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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 11/28/2022, 12/26/2023, 7/2/2024, and 4/14/2026 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of group I (claims 1-7) in the reply filed on 3/2/2026 is acknowledged.
Claim Status
Claims 1-9 are pending with claims 1-7 being examined and claims 8-9 are withdrawn.
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) 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Inoue et al (US 20190206667 A1; hereinafter “Inoue”; already of record on IDS filed 11/28/2022).
Regarding claim 1, Inoue teaches an elemental analysis device (Inoue; Abstract; para [46]; elemental analysis device 100) comprising:
a heating furnace that heats a sample to generate a sample gas (Inoue; para [48]; The impulse furnace 10 houses a graphite crucible 11 that puts the sample into the impulse furnace 10. Joule heat is generated by applying impulse electric currents to the graphite crucible 11 so as to produce the sample gas by evaporating at least a part of the sample put into the graphite crucible 11);
an analyzing unit that analyzes an element contained in the sample based on the sample gas (Inoue; para [51]; the quadrupole mass spectrometer 40 comprises a sensor part 41 that is inserted into the connection port 31 of the vacuum chamber 30 and an information processing unit 42 that is connected to the sensor part 41 and that produces a function as an AC generator. The sensor part 41 comprises an ionization part 43 that ionizes the sample gas, an ion extraction electrode 44 that extracts ions from the ionization part 43, a quadrupole part 45 that selectively passes the ion discharged from the ionization part 43 by the ion extraction electrode 44 and an ion detector 46 that detects the ion passing the quadrupole part 45); and
a purging mechanism that circulates a purge gas to discharge a residual gas inside the heating furnace (Inoue; para [54]; A first pressure regulator 111 that controls pressure of a carrier gas supplied from a carrier gas supplier 20 to the impulse furnace 10 is arranged on the introducing line 110), wherein
the purging mechanism includes an injection channel that injects the purge gas into the heating furnace (Inoue; para [54]; A first pressure regulator 111 that controls pressure of a carrier gas supplied from a carrier gas supplier 20 to the impulse furnace 10 is arranged on the introducing line 110),
a discharge channel that connects the heating furnace to outside air, and discharges the purge gas having been injected into the heating furnace to the outside air (Inoue; Fig. 1; para [16, 47]; Degassing may be conducted by heating the crucible into which the bath agent containing Fe is put while introducing the carrier gas into the heating furnace and by discharging the generated gas from the purge line…discharging line 120 extending to a downstream side from the impulse furnace 10; examiner notes the discharge line is interpreted as the line 120 coming out of the furnace), and
a purge gas flow rate adjusting mechanism that adjusts a flow rate of the purge gas by changing a flow resistance of the discharge channel between a plurality of levels, or continuously (Inoue; para [55]; a purge line 150 to discharge the gas flowing in the discharging line 120 is connected to the discharging line 120 through the third three-way valve 124).
Regarding claim 2, Inoue teaches the elemental analysis device according to claim 1, wherein the discharge channel includes a first exhaust channel and a second exhaust channel that are provided in parallel with each other (Inoue; Fig. 1; the examiner interprets the line 120 after valve 124 which leads to the spectrometer as the first exhaust channel the purge line 150 as the second exhaust channel and notes that the pathway of 150 and 120 are parallel with one another as seen in the process flow diagram), and the purge gas flow rate adjusting mechanism includes an on- off valve that opens or closes the second exhaust channel so that the flow resistance of the discharge channel is changed between two levels (Inoue; para [55]; a purge line 150 to discharge the gas flowing in the discharging line 120 is connected to the discharging line 120 through the third three-way valve 124, and the purge line 150 is selectively switchable to connect with or to disconnect from the discharging line 120 by adjusting the third three-way valve 124).
Regarding claim 3, Inoue teaches the elemental analysis device according to claim 2, wherein the first exhaust channel includes a resistive channel (Inoue; Fig. 1; para [61]; The flow rate adjusting valve 127 controls the flow rate of the mixed gas flowing in the discharging line 120. The flow rate adjusting valve 127 can reduce the pressure of the mixed gas by limiting the flow rate of the mixed gas), and the first exhaust channel has a higher flow resistance than a flow resistance of the second exhaust channel (Inoue; Fig. 1; Examiner notes the purge line 150 does not comprise any flow restricting structures after the three-way valve 124).
Regarding claim 4, Inoue teaches the elemental analysis device according to claim 3, wherein the second exhaust channel is made only from a piping member (Inoue; Fig. 1; Examiner notes the purge line 150 does not comprise any flow restricting structures after the three-way valve 124).
Regarding claim 5, Inoue teaches the elemental analysis device according to claim 1, wherein the purge gas flow rate adjusting mechanism keeps the flow resistance of the discharge channel low for a certain period of time, and then changes the flow resistance to high (Inoue; para [55]; a purge line 150 to discharge the gas flowing in the discharging line 120 is connected to the discharging line 120 through the third three-way valve 124, and the purge line 150 is selectively switchable to connect with or to disconnect from the discharging line 120 by adjusting the third three-way valve 124). The mechanism can keep flow resistance “low” or “high” based on whether the three-way valve is open or closed.
Regarding claim 6, Inoue teaches the elemental analysis device according to claim 1, further comprising a purge gas flow rate limiting mechanism that is provided to the injection channel, and that imposes a limit on a maximum flow rate of the purge gas, wherein the purge gas channel limiting mechanism is configured to be switchable between an operating state where a flow rate limiting operation is performed and a non-operating state where the flow rate limiting operation is not performed (Inoue; para [54]; A first pressure regulator 111 that controls pressure of a carrier gas supplied from a carrier gas supplier 20 to the impulse furnace 10 is arranged on the introducing line 110). The limitation is directed to the function and/or the manner of operating the purge gas flow rate limiting mechanism, all the structural limitations of the claim has been disclosed by Inoue and the purge gas flow rate limiting mechanism of Inoue is capable of “impos[ing] a limit on a maximum flow rate of the purge gas” and “configured to be switchable between an operating state where a flow rate limiting operation is performed and a non-operating state where the flow rate limiting operation is not performed”. As such, it is deemed that the claimed purge gas flow rate limiting mechanism is not differentiated from the purge gas flow rate limiting mechanism of Inoue (see MPEP §2114). Specifically, one of ordinary skill in the art would be capable of closing/opening the regulator which results in the operating or non-operating state.
Regarding claim 7, Inoue teaches the elemental analysis device according to claim 6, wherein the discharge channel has a first exhaust channel and a second exhaust channel that are provided in parallel with each other (Inoue; Fig. 1; the examiner interprets the line 120 after valve 124 which leads to the spectrometer as the first exhaust channel the purge line 150 as the second exhaust channel and notes that the pathway of 150 and 120 are parallel with one another as seen in the process flow diagram), and the purge gas flow rate adjusting mechanism includes an on-off valve that opens or closes the second exhaust channel so that the flow resistance of the discharge channel is changed between two levels (Inoue; para [55]; a purge line 150 to discharge the gas flowing in the discharging line 120 is connected to the discharging line 120 through the third three-way valve 124, and the purge line 150 is selectively switchable to connect with or to disconnect from the discharging line 120 by adjusting the third three-way valve 124), and the purge gas channel limiting mechanism is in the operating state when the second exhaust channel is opened, and the purge gas channel limiting mechanism is in the non-operating state when the second exhaust channel is closed. The limitation is directed to the function and/or the manner of operating the purge gas channel limiting mechanism, all the structural limitations of the claim has been disclosed by Inoue and the purge gas channel limiting mechanism of Inoue is capable of “[being] in the operating state when the second exhaust channel is opened” or “[being] in the non-operating state when the second exhaust channel is closed”. As such, it is deemed that the claimed purge gas channel limiting mechanism is not differentiated from the purge gas channel limiting mechanism of Inoue (see MPEP §2114). Specifically, the valve and the regulator can be controlled to be open/closed in any order.
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 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 2-4 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Inoue in view of Tsuji et al (US 4705669 A; hereinafter “Tsuji”). Claims 2-4 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 if Inoue is found to not teach the discharge paths being parallel.
Regarding claim 2, Inoue teaches the elemental analysis device according to claim 1, wherein the discharge channel includes a first exhaust channel and a second exhaust channel (Inoue; Fig. 1; the examiner interprets the line 120 after valve 124 which leads to the spectrometer as the first exhaust channel the purge line 150 as the second exhaust channel), and the purge gas flow rate adjusting mechanism includes an on- off valve that opens or closes the second exhaust channel so that the flow resistance of the discharge channel is changed between two levels (Inoue; para [55]; a purge line 150 to discharge the gas flowing in the discharging line 120 is connected to the discharging line 120 through the third three-way valve 124, and the purge line 150 is selectively switchable to connect with or to disconnect from the discharging line 120 by adjusting the third three-way valve 124).
Inoue does not teach wherein the first exhaust channel and the second exhaust channel that are provided in parallel with each other.
However, Tsuji teaches an analogous art of a gas analyzer comprising a first exhaust channel and a second exhaust channel, wherein the first exhaust channel and the second exhaust channel that are provided in parallel with each other (col 3. Lines 19-21; said plurality of gas concentration detectors being connected in parallel to said sample gas-introducing passage). The examiner interprets the first exhaust channel and the second exhaust channel to be separate pathways that lead to the detectors as seen in Figures 1 and 2. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to arrange the first exhaust channel and the second exhaust channel of Inoue in the manner of ----being parallel with one another as taught by Tsuji as this is a known and suitable arrangement for the first exhaust channel and the second exhaust channel in the art. Further, it is a matter of engineering design to arrange---- the first exhaust channel and the second exhaust channel in different ways, where the change in form or shape, without any new or unexpected result, is an obvious engineering design. See In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) (see MPEP § 2144.04). Finally, one would have a reasonable expectation of success by changing the arrangement of the first exhaust channel and the second exhaust channel to the claimed limitation of being parallel as Tsuji teaches this arrangement is a known and suitable arrangement in the art.
Regarding claim 3, modified Inoue teaches the elemental analysis device according to claim 2, wherein the first exhaust channel includes a resistive channel (Inoue; Fig. 1; para [61]; The flow rate adjusting valve 127 controls the flow rate of the mixed gas flowing in the discharging line 120. The flow rate adjusting valve 127 can reduce the pressure of the mixed gas by limiting the flow rate of the mixed gas), and the first exhaust channel has a higher flow resistance than a flow resistance of the second exhaust channel (Inoue; Fig. 1; Examiner notes the purge line 150 does not comprise any flow restricting structures after the three-way valve 124).
Regarding claim 4, modified Inoue teaches the elemental analysis device according to claim 3, wherein the second exhaust channel is made only from a piping member (Inoue; Fig. 1; Examiner notes the purge line 150 does not comprise any flow restricting structures after the three-way valve 124).
Regarding claim 7, Inoue teaches the elemental analysis device according to claim 6, wherein the discharge channel has a first exhaust channel and a second exhaust channel (Inoue; Fig. 1; the examiner interprets the line 120 after valve 124 which leads to the spectrometer as the first exhaust channel the purge line 150 as the second exhaust channel), and the purge gas flow rate adjusting mechanism includes an on-off valve that opens or closes the second exhaust channel so that the flow resistance of the discharge channel is changed between two levels (Inoue; para [55]; a purge line 150 to discharge the gas flowing in the discharging line 120 is connected to the discharging line 120 through the third three-way valve 124, and the purge line 150 is selectively switchable to connect with or to disconnect from the discharging line 120 by adjusting the third three-way valve 124), and the purge gas channel limiting mechanism is in the operating state when the second exhaust channel is opened, and the purge gas channel limiting mechanism is in the non-operating state when the second exhaust channel is closed. The limitation is directed to the function and/or the manner of operating the purge gas channel limiting mechanism, all the structural limitations of the claim has been disclosed by Inoue and the purge gas channel limiting mechanism of Inoue is capable of “[being] in the operating state when the second exhaust channel is opened” or “[being] in the non-operating state when the second exhaust channel is closed”. As such, it is deemed that the claimed purge gas channel limiting mechanism is not differentiated from the purge gas channel limiting mechanism of Inoue (see MPEP §2114). Specifically, the valve and the regulator can be controlled to be open/closed in any order.
However, Tsuji teaches an analogous art of a gas analyzer comprising a first exhaust channel and a second exhaust channel, wherein the first exhaust channel and the second exhaust channel that are provided in parallel with each other (col 3. Lines 19-21; said plurality of gas concentration detectors being connected in parallel to said sample gas-introducing passage). The examiner interprets the first exhaust channel and the second exhaust channel to be separate pathways that lead to the detectors as seen in Figures 1 and 2. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to arrange the first exhaust channel and the second exhaust channel of Inoue in the manner of ----being parallel with one another as taught by Tsuji as this is a known and suitable arrangement for the first exhaust channel and the second exhaust channel in the art. Further, it is a matter of engineering design to arrange---- the first exhaust channel and the second exhaust channel in different ways, where the change in form or shape, without any new or unexpected result, is an obvious engineering design. See In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) (see MPEP § 2144.04). Finally, one would have a reasonable expectation of success by changing the arrangement of the first exhaust channel and the second exhaust channel to the claimed limitation of being parallel as Tsuji teaches this arrangement is a known and suitable arrangement in the art.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Austin Q Le whose telephone number is (571)272-7556. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9am - 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, Curtis Mayes can be reached at (571) 272-1234. 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.
/A.Q.L./Examiner, Art Unit 1796
/MATTHEW D KRCHA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1796
Prosecution Insights