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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114 was filed in this application after appeal to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, but prior to a decision on the appeal. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114 and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the appeal has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114 and prosecution in this application has been reopened pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant’s submission filed on 11/5/2025 has been entered.
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, see pages 5-8, filed 11/5/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 20 under 103(a) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Zhang and Inoue.
Conclusion
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, Elizabeth Robinson can be reached at (571)272-7129. 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