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 .
Remarks
This Office Action fully acknowledges applicant’s remarks filed 06/18/2026. Claims 1-10, 12 and 13 are pending.
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 06/18/2026 has been entered.
Claim Interpretation
Claim 1 has been amended to recite a method for “in-situ” determining a concentration of one or more polyhalogenated compounds in a gas and at least a portion of said gas is exposed to determine “in-situ” the concentration of one or more polyhalogenated compounds therein.
On page 4, lines 10-16 applicant discloses that: “The method comprises the step of determining an amount of one or more polyhalogenated compounds absorbed and adsorbed by the material, by conducting a chemical analysis of the material, using Gas chromatography-mass spectrometry (GC-MS) for example, after the sampling period for example, and calculating a concentration of one or more polyhalogenated compounds in the gas to which the material was exposed, either upstream or downstream of the at least one sampler, or both upstream and downstream of the at least one sampler.
Inasmuch as the amount of one or more polyhalogenated compounds absorbed and adsorbed by the material is conducted by chemical analysis of the material using Gas chromatography-mass spectrometry (GC-MS) either upstream, downstream or both upstream and downstream of the sampler, the disclosed manner of determining of a concentration of the one or more polyhalogenated compounds is not determined “in-situ” with respect to the sampler or the sampling process, but rather determining in some other analysis device or analysis step/process such as gas chromatography-mass spectrometry “after the sampling period”.
Thus the “in-situ” limitation in claim 1 is interpreted as not limiting the determining of a concentration of the one or more polyhalogenated compounds in the sampler or the sampling process, but rather in some other analysis device or analysis step/process upstream or downstream from sample.
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 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lindgren et al. (cited by applicant) in view of U.S. Patent No. 5,511,409 to Knaebel and Applicant’s Admitted Prior Art on pages 1-2 of applicant’s disclosure.
On page 575 Lindgren et al. teaches that “Adiox® is a construction material in which carbon particles are dispersed in a polymer such as polypropylene.”
Also on page 570 Lindgren et al. teaches that Adiox® is used to remove dioxin (polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins) from gases and provides PCDD/Fs as an example of dioxins.
On page 571 Lindgren et al. teaches 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. Thus teaching determining the amount/concentration of dioxin absorbed by the Adiox® material.
Further on page 571 Lindgren et al. teaches that since the absorption rate of dioxins is proportional to the dioxin concentration in the gas phase at a given temperature and gas flow, the dioxin concentration gradient may be used to estimate the mean dioxin gas concentration in different parts of the Adiox® packing, thereby estimating the removal efficiency. For example, if the dioxin concentration in the Adiox® material at the inlet is a hundred times higher than at the outlet, then the mean outlet gas concentration can be estimated to one hundredth of the inlet concentration, implying a mean removal efficiency of 99%.
Lindgren et al. teaches determining an amount of the one or more polyhalogenated compounds (“dioxins”) adsorbed or absorbed by said material.
Lindgren et al. does not teach calculating a concentration of the one or more polyhalogenated compounds in said gas to which said material was exposed, either upstream or downstream of said at least one sampler.
Knaebel teaches measuring of emission levels of VOCs or other vapor or solid contaminants in a gas stream and teaches that “a basic principle of adsorption is that the amount of uptake, and, accordingly, the weight gain of the adsorbent...” (column 5, lines 1-2).
As for Applicant’s Admitted Prior Art, applicant discloses known methods of determining the mass concentration of polyhalogenated compounds in a gas on pages 1-2 of applicant’s disclosure.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Lindgren et al. by determining the concentration of polyhalogenated components in a gas stream source as taught by Applicant’s Admitted Prior Art and then absorb polyhalogenated compounds from the gas stream by exposing the absorbent material of Lindgren et al. to the gas stream and weighting the absorbent material before and after absorbing the polyhalogenated components to determine the amount of polyhalogenated compounds removed as taught by Knaebel, and then calculate the concentration downstream of the absorbent material by subtracting the absorbed amount of polyhalogenated compounds from the original amount in the gas stream determined by the methods of Applicant’s Admitted Prior Art for purposes of determining the efficiency of the absorber to replace it when necessary.
Alternatively, it is noted that Lindgren et al. teaches determining the efficiency of Adiox® (see Table 1, page 574). It would have been obvious to determine the efficiency of Adiox® and then weigh the Adiox® after exposure to the gas stream to determine the amount of polyhalogenated compounds absorbed and use the determined efficiency to calculate the amount of polyhalogenated compounds in the gas stream upstream or downstream of the absorbent material.
I.) Regarding applicant’s claim 1, as noted above Lindgren et al. in view of Knaebel and Applicant’s Admitted Prior Art teaches all the limitations of claim 1.
Therefore, Lindgren et al. in view of Knaebel and Applicant’s Admitted Prior Art renders claim 1 obvious.
II.) Regarding applicant’s claim 2, as noted above Lindgren et al. in view of Knaebel and Applicant’s Admitted Prior Art renders claim 1 obvious from which claim 2 depends.
Claim 2 recites measuring or calculating said material's polyhalogenated compound absorption and adsorption efficiency, and calculating a concentration of one or more polyhalogenated compounds in the gas whose concentration of one or more polyhalogenated compounds is to be determined.
As noted above, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Lindgren et al. by determining the concentration of polyhalogenated components in a gas stream source as taught by Applicant’s Admitted Prior Art and then absorb polyhalogenated compounds by exposing the absorbent material of Lindgren et al. to the gas stream and weigh the absorbent material before and after absorbing the polyhalogenated components to determine the amount of polyhalogenated compounds removed. One of ordinary skill would then calculate the concentration downstream of the absorbent material by subtracting the absorbed amount of polyhalogenated compounds from the original amount in the gas stream.
It would further have been obvious to measure or calculate said material's polyhalogenated compound absorption and adsorption efficiency from the amount of polyhalogenated compounds absorbed or desorbed and the total polyhalogenated sampled from the gas stream or the total amount of polyhalogenated compounds absorbed or adsorbed and the amount downstream. Note Lindgren et al. teaches both adsorption and adsorption in polymers. (pages 570 and 571)
Alternatively, it is noted that Lindgren et al. teaches determining the efficiency of Adiox® (see Table 1, page 574). It would have been obvious to determine the efficiency of Adiox® and then weigh the Adiox® after exposure to the gas stream to determine the amount of polyhalogenated compounds absorbed and use the determined efficiency to calculate the amount of polyhalogenated compounds in the gas stream upstream or downstream of the absorbent material.
Therefore, Lindgren et al. in view of Knaebel and Applicant’s Admitted Prior art renders claim 2 obvious.
III.) Regarding applicant’s claim 3, as noted above Lindgren et al. in view of Knaebel and Applicant’s Admitted Prior renders claim 1 obvious from which claim 3 depends.
Claim 3 recites that at least one sampler is a passive sampler.
On page 78 of Lindgren et al. teaches a passive sampler.
Therefore, Lindgren et al. in view of Knaebel and Applicant’s Admitted Prior renders claim 3 obvious.
IV.) Regarding applicant’s claim 4, as noted above Lindgren et al. view of Knaebel and Applicant’s Admitted Prior renders claim 1 obvious from which claim 4 depends.
Claim 4 recites that the polymer matrix is a polyolefin matrix and/or said filler comprises carbon.
As noted above, Lindgren et al. teaches polypropylene (a polyolefin) in which carbon particles are dispersed.
Therefore, Lindgren et al. view of Knaebel and Applicant’s Admitted Prior renders claim 4 obvious.
V.) Regarding applicant’s claim 5, as noted above Lindgren et al. view of Knaebel and Applicant’s Admitted Prior renders claim 1 obvious from which claim 5 depends.
Claim 5 recites the filler is in particle, granulate or powder form.
As noted above, Lindgren et al. teaches polypropylene in which carbon particles are dispersed.
Therefore, Lindgren et al. view of Knaebel and Applicant’s Admitted Prior renders claim 5 obvious.
VI.) Regarding applicant’s claim 6, as noted above Lindgren et al. view of Knaebel and Applicant’s Admitted Prior renders claim 1 obvious from which claim 6 depends.
Claim 6 recites sampling all or a substantial amount of the gas whose concentration of one or more polyhalogenated compounds is to be determined by exposing said material of the at least one sampler to all of the gas whose concentration of one or more polyhalogenated compounds is to be determined.
In Lindgren et al. at least a substantial amount of gas contacts the absorbent material for purposes of determining a concentration of one or more polyhalogenated compounds in the gas.
Therefore, Lindgren et al. view of Knaebel and Applicant’s Admitted Prior renders claim 6 obvious.
VII.) Regarding applicant’s claim 7, as noted above Lindgren et al. in view of Knaebel and Applicant’s Admitted Prior Art renders claim 1 obvious from which claim 7 depends.
Claim 7 recites passing the ga
Lindgren et al. in view of Knaebel and Applicant’s Admitted Prior Art does not teach using a plurality of samplers, and then mixing said plurality of samplers together for analysis as a single sample.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Lindgren et al. in view of Knaebel and Applicant’s Admitted Prior Art to use a plurality of samplers since it has been held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. (See MPEP 2144.04((VI)(B))
It would further have been obvious to combine the absorbent material from the plurality of samples to determine the total amount of polyhalogenated compounds absorbed by all the plurality of samplers.
Therefore, Lindgren et al. in view of Knaebel and Applicant’s Admitted Prior Art renders claim 7 obvious.
VIII.) Regarding applicant’s claim 8, as noted above Lindgren et al. view of Knaebel and Applicant’s Admitted Prior renders claim 1 obvious from which claim 8 depends.
Claim 8 recites that the one or more polyhalogenated compounds is/are at least one of the following: polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins, dibenzofurans (PCDD/Fs), polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs).
Lindgren et al. teaches absorbing PCDD/Fs.
Therefore, Lindgren et al. view of Knaebel and Applicant’s Admitted Prior renders claim 8 obvious.
IX.) Regarding applicant’s claim 9, as noted above Lindgren et al. view of Knaebel and Applicant’s Admitted Prior renders claim 1 obvious from which claim 9 depends.
Claim 9 recites extracting a sample of said material and analyzing its surface to determine whether surface scaling is present.
On page 578 Lindgren et al. teaches analyzing the absorbent material to determine if scale is formed which would decrease the efficiency of absorption.
Therefore, Lindgren et al. in view of Knaebel and Applicant’s Admitted Prior renders claim 9 obvious.
X.) Regarding applicant’s claim 10, claim 10 recites a non-transitory computer readable medium storing a computer program, containing computer program code that causes a computer or a processor to execute all of said calculation steps of a method according to claim 1.
Claim 10 incorporates the method of claim 1, which as noted above, is obvious over Lindgren et al. in view of Knaebel and Applicant’s Admitted Prior Art.
Claim 10 adds a non-transitory computer readable medium storing a computer program, containing computer program code that causes a computer or a processor to execute all of said calculation steps of a method rendered obvious by view of Lindgren et al.
Lindgren et al. in view of Knaebel and Applicant’s Admitted Prior Art does not teach non-transitory computer readable medium storing a computer program, containing computer program code that causes a computer or a processor to execute all of said calculation steps of the method of claim 1.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the instruction for performing in the method in a computer readable media to automate the calculation steps in the method of claim 1.
In this regard, it has been held that broadly providing an automatic or mechanical means to replace a manual activity which accomplished the same result is not sufficient to distinguish over prior art. (See MPEP 2144.04(III)).
Therefore, Lindgren et al. in view of Knaebel and Applicant’s Admitted Prior Art renders claim 10 obvious.
XI.) Regarding applicant’s claim 12, as noted above Lindgren et al. in view of Knaebel and Applicant’s Admitted Prior Art render claim 4 obvious from which claim 12 depends.
Claim 12 recites that the polymer matrix is a polypropylene matrix.
Lindgren et al. teaches that Adiox® includes a polypropylene matrix.
Therefore, Lindgren et al. in view of Knaebel and Applicant’s Admitted Prior Art renders claim 12 obvious.
XII.) Regarding applicant’s claim 13, as noted above Lindgren et al. in view of Knaebel and Applicant’s Admitted Prior Art render claim 4 obvious from which claim 13 depends.
Claim 13 recites that the filler comprises activated carbon, soot or ground hearth-furnace coke.
Lindgren et al. teaches carbon particles dispersed in a polymer matrix.
It would have been obvious to use activated carbon in Lindgren et al. in view of Knaebel and Applicant’s Admitted Prior Art since activated carbon has a large surface area and porosity.
Therefore, Lindgren et al. in view Knaebel and Applicant’s Admitted Prior Art renders claim 13 obvious.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/18/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On page 6 of applicant’s response, applicant argues that “the methods disclosed in the cited references are extractive methods, thus requiring a small portion of the gas be drawn out and measured from the process, for example using a pump and gas meter, and dioxins, VOC etc. are absorbed in a sampler outside the process.”
Claim 1 recites the steps of:
i) exposing at least one sampler containing or constituted by a material comprising a polymer matrix that is configured for absorbing one or more polyhalogenated compounds, and a filler that is configured for adsorbing one or more polyhalogenated compounds which filler is distributed through said polymer matrix, to the gas containing the one or more polyhalogenated compounds during a sampling period, whereby at least a portion of said gas is exposed to determine in-situ the concentration of one or more polyhalogenated compounds therein,
ii) determining an amount of the one or more polyhalogenated compounds adsorbed or absorbed by said material, and
iii) calculating a concentration of the one or more polyhalogenated compounds in said gas to which said material was exposed, either upstream or downstream of said at least one sampler.
As noted above, Lindgren et al. teaches exposing Adiox® to a gas containing dioxin, determining the amount of dioxin and calculating a concentration of the dioxin.
As further noted above, based on applicant’s disclosure on page 4, lines 10-16, the “in-situ” limitation in claim 1 is interpreted as not limiting the determining of a concentration of the one or more polyhalogenated compounds in the sampler or the sampling process, but rather in some other analysis device or analysis step/process upstream or downstream from sample.
Claim 1 therefore does not exclude an outside process as argued by applicant.
On page 7 of applicant’ response applicant argues that “the non-extractive method of amended claim 1 is thus performed without an external sampling device.
As noted above, applicant discloses a sampling device and analysis of the absorbed polyhalogenated compounds using gas chromatography-mass spectrometry “after the sampling period.”
Thus, the determining of a concentration of one or more polyhalogenated compounds is performed other than in the sampler, i.e. external to the sampler.
On page 11 of applicant’s response applicant argued that Lindgren et al. does not teach using Adiox® to determine the concentration of PCDD in a gas. Lindgren et al. teaches using Adiox® to determine the concentration of dioxin in a gas and would expect to remove other dioxins including PCDD as applicant discloses on page 2.
On page 12 of applicant’s reply applicant argues that it is not possible for PCDD at the concentrations present in these systems (in the order of <0.1 ng/Nm³= 0.1-10-9 of one gram per normalized m³ of gas), since other components such as other chlorinated hydrocarbons, water and dust can be absorbed at many orders of magnitude higher amounts than the PCDDs. In contrast, Knaebel operates at concentrations of thousands of ppms (in the order of grams per m³ of gas). It is thereby to be noted that such weight increase would reflect ALL the absorbed components, not only PCDDs which are present at many orders of magnitude lower concentrations than other components, such as water, polyaromatic hydrocarbons, polychlorinated benzenes and phenyls.
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.
Thus, over time a sufficient amount of dioxin can be collected and other components (that Lindgren et al. seems to preclude to achieve a mass balance) can be avoided.
On page 13 of applicant’s response applicant argues that “the present invention method is performed "in situ" which means "inside the process.”
“In-situ” is only mentioned twice in applicant’s disclosure, and only once in reference to “The proposed method may thus be performed in-situ, without the need to extract the gas to an external sampling device.” (page 4, lines 17-18)
As noted above, “in-situ” encompasses analyzing the absorbed polyhalogenated compounds in a gas chromatography-mass spectrometry after the sampling period, which necessarily involves extracting the absorbed polyhalogenated compounds from the sampler to a gas chromatography-mass spectrometry that would be external to the sampler.
Conclusion
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.
/MICHAEL STANLEY GZYBOWSKI/Examiner, Art Unit 1798
Prosecution Insights