. Inoue discloses a similar device of TOC which utilizes a controller for controlling valves, one of ordinary skill in the art would have looked to Inoue to see how valves are controlled and applied this controlling ability to the device of Zhang. Applicant’s assertion that Zhang and Inoue have different “thrusts” of TOC measurements doesn’t prevent one of ordinary skill in the art from looking at both of these references and realizing that they can be combined.
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 MATTHEW D KRCHA whose telephone number is (571)270-0386. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 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, Maris Kessel can be reached at (571)270-7698. 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.
/MATTHEW D KRCHA/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1796
Prosecution Insights