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, 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 30 January 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment/Arguments
In view of Applicant’s Amendments filed 30 January 2026, previous rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) is hereby withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see pgs. 1-2 of Remarks, filed 30 January 2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 45 and 56 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 is made in view of Korean Publication KR101051367B1 to Yang Hei Cheon (herein Yang) as Yang discloses using an ejector as a means for conveying a gas from a gas phase into a liquid phase (see [0028] of Yang) for the benefit of controlling bubble size (see [0001] of Yang) and maximizing the contact time between liquid and gas (see [0003] of Yang). Note: Applicant argues, in regards the rejection of claims 62-63 under 35 U.S.C., see pgs. 2-3 of Remarks, that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have no motivation to replace primary reference Miller’s pump-based counter-current system with a falling film surface with an ejector for injecting gas bubbles into the liquid phase as an ejector would fundamentally change Miller’s falling film design by introducing gas bubbles directly into the liquid phase. In fact, Applicant argues that Miller teaches away from the use of an ejector as Miller states gas flow should not be so fast as to cause turbulence in the equilibrator (see [00115] of Miller). However, Miller discloses the equilibrator design comprises gas entering the chamber below the liquid surface so that gas entering the chamber will bubble through the liquid as it enters (see [0090] of Miller) and discloses the equilibrator design comprises introducing turbulence in the gas in the lower portion of the chamber that may assist in the equilibration of the gases present in the liquid with the gas phase (see [00091] of Miller). Furthermore, paragraph [000115] of Miller specifies avoiding turbulence that would cause water droplets to be carried into the gas outlet and not avoiding any turbulence at all as evidenced by paragraph [00091] of Miller.
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.
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.
Claims 45-65 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over International Publication WO 2019/183411 to Miller et al. (herein Miller) in view of Korean Publication KR101051367B1 to Yang Hei Cheon (herein Yang).
Regarding claim 45, Miller discloses a system for determining the concentration of gases in liquids (see [0001]), characterized in that the system comprises a liquid inlet, wherein the liquid inlet comprises a liquid nozzle (e.g., a piece of tubing) that extends into a chamber of an equilibrator (E) (see claim 13; [00019]; Fig. 8 ), wherein the liquid inlet is under pump pressure (see [00087]) (i.e., “means for continuously supplying said liquid to an equilibrator”), and wherein the equilibrator is arranged for adjusting the equilibrium between gases in a gas phase and a liquid phase (see [0009]; [0023]; [000108]; Figs. 3 & 8); a carrier gas directed into the equilibrator by way of a gas inlet so that it comes into contact with the liquid phase (see [0009]; Fig. 3), wherein the gas phase is in a closed gas volume (see [000119]; Fig. 8); gas exiting the equilibrator wherein all or part of the gas is directed to at least one sensor of an analytical instrument that determines the amount of gas(es) of interest present in the gas that exits the chamber of the equilibrator (see [0009, 000119]; Figs. 3 & 8); and further comprises a diffuser that directs the gas entering the chamber into one or more directions that is connected to gas inlet line 3 and pump 23 (i.e., “wherein the system comprises a gas conveyor … arranged to transport gases from the gas phase … to the liquid phase …”) (see [00091, 000108]; Fig. 8]).
However, Miller fails to disclose “wherein the gas conveyor is an ejector” as recited in the instant claim.
Yang discloses using an ejector as a means for conveying a gas from a gas phase into a liquid phase by creating gas microbubbles in the liquid (see [0028] of Yang).
Yang and Miller are analogous in the field of devices for introducing gases into liquids. Therefore, I would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the system of Miller to comprise the ejector of Yang as the gas conveyor for the benefit of controlling bubble size (see [0001] of Yang) and maximizing the contact time between liquid and gas (see [0003] of Yang).
Regarding claim 46, the combination of references above render obvious the invention of claim 45. Miller discloses the cross-sectional area of a liquid outlet or tubing attached to it may be adjustable and set to accommodate specific liquid out-flow rates by use of a valve that constricts the liquid outlet and/or the tubing. Miller discloses wherein the liquid is water (see Fig. 3). Therefore, under its broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims, said valve reads on “water lock” of the claim.
Regarding claim 47, the combination of references above render obvious the invention of claim 45. Miller discloses the gases from the gas phase are circulated in a closed circuit through the liquid phase (see Fig. 8).
Regarding claim 50, the combination of references above render obvious the invention of claim 45. Miller discloses that the system comprises a closed loop and that gases from the gas phase are transported by the gas conveyor to the liquid phase via this loop, and that a sensor 16 is arranged in the loop and measures the amount of one or more gases in the gas phase (see [0009, 000108]; Fig. 8).
Regarding claim 51, the combination of references above render obvious the invention of claim 45. Miller discloses that gas from the gas phase is led in a closed circuit via a sensor device 16 (see [000108]; Fig. 8) for measuring the amount of a given gas (see [0009]).
Regarding claim 53, the combination of references above render obvious the invention of claim 45. Miller discloses wherein a foam or foam-like material is used to form a shell type structure to create an equilibration member (em) of the Equilibrator (E) in the gas phase and wherein there is gas phase above the foam forming the equilibration member (em) (see [00060]; Fig. 8).
Regarding claim 55, the combination of references above render obvious the invention of claim 45. Miller discloses directing air to the sensor for measurement/calibration purposes (see [000113]) and wherein calibration gas is a gas having a known amount of a gas of interest (see [00027]).
Regarding claim 56, Miller discloses a method for determining the concentration of gases in liquids (see [0001]), characterized in that a liquid is continuously supplied to a liquid inlet connected to a chamber of an equilibrator (E) of a closed circuit ( [0009,00019, 000137]; Fig. 8), and wherein the equilibrator is arranged for adjusting the equilibrium between gases in a gas phase and a liquid phase (see [0009]; [0023]; [000108]; Figs. 3 & 8); directing a carrier gas into the equilibrator by way of a gas inlet so that it comes into contact with the liquid phase (see [0009]; Fig. 3), wherein the gas phase is in a closed gas volume (see [000119]; Fig. 8); directing all or part of the gas exiting the equilibrator to at least one sensor of an analytical instrument that determines the amount of gas(es) of interest present in the gas that exits the chamber of the equilibrator (see [0009, 000119]; Figs. 3 & 8); and wherein a diffuser that is connected to gas inlet line 3 and pump 23 directs gas entering the chamber into one or more directions (i.e., “wherein a gas conveyor … causes circulation of gases from the gas phase … to the liquid phase … ”) (see [00091, 000108]; Fig. 8]).
However, Miller fails to disclose “wherein the gas conveyor is an ejector” as recited in the instant claim.
Yang discloses using an ejector as a means for conveying a gas from a gas phase into a liquid phase by creating gas microbubbles in the liquid (see [0028] of Yang).
Yang and Miller are analogous in the field of devices for introducing gases into liquids. Therefore, I would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the system of Miller to comprise the ejector of Yang as the gas conveyor for the benefit of controlling bubble size (see [0001] of Yang) and maximizing the contact time between liquid and gas (see [0003] of Yang).
Regarding claim 58, the combination of references above render obvious the invention of claim 56. Miller discloses that that gases from the gas phase are transported by the gas to the liquid phase via a closed loop, and that a sensor 16 is arranged in the loop and measures the amount of one or more gases in the gas phase (see [0009, 000108]; Fig. 8).
Regarding claim 60, the combination of references above render obvious the invention of claim 56. Miller discloses the system can measure a variety of gases including hydrogen sulfide and carbon dioxide (see [0001]).
Regarding claim 61, the combination of references above render obvious the invention of claim 56. Miller discloses the amount of gas can be determined as concentration in the form of part per million by volume (see [00026]), the flow rate of the liquid is carefully controlled to optimize equilibrator function and gas of interest measurement (see [00044-00045, 00081, 000116, 000131]), and measurements are taken over certain periods of time (see [000133]). Therefore, the amount of liquid through the equilibrator is known in order to give the concentration in part per million by volume measurements.
Regarding claim 62, the combination of references above render obvious the invention of claim 56. Miller in view of Yang renders obvious the use of an ejector that creates microbubbles as the gas conveyor.
Regarding claim 63, the combination of references above render obvious the invention of claim 56. Miller discloses wherein measurements are carried out in real time (see [000119]). Miller discloses an auto-controlled carrier gas sampling port circuit and an electrical relay to simultaneously stop liquid pumping into the equilibrator (i.e., control unit). Miller fails to explicitly disclose “that a transmitter unit on the sensor device sends data to the control unit” as recited in the instant claim. However, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the sensor would have to a way of transmitting data to the control unit for the benefit of determining the frequency of carrier gas sampling for flow reversal (see [000114]).
Regarding claim 64, the combination of references above render obvious the invention of claim 56. Miller discloses wherein the method is carried out by a system comprising valves 19a, 20a, 21a and 22a capable of connecting and closing off any combination of lines connected to them and wherein ports associated with said valves, such as 20 or 21, introduce air (i.e., calibration gas) into the system for calibration of an analytical instrument comprises one or more sensors (see [000109-000111]; Fig. 8), wherein the calibration gas has a known amount of the gas of interest (see [00027]). Miller discloses wherein the introduction of the calibration gas can be auto-controlled and performed at during interval wherein liquid is no longer being pumped into the system (see [000113, 000130]).
Regarding claim 65, the combination of references above render obvious the invention of claim 56. Miller discloses the system can measure a variety of gases including hydrogen sulfide (see [0001]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KATHRYN E LIMBAUGH whose telephone number is (571)272-0787. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:00-5:00.
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, Lyle Alexander can be reached at (571) 272-1254. 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.
/KATHRYN ELIZABETH LIMBAUGH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1797