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 Status
Claims 1-14 and 17-19 are pending and under examination.
Claims 15-16 have been canceled.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendments to the claims, received 12/29/2025, have overcome the 112(b) rejection(s) previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed on 07/01/2025. However, based on the claim amendments, new 112(b) rejections have been set forth.
The claim amendments have overcome the 101 rejection(s) previously set forth. Accordingly, the 101 rejection(s) have been withdrawn.
Based on the amended claims and remarks received on 12/29/2025, the previous prior art rejection over Guan has been withdrawn and a new prior art rejection set forth (see below).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 19 recites “the sampling pump flow path (17) fluidically connects the reactor (50) with the sampling compartment (150) in the second operational mode (20). However, claim 1 lines 11-15 have been amended to recite “in a second operational mode (20), the one or more multiple-position valves (140) are configured to provide … fluid separation between the reactor(50) and the sampling compartment (150)”. It is unclear how the reactor and the sampling compartment are simultaneously fluidically connected and fluidically separated in the second operational mode. Further, claim 1 lines 5-8 additionally recite “in a first operational mode (10) the one or more multiple-position valves (140) are configured to provide … fluid contact between the reactor (50) and the sampling compartment (150)”. Perhaps applicant is intending to recite “in the first operational mode (10)” in claim 19?
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4, 11-13 & 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Guan et al. (Translation of CN 100362347C; already of record – hereinafter “Guan”).
Regarding claim 1, Guan disclose a sampling arrangement (Guan; figs. 1A-C & 2A-C show sampling arrangements) for sampling from a reactor (Guan disclose sampling from a vessel 101 comprising a pressurized stream 102; figs. 1A-C, 2A-C, #101, #102, [43, 56]. Note: Paragraphs [0014-0015] of Applicant’s printed publication disclose: “The term “reactor” may herein especially refer to a reactor wherein a (bio)chemical transformation/reaction of interest takes place, such as an autoclave, a pressurized vessel, or a bioreactor. In embodiments, the reactor may comprise a pressurized stream. A pressurized stream may herein refer to (a reactor that is operated in) continuous flow.”. Accordingly, the vessel 101 and pressurized stream 102 being equivalent to applicant’s “reactor”), the sampling arrangement comprising a gas inlet (Guan disclose position 5 of the valve 106 connects with gas 1162; figs. 1A-C, [41, 45]. Guan disclose position 5 of the valve 106 connects carrier gas 1161; figs. 2A-C, [54, 58), a solvent inlet (Guan disclose solvent added at the position 8 of the valve 106 to fill the first quantitative tube 1051 with solvent; figs. 1A-C & 2A-C, [43, 56].), a solvent compartment (Guan; figs. 1A-C & 2A-C, #1051, [43, 56]), one or more multiple-position valves (Guan disclose a ten-way valve 106 and a six-way valve 108; figs. 1A-C & 2A-C, [37]), a sampling compartment (Guan disclose sample is loaded into the extraction cell body 204; figs. 1A-C, 2A-C, 3, [43, 56]), and an outlet (Guan; position 4 of the valve 106; figs. 1A-C & 2A-C, [47, 58]),
wherein in a first operational mode (Gaun disclose first operational mode to accelerate the solvent extraction process; figs. 1A & 2A, [43, 56]) the one or more multiple-position valves are configured to provide:
fluid contact between the solvent inlet and the solvent compartment (Gaun; solvent inlet port 8 communicates with solvent compartment 1051 in the first operational mode shown in figs. 1A & 2A, [43, 56]);
fluid contact between the reactor and the sampling compartment (Guan disclose fluid is pumped from vessel 101 comprising pressurized stream 102 into position 1 of sample valve 106, positions 1 and 10 are in fluid contact in the first mode, position 10 corresponds to the inlet 201 of the sampling compartment 204 where the sample is then pumped out of the sample compartment to position 3 of sample valve 106; figs. 1A, 2A, 3, [38, 43, 56]); and
fluid separation between the solvent compartment and the sampling compartment (Guan; the solvent compartment is connected via positions 8/9 and 6/7 which are isolated from the sampling compartment that is connected via position 1/10 and 2/3; figs. 1A & 2A, [43, 56]); and
wherein in a second operational mode (Guan disclose second operational mode for gas chromatography analysis; figs. 1B & 2B; [45, 57]) the one or more multiple-position valves are configured to provide:
fluid contact between the gas inlet, the solvent compartment, the sampling compartment, and the outlet (Guan disclose carrier gas is pumped into gas inlet position 5, through solvent compartment 1051, through the sampling compartment 204, and out through the outlet position 4 of the valve; [45, 57]); and
fluid separation between the reactor and the sampling compartment (Guan; the vessel 101 comprising pressurized stream 102 are connected via positions 1/2 which are isolated from the sampling compartment 204 that is connected via positions 10/3; fig. 1B & 2B, [45, 57]).
Regarding claim 2, Guan disclose the sampling arrangement according to claim 1 above, wherein the one or more multiple-position valves comprises a 10-position valve (Guan; figs. 1A-C & 2A-C, #106, [37]), wherein the 10-position valve is configurable in a first configuration and in a second configuration (Guan disclose the 10-position valve 106 is configurable according to the first operational mode and second operational mode as discussed in claim 1 above), wherein the sampling arrangement is in the first operational mode when the 10-position valve is in the first configuration (Guan; figs. 1A & 2A), and wherein the sampling arrangement is in the second operational mode when the 10-position valve is in the second configuration (Guan; figs. 1B & 2B).
Regarding claim 4, Guan disclose the sampling arrangement according to claim 1 above, wherein during operation of the sampling arrangement the sampling compartment is arranged external to the reactor (Guan disclose the sample compartment 204 is external to the vessel 101 and pressurized stream 102; figs. 1A-C & 2A-C).
Regarding claim 11, Guan disclose a method for sampling from the reactor using the sampling arrangement according to claim 1 (Guan disclose a method for sampling the reactor 103 as defined in claim 1 above; figs. 1A-C & 2A-C, [42-47, 55-60]), the method comprising consecutively executing the first operational mode and the second operational mode (Guan disclose the method is configured to consecutively execute the first mode the second mode; figs. 1A-B & 2A-B, 42-45, 55-58, 61-64, 69]), wherein the method further comprises providing an inlet gas from the gas inlet during at least part of the second operational mode (Guan disclose position 5 of the valve 106 connects with gas 1162; figs. 1A-C, [41, 45]. Guan disclose position 5 of the valve 106 connects carrier gas 1161; figs. 2A-C, [54, 58).
Regarding claim 12, Guan disclose the method according to claim 11 above, wherein the method comprises switching between the first operational mode and the second operational mode using the one or more multiple-position valves (Guan; figs. 1A-C & 2A-C, #106, #108, [37, 45, 58]).
Regarding claim 13, Guan disclose the method according to claim 11 above, the method comprising:
providing a lower pressure in the sampling compartment than in the reactor during at least part of the first operational mode (Guan disclose the vessel 101 and pressurized stream 102 are connected to a high-pressure pump 102 to provide a driving pressure to the reactor 204 during the first mode; figs. 1A & 2A, [41, 43, 54], 56); and/or
providing during at least part of the first operational mode a solvent at the solvent inlet with a solvent pressure exceeding the pressure in the solvent compartment (Guan disclose solvent can be added at the 8th position of the ten-way valve 106 to fill the first quantitative tube 1051 with the solvent, and the surplus solvent is emptied by the 7th position of the ten-way valve 106; [43, 56]. Accordingly, a solvent at the inlet with a solvent pressure exceeding the pressure in the solvent compart would be required to induce flow of the solvent through the quantitative tube 1051).
Regarding claim 17, Guan disclose the sampling arrangement according to claim 1 above, further comprising the reactor and wherein the reactor and the sampling compartment are separate compartments and wherein the reactor and the sampling compart are each operably coupled to the one or more multiple-position valves (Guan; the vessel 101 comprising pressurized stream 102 are connected via position 1 which is distinct from the sampling compartment 204 that is connected via positions 10/3; fig. 1B & 2B, [45, 57]).
Regarding claim 18, Guan disclose the sampling arrangement according to claim 17 above, further comprising a sampling flow path, wherein the sampling flow path fluidically connects the reactor with the sampling compartment in the first operational mode (Guan disclose fluid is pumped from vessel 101 comprising pressurized stream 102 into position 1 of sample valve 106, in the first mode, positions 1 and 10 are in fluid contact, position 10 corresponds to the inlet 201 of the sampling compartment 204; figs. 1A, 2A, [38, 43, 56]).
Regarding claim 19, Guan disclose the sampling arrangement according to claim 17 above, further comprising a sampling pump flow path, wherein the sampling pump flow path fluidically connects the reactor with the sampling compartment in the second operational mode (As best understood, Guan teach in the first mode fluid contact between the reactor and the sampling compartment as fluid is pumped from vessel 101 comprising pressurized stream 102 into position 1 of sample valve 106, positions 1 and 10 are in fluid contact in the first mode, position 10 corresponds to the inlet 201 of the sampling compartment 204 where the sample is then pumped out of the sample compartment to position 3 of sample valve 106; figs. 1A, 2A, 3, [38, 43, 56] and in the second mode fluid separation between the reactor and the sampling compartment as the vessel 101 comprising pressurized stream 102 are connected via positions 1/2 which are isolated from the sampling compartment 204 that is connected via positions 10/3; fig. 1B & 2B, [45, 57]).
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 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 1-2, 4, 11-13 & 17-19 are alternatively rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guan, and further in view of Cormier et al. (US 2016/0077060 – hereinafter “Cormier”).
Regarding claim 1, Guan disclose a sampling arrangement (Guan; figs. 1A-C & 2A-C show sampling arrangements) for sampling from a reactor (Guan disclose sampling from a vessel 101 comprising a pressurized stream 102; figs. 1A-C, 2A-C, #101, #102, [43, 56]. Note: Paragraphs [0014-0015] of Applicant’s printed publication disclose: “The term “reactor” may herein especially refer to a reactor wherein a (bio)chemical transformation/reaction of interest takes place, such as an autoclave, a pressurized vessel, or a bioreactor. In embodiments, the reactor may comprise a pressurized stream. A pressurized stream may herein refer to (a reactor that is operated in) continuous flow.”. Accordingly, the vessel 101 and pressurized stream 102 being equivalent to applicant’s “reactor”), the sampling arrangement comprising a gas inlet (Guan disclose position 5 of the valve 106 connects with gas 1162; figs. 1A-C, [41, 45]. Guan disclose position 5 of the valve 106 connects carrier gas 1161; figs. 2A-C, [54, 58), a solvent inlet (Guan disclose solvent added at the position 8 of the valve 106 to fill the first quantitative tube 1051 with solvent; figs. 1A-C & 2A-C, [43, 56].), a solvent compartment (Guan; figs. 1A-C & 2A-C, #1051, [43, 56]), one or more multiple-position valves (Guan disclose a ten-way valve 106 and a six-way valve 108; figs. 1A-C & 2A-C, [37]), a sampling compartment (Guan disclose sample is loaded into the extraction cell body 204; figs. 1A-C, 2A-C, 3, [43, 56]), and an outlet (Guan; position 4 of the valve 106; figs. 1A-C & 2A-C, [47, 58]),
wherein in a first operational mode (Gaun disclose first operational mode to accelerate the solvent extraction process; figs. 1A & 2A, [43, 56]) the one or more multiple-position valves are configured to provide:
fluid contact between the solvent inlet and the solvent compartment (Gaun; solvent inlet port 8 communicates with solvent compartment 1051 in the first operational mode shown in figs. 1A & 2A, [43, 56]);
fluid contact between the reactor and the sampling compartment (Guan disclose fluid is pumped from vessel 101 comprising pressurized stream 102 into position 1 of sample valve 106, positions 1 and 10 are in fluid contact in the first mode, position 10 corresponds to the inlet 201 of the sampling compartment 204 where the sample is then pumped out of the sample compartment to position 3 of sample valve 106; figs. 1A, 2A, 3, [38, 43, 56]); and
fluid separation between the solvent compartment and the sampling compartment (Guan; the solvent compartment is connected via positions 8/9 and 6/7 which are isolated from the sampling compartment that is connected via position 1/10 and 2/3; figs. 1A & 2A, [43, 56]); and
wherein in a second operational mode (Guan disclose second operational mode for gas chromatography analysis; figs. 1B & 2B; [45, 57]) the one or more multiple-position valves are configured to provide:
fluid contact between the gas inlet, the solvent compartment, the sampling compartment, and the outlet (Guan disclose carrier gas is pumped into gas inlet position 5, through solvent compartment 1051, through the sampling compartment 204, and out through the outlet position 4 of the valve; [45, 57]); and
fluid separation between the reactor and the sampling compartment (Guan; the vessel 101 comprising pressurized stream 102 are connected via positions 1/2 which are isolated from the sampling compartment 204 that is connected via positions 10/3; fig. 1B & 2B, [45, 57]).
If it is deemed that Guan does not teach sampling from a reactor, Cormier teach the analogous art of a sampling arrangement (Cormier; figs. 2-11, [0016-0025]) for sampling from a reactor (Cormier; fig. 3, #22, [0067]), the sampling arrangement comprising a sampling compartment (Cormier; fig. 3, #62, [0067]), wherein in an operational mode, one or more multiple-position valves (Cormier; fig. 3, #24, [0067]) are configured to provide fluid contact between the reactor and the sampling compartment (Cormier; fig. 3, [0067]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the sampling vessel 101 of Guan with the reactor 22, as taught by Cormier, because Cormier teach sampling directly from a reactor reduces the amount of manual labor required to perform analysis on a system, by allowing analysis of the system through a direct flow stream configured to draw the sample [0004-0005]). One of ordinary skill in the art would have expected this modification could have been performed with a reasonable expectation of success since Guan and Cormier both teach analyzing samples using chromatographic detectors with one or more multiple-position valves.
Claims 3, 5-8 & 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guan or alternatively over Guan and further in view of Cormier.
Regarding claim 3, Guan disclose the sampling arrangement according to claim 1 above, wherein the sampling compartment has a sampling volume V150 selected from a range of 50µl - 5 ml (Guan disclose the volume of the sampling compartment is 180 μL; [52, 65]), and wherein the solvent compartment has a solvent volume V130 (Guan disclose the solvent compartment 1051 is a quantitative tube which has a volume filled with solvent to push the solvent and the extraction liquid from the sampling compartment into the pre-column 112 of the GC 110 or the second quantitative tube 1052; figs. 1B & 2B, [37, 58]).
Guan do not specifically teach wherein V130≥ 2*V150.
However, Guan does teach filling a quantitative tube with sufficient solvent to push the solvent and the extraction liquid from the sampling compartment into the pre-column 112 of the GC 110 or the second quantitative tube 1052; figs. 1B & 2B, [27, 58]).
It would have been obvious to modify the relative size/proportion of the sample compartment volume and solvent compartment volume to have a relative size where V130≥ 2*V150, because changing the relative size of the solvent compartment volume to be greater than or equal to twice the sample compartment volume size would ensure sufficient solvent is loaded into the solvent compartment to provide two fluid exchanges through the sample compartment during transfer of the sample to the gas chromatography 110 . Further, the courts held that changes in size/proportion did not patentably distinguish over the prior art. In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955) (Claims directed to a lumber package "of appreciable size and weight requiring handling by a lift truck" were held unpatentable over prior art lumber packages which could be lifted by hand because limitations relating to the size of the package were not sufficient to patentably distinguish over the prior art.); In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (CCPA 1976) ("mere scaling up of a prior art process capable of being scaled up, if such were the case, would not establish patentability in a claim to an old process so scaled." 531 F.2d at 1053, 189 USPQ at 148.). In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. One of ordinary skill in the art would have expected this modification could have been performed with a reasonable expectation of success since the modification is merely a change in relative size/proportion.
Regarding claim 5, Guan disclose a system (Guan; figs. 1A-C & 2A-C, [37, 38, 52, 65]) comprising the sampling arrangement according to claim 1 above (The sample arrangements have previously been discussed in claim 1 above), wherein the system is configured to in a first mode of operation consecutively execute the first operational mode and the second operational mode (Guan disclose the method is configured to consecutively execute the first mode the second mode; figs. 1A-B & 2A-B, 42-45, 55-58, 61-64, 69]).
Guan do not explicitly disclose the system comprises a control system, wherein the control system is configured to control the one or more multiple-position valves.
However, Guan does teach configuring the system and one or more multiple-position valves to consecutively operate the system in the first mode and second mode (The first and second modes, as well as the one or more multiple-position valves, have previously been discussed in claim 1 above).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to automate the one or more multiple-position valves with a control system to perform the method of Guan, because automating the one or more multiple-position valves to perform the method would increase efficiency and reduce the risk of operator error. Further, automating a manual activity does not patentably distinguish over the prior art (MPEP 2144.04 (III)). In re Venner, 262 F.2d 91, 95, 120 USPQ 193, 194 (CCPA 1958) (Appellant argued that claims to a permanent mold casting apparatus for molding trunk pistons were allowable over the prior art because the claimed invention combined "old permanent-mold structures together with a timer and solenoid which automatically actuates the known pressure valve system to release the inner core after a predetermined time has elapsed." The court 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 the prior art.). One of ordinary skill in the art would have expected this modification could have been performed with a reasonable expectation of success since Guan teach the system and consecutively operating the system in the first mode and second mode.
Regarding claim 6, modified Guan teach the system according to claim 5 above, wherein the system comprises or is functionally coupled to a solvent supply, wherein the solvent supply is fluidically coupled to the solvent inlet, wherein the system comprises a solvent supply pressurizer configured to pressurize the solvent supply during the first operational mode (Guan disclose solvent can be added at the 8th position of the ten-way valve 106 to fill the first quantitative tube 1051 with the solvent, and the surplus solvent is emptied by the 7th position of the ten-way valve 106; [43, 56]. Accordingly, a solvent supply and pressurizer would be required to achieve the disclosed limitation).
Regarding claim 7, modified Guan teach the system according to claim 5 above, wherein the system comprises or is functionally coupled to a dispenser valve (Guan; figs. 1B & 2B, #108, [45, 58]), wherein the outlet is functionally coupled to the dispenser valve (Guan; figs. 1B & 2B, the outlet port 4 of valve 106 connects to port 1 of the dispenser valve 108; fig. 1B, [41] or port 6 of the dispenser valve 108; fig. 2B, [54), and wherein the dispenser valve is configured to dispense fluid to one or more outlet containers (Guan disclose dispenser valve 108 connects with a pre-column, which contains the dispensed fluid; fig. 1B, [45] or a second metering tube 1052; fig. 2B, [0060]).
Regarding claim 8, modified Guan teach the system according to claim 5 above, wherein the system further comprises a pump, wherein in the first operational mode the one or more multiple-position valves are configured to provide a fluid contact between the pump, the sampling compartment and the reactor (Guan; figs. 1A & 2A, #102, [37, 43, 56]).
Regarding claim 10, Guan teach the system according to claim 5 above, wherein the control system is configured to control one or more of a gas pressure of inlet gas, a solvent supply pressure, a solvent compartment pressure, a sampling compartment pressure, and a reactor pressure (The modification to automate the one or more multiple-position valves with a control system to perform the method of Guan has previously been discussed in claim 5 above. Guan controlling the sampling compartment pressure and pressure of a solvent supply; [51]).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guan, and further in view of Cormier.
Regarding claim 9, Guan teach the system according to claim 8 above, wherein in the first operational mode the one or more multiple-position valves provide a sampling pump flow path from the reactor via the sampling compartment, wherein the pump is configured to control a sampling pump flow through the sampling pump flow path (Guan disclose fluid is pumped from vessel 101 comprising pressurized stream 102 into position 1 of sample valve 106, through the sampling compartment 204, and out through position 2 of sample valve 106; figs. 1A, 2A, 3 & 6, [38, 43, 56]. Further, the modification to automate the one or more multiple-position valves with a control system to perform the method of Guan has previously been discussed in claim 5 above).
Guan does not teach Cormier teach providing a flow path from the reactor via the sampling compartment back to the reactor.
However, Cormier teach the analogous art of a sampling arrangement (Cormier; figs. 2-11, [0016-0025]) for sampling from a reactor (Cormier; fig. 3, #22, [0067]), the sampling arrangement comprising a sampling compartment (Cormier; fig. 3, #62, [0067]), wherein in an operational mode, one or more multiple-position valves (Cormier; fig. 3, #24, [0067]) are configured to provide fluid contact between the reactor and the sampling compartment (Cormier; fig. 3, [0067]), and a flow path from the reactor via the sampling compartment back to the reactor (Cormier; fig. 3, [0067]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the flow path of Guan with the flow path that includes a path from the reactor via the sampling compartment back to the reactor, as in Cormier, because Cormier teach that providing a flow path from the reactor via the sampling compartment back to the reactor provides a recycle stream to allow the sample to flow back to the reactor with or without further treatment or processing of the sample (Cormier; [0067]). One of ordinary skill in the art would have expected this modification could have been performed with a reasonable expectation of success since Guan and Cormier both teach analyzing samples using chromatographic detectors with one or more multiple-position valves.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guan, and further in view of Lemake et al. (US 2008/0306211; already of record – hereinafter “Lemke”) or alternatively over Guan, in view of Cormier, and further in view of Lemake.
Regarding claim 14, Guan disclose the method according to claim 11 above, wherein the method comprises providing the inlet gas at a pressure (Guan disclose position 5 of the valve 106 connects with gas 1162; figs. 1A-C, [41, 45]. Guan disclose position 5 of the valve 106 connects carrier gas 1161; figs. 2A-C, [54, 58).
Guan does not teach the inlet gas pressure above atmospheric pressure, and wherein the inlet gas is an inert gas.
However, Lemke teach the analogous art of a gas inlet for introducing an inlet gas, wherein the inlet gas is inert helium and the inlet gas is introduced at a pressure of 48.2 psi (Lemke; 0041]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the inlet gas and inlet gas pressure of Guan with helium at 48.2 psi, as taught by Lemke, because Lemke teach the inert gas at 48.2 psi allows identification of unknown components by gas chromatography coupled to mass spectrometry (GC/MS) (Lemke; [0041]). One of ordinary skill in the art would have expected this modification could have been performed with a reasonable expectation of success since Guan and Lemke both teach chromatography arrangements and introducing a carrier gas through a gas inlet.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed on 12/29/2025, have been fully considered.
Applicant argues on pages 7-9 of their remarks that Guan does not disclose the sampling arrangement for sampling from a reactor with movement of a sample from a reactor into a sampling compartment as recited in claim 1, nor does Guan disclose the amended limitation wherein the second operational mode the one or more multiple-position valves are configured to provide “fluid separation between the reactor and the sampling compartment”.
The examiner agrees in part and disagrees in part. Specifically, the examiner agrees that the previous interpretation of Guan set forth in the Non-Final Office Action does not read on the amended limitation. However, the newly recited limitation requiring “fluid separation between the reactor and the sampling compartment” while operating the sampling arrangement in the second mode was not a limitation that was previously considered. Furthermore, a review of applicants printed publication disclose in paragraphs [0014-0015]: “The term “reactor” may herein especially refer to a reactor wherein a (bio)chemical transformation/reaction of interest takes place, such as an autoclave, a pressurized vessel, or a bioreactor. In embodiments, the reactor may comprise a pressurized stream. A pressurized stream may herein refer to (a reactor that is operated in) continuous flow.”. That being said, the examiner disagrees that Guan does not teach the sampling arrangement as claimed because Guan still disclose sampling from a vessel 101 comprising a pressurized stream 102; figs. 1A-C, 2A-C, #101, #102, [43, 56]. Accordingly, the vessel 101 and pressurized stream 102 being equivalent to applicant’s “reactor”. Thus, in view of the amended limitations and applicant’s remarks, the examiner has modified the rejection over Guan which additionally encompass the sampling compartment be arranged external to the reactor (claim 4). In addition, if applicant deems that Guan still fails to disclose the limitation “sampling from a reactor”, an alternative rejection over Guan in view of Cormier has been set forth which explicitly disclose sampling from a reactor using a flow path from the reactor to a sampling compartment and back to the reactor.
Citations to art
In the above citations to documents in the art, an effort has been made to specifically cite representative passages, however rejections are in reference to the entirety of each document relied upon. Other passages, not specifically cited, may apply as well.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CURTIS A THOMPSON whose telephone number is (571)272-0648. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F: 7:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m..
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.
E-mail communication Authorization
Per updated USPTO Internet usage policies, Applicant and/or applicant’s representative is encouraged to authorize the USPTO examiner to discuss any subject matter concerning the above application via Internet e-mail communications. See MPEP 502.03. To approve such communications, Applicant must provide written authorization for e-mail communication by submitting the following statement via EFS Web (using PTO/SB/439) or Central Fax (571-273-8300):
Recognizing that Internet communications are not secure, I hereby authorize the USPTO to communicate with the undersigned and practitioners in accordance with 37 CFR 1.33 and 37 CFR 1.34 concerning any subject matter of this application by video conferencing, instant messaging, or electronic mail. I understand that a copy of these communications will be made of record in the application file.
Written authorizations submitted to the Examiner via e-mail are NOT proper. Written authorizations must be submitted via EFS-Web (using PTO/SB/439) or Central Fax (571-273-8300). A paper copy of e-mail correspondence will be placed in the patent application when appropriate. E-mails from the USPTO are for the sole use of the intended recipient, and may contain information subject to the confidentiality requirement set forth in 35 USC § 122. See also MPEP 502.03.
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.
/C.A.T./Examiner, Art Unit 1798
/BENJAMIN R WHATLEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1798