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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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.
1. Claims 1-10, 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lindgren et al. in view of Knaebel and Applicant’s Admitted Prior Art for the reasons set forth on pages 2-10 of the previous Office Action mailed 10/02/2025.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/01/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Lindgren et al. does not teach a method for determining a concentration of one or more polyhalogenated compounds in a gas stream.
Claim 1 recites determining a concentration of one or more polyhalogenated compounds in a gas which reads on any determined concentration up to the total concentration.
Lindgren et al. teaches various efficiencies in Table 1, including as high as 99.8% and notes on page 576 teaches that the “removal efficiency” is higher in a dry scrubber.
Removal efficiency is effectiveness of eliminating components from a gas.
Therefore, when for example Lindgren et al. teaches an efficiency of 99.8, it can be determined that initial inlet concentration was reduced by 99.8% so that 0.2% of the initial concentration passes downstream of the absorbent.
Lindgren et al. further teaches on page 517 that “By analyzing the dioxin concentration of the Adiox material, it is possible to estimate the total amount of dioxins captured. By applying a mass balance, an estimate of the mean dioxin concentration removed from the gas during the operating period can be made.”
Therefore, Lindgren et al. renders it obvious to determine the concentration polyhalogenated compounds in a gas stream.
Further, Knaebel teaches determining the amount of components in a gas that are absorbed in an absorbent can be determined by the weight change of the absorbent.
Therefore, the prior art of record renders applicant’s invention on determining a concentration of one or more polyhalogenated compounds in a gas obvious.
Applicant argues that the one skilled in the art would not consider the efficiencies in Table 1 of Lindgren et al. as being equal to the upstream concentration.
As noted, when for example Lindgren et al. teaches an efficiency of 99.8, it can be determined that initial inlet concentration was reduced by 99.8% so that 0.2% of the initial (upstream) concentration passes downstream of the absorbent.
Applicant argues that Lindgren et al. teaches several scrubber stages arranged in series.
Applicant’s claims do not exclude several scrubber stages arranged in series and applicant’s claim 7 allows for a plurality of samplers.
Applicant argues that Lindgren et al. is directed to a different purpose that involves removing dioxin from a gas.
Beyond removing dioxin from a gas, Lindgren et al. renders obvious determining the concentration of dioxin in a gas as noted above.
Applicant argues that “Lindgren discloses only that the absorption rate of dioxins is proportional to the dioxin concentration in the gas phase.”
Lindgren et al. does not mention “absorption rate.”
Applicant argues that the weight the absorbent would change would be too small to measure.
As noted above, Lindgren et al. teaches that “by applying a mass balance, an estimate of the mean dioxin concentration removed from the gas during the operating period can be made.”
The amount to dioxin absorbed would depend on the total volume of gas to which the absorbent was exposed, so that increasing the volume would increase the weight gain by the absorbent up to a measurable weight gain.
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 MICHAEL S. GZYBOWSKI whose telephone number is (571)270-3487. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5:00.
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, Charles Capozzi can be reached at 571-270-3638. 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.
/M.S.G./Examiner, Art Unit 1798
/CHARLES CAPOZZI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1798