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 .
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed 19 September 2025 has been entered. Claims 1, 2, 4-16 and 18-20 remain pending in the application. Claim 20 is new. Applicant’s amendments to Claims 1, 2, 5-10, 12-15, 18 and 19 have overcome each and every objection and U.S.C. 102 rejection previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed on 19 May 2025. However, Applicant’s amendments to Claims 1, 2, 5-10, 12-15, 18 and 19 do not overcome the U.S.C. 112 rejections, the objections to the Drawings nor the U.S.C. 103 rejections.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 19 September 2025, with respect to the U.S.C. 103 rejection of claims 1, 2, 4-16 and 18-20, have been fully considered and are not persuasive.
Applicant Remarks
Applicant remarks that Kemper cannot anticipate the elements of claims 1 and 15 as amended. Kemper teaches a system and method to measure condensed phase and gas phase by-products in the production of chemically cross-linked polyethylene products. Kemper appears to teach that a sample of polyethylene-coated cable is placed in an oven so as to heat it and make it release gases which are indicative of the insulation capacity of the polyethylene. No type of heating is disclosed such that degradation of the sample is caused. The heating temperature of the cable in the oven must obviously be low enough so that no appreciable thermal degradation of the cable is produced, but only the emission of gases from the product. Kemper does not teach combustion of a sample at a temperature above 800°C.
Applicant remarks that Porterat does not teach claims 1 and 15 as amended. Porterat teaches synthesis of nanoparticles by laser hydrolysis. The temperatures are only used to obtain the desired characteristics of the nanoparticles. Porterat discloses an industrial method and plant to synthesize a material composed by nanoparticles having a predetermined size. Raman spectroscopy measurement is used in Porterat only to underline the differences between the signal to noise ratio according to the prior art versus what is obtained with the device taught by Porterat.
Applicant remarks that Lee-Alvarez teaches a carbon analyzer that includes a combustion chamber having a platinum or titania catalyst. Lee-Alvarez teaches a device for analyzing only the carbon present in a given sample. The sample is oxidized using a platinum on titania (TiO2) catalyst at high temperature to produce only carbon dioxide which is then treated to eliminate water vapor and any traces of chlorine and to quantify it using a carbon dioxide detector (e.g. an infrared sensor). Thus, Applicant remarks there is no connection between Lee-Alvarez’s teaching and the apparatus and method as presently claimed. Lee-Alvarez only teaches that a platinum on titania catalyst works best at high temperatures to extract carbon dioxide from a sample, making it easier to detect the amount of carbon by a dedicated carbon dioxide sensor. Lee-Alvarez does not teach using a temperature above 800°C to burn a sample to extract the elemental constituents from it and then analyze them with a Raman system. One of ordinary skill in the art would have no motivation to reference Lee-Alvarez.
Applicant remarks that Salisbury does not teach a Raman spectroscopic analysis for measuring the concentration of a component in the mixture. Thus, Salisbury does not teach the amended claim 1.
Applicant remarks that Fudan University does not teach any type of system for examining samples by means of special burning and analysis as it is the case in the embodiments claimed. While Fudan reference appears to disclose process temperatures 800°C and below, the process temperatures in Fudan are in relation to a process for the production of the analysis device and not to carry out any type of analysis by burning a sample to be examined.
Applicant remarks that Generon does not teach claims 1 and 15 as amended. Generon teaches the problem of atmospheric air in manufacture and storage of electronics, chemicals, and moisture-sensitive materials.
Examiner Responses
Examiner agrees that Kemper does not teach the amendment of claims 1 and 15. However, Examiner respectfully disagrees that Kemper prevents heat treatment of the sample at a temperature higher than 800°C. There is no temperature limit given by Kemper that prevents a specific embodiment of a heat treatment of the sample at a temperature higher than 800°C.
Examiner agrees that Porterat does not teach the amendment of claims 1 and 15.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Kemper in view of Lee-Alvarez teaches the amendment of claims 1 and 15 because the system is capable of a heat treatment of the sample at a temperature higher than 800°C. Regardless of any differing purposes, the capability is there. Further, the references are combinable because Kemper and Lee-Alvarez teach heat treatment of the sample, and there is no temperature limit given by Kemper that prevents a specific embodiment of a heat treatment of the sample at a temperature higher than 800°C. The motivation to combine the references is taught by Lee-Alvarez col. 3 lines 48-53, because the advantage is increasing effectiveness by adjusting the temperatures accordingly. In other words, the device is more effective because temperatures can be adjusted.
Examiner agrees that Salisbury does not teach the amendment of claims 1 and 15.
Examiner agrees that Fudan University does not teach the amendment of claims 1 and 15.
Examiner agrees that Generon does not teach the amendment of claims 1 and 15.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: 26. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claim 12 is objected to because of the following informalities: “(Previously Presented)” should be corrected to say –(Currently Amended)--.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as failing to set forth the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 9 recites the limitations “the transfer” and “their analysis in the second chamber”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. For examination purposes, these are interpreted to be newly claimed elements.
Claim 10 is rejected due to their dependencies.
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 of this title, 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.
Claims 1, 4, 5, 7, 9, 10, 15 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kemper et al. (US20100280664A1), hereinafter Kemper, in view of Lee-Alvarez et al. (US6375900B1), hereinafter Lee-Alvarez.
As to claims 1 and 15, Kemper teaches an apparatus and a method for the elemental analysis of a sample (claim 33; system for measuring by-products of a chemically cross-linked polyethylene product) comprising a chamber for heat treatment of the sample for the emission of gaseous products from said sample ([0084]-[0085]; fig. 1b; gas phase sampling chamber 2 is an oven that heats the XLPE (Cross-Linked Polyethylene) cable sample 3 to drive out the methane gas), an analysis zone (fig. 1b; [0085]; This gas is purged into a separate chamber 2a) which receives the gaseous products and a Raman effect spectroscopic device for analyzing the gaseous products present in said analysis zone ([0084]; From the Raman gas phase probe 5 the laser excitation and Raman emitted radiation 4 are directed to and from the sampling chamber 2 and are used in conjunction with the computer of the modified measurement instrument 6 to compute the wt % concentrations of the gas phase by-products of the XLPE).
PNG
media_image1.png
1167
548
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Kemper Fig. 1b
However, Kemper does not explicitly disclose wherein the heat treatment chamber is adapted to produce a heat treatment of the sample at a temperature higher than 800°C.
Lee-Alvarez, in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention, teaches wherein the heat treatment chamber is adapted to produce a heat treatment of the sample at a temperature higher than 800°C (Lee-Alvarez claim 1; the chamber is disposed to catalytically oxidize the specimen at a temperature between about 670° C. and about 1000° C).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Kemper to incorporate the teachings of Lee-Alvarez to include wherein the heat treatment chamber is adapted to produce a heat treatment of the sample at a temperature higher than 800°C, for the advantage of increasing effectiveness by adjusting the temperatures accordingly (Lee-Alvarez col. 3 lines 48-53).
As to claim 4, Kemper teaches the apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the analysis zone receives the gaseous products as a passing stream (fig. 1b; [0085]; The gas is purged from gas sampling chamber 2 into a separate chamber 2a. Purging a gas is inherently a passing stream because the gas flows from one chamber 2 to another chamber 2a).
As to claim 5, Kemper teaches wherein an analysis zone has fluid-tight closure means ([0085]; fig. 1b; the concentration of methane is measured in chamber 2a, and the gas phase Raman probe is secured to ensure a tight seal of the chamber) and pressurizing means for the analysis ([0077]; [0089]; as the measurements are taken, temperature and pressure are controlled).
As to claim 7, Kemper teaches wherein the Raman effect spectroscopic device comprises an electromagnetic source, a laser, for an excitation of the gaseous products present in the analysis zone and a sensor for detecting an intensity at different wavelengths of a light that is diffused by the gaseous products excited by the electromagnetic source ([0083]; fig. 1b; Instrument 6 sources the Raman laser excitation and emitted radiation 4. The Raman laser is used in conjunction with the computer of the modified measurement instrument 6 to compute the wt % concentrations of the normal byproducts. Thus, instrument 6 comprises a laser and a sensor).
As to claim 9, Kemper teaches wherein said analysis zone is contained in a second chamber (fig. 1b; [0085]; chamber 2a) interconnected to a first chamber (fig. 1b; [0085]; gas sampling chamber 2) for the transfer of the gaseous products from the first chamber to the second chamber (fig. 1b; [0085]; the gas sampling chamber 2 heats the XLPE caple sample 3 to drive the methane gas into the separate chamber 2a) and their analysis in the second chamber (fig. 1b; [0085]; the concentration of methane is measured in chamber 2a by laser excitation and emitted radiation 4).
As to claim 10, Kemper teaches further comprising a source for introducing a gaseous flow for transporting the gaseous products between the first chamber and the second chamber (fig. 1b; [0085]; The gas is purged from chamber 2 to chamber 2a by means of an inert gas such as nitrogen. Gaseous flow is inherent to gas purging).
As to claim 18, Kemper teaches wherein the heat treatment takes place in a first heat treatment chamber (fig. 1b; [0085]; the gas phase sampling chamber 2 is to be an oven to heat the XLPE cable sample 3) and the analyzing with Raman effect spectroscopy takes place in a second chamber connected to the first chamber so as to receive gaseous products emitted by the sample (fig. 1b; [0085]; the gas from the gas phase sampling chamber 2 is purged into a separate chamber 2a).
Claims 2 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kemper in view of Lee-Alvarez, and further in view of Porterat (US20100092367A1).
As to claims 2 and 16, Kemper in view of Lee-Alvarez does not explicitly disclose wherein the heat treatment chamber is a combustion chamber or a pyrolysis chamber for the sample.
Porterat, in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention, teaches wherein the heat treatment chamber is a combustion chamber or a pyrolysis chamber for the sample (Porterat [0056]; the mixed laser pyrolysis technique is utilized by injection of vapor and liquid droplets into the reaction chamber).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Kemper to incorporate the teachings of Porterat in view of Lee-Alvarez to include wherein the heat treatment chamber is a combustion chamber or a pyrolysis chamber for the sample, for the advantage of narrow grain size dispersion (Porterat [0052]).
Claims 6, 8, 13 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kemper in view of Lee-Alvarez, and further in view of Salisbury et al. (US20120095259A1), hereinafter Salisbury.
As to claims 6 and 20, Kemper in view of Lee-Alvarez does not explicitly disclose wherein the analysis zone is pressurized at a pressure greater than 2 atm (claim 6) and greater than or equal to 4 atm (claim 20).
Salisbury, in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention, teaches wherein the analysis zone is pressurized at a pressure greater than 2 atm and greater than or equal to 4 atm (Salisbury [0033]; the reactor contents are pressurized with 400 psig, equivalent to approximately 27.2 atm, which is greater than 4 atm).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Kemper in view of Lee-Alvarez to incorporate the teachings of Salisbury to include wherein the analysis zone is pressurized at a pressure greater than 2 atm and greater than or equal to 4 atm, for the advantage of stronger Raman shift for analysis (Salisbury [0030]).
As to claim 8, Kemper in view of Lee-Alvarez does not explicitly disclose wherein the detection sensor comprises a detector having a measurement area for measuring intensities of light falling in spatially separated areas of this measurement area and a prism or a diffraction grating arranged between the analysis zone and the detector for the spatial decomposition of a diffused light as a function of a wavelength and its transmission on the measurement area.
Salisbury, in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention, teaches wherein the detection sensor comprises a detector having a measurement area for measuring intensities of light falling in spatially separated areas of this measurement area and a prism or a diffraction grating arranged between the analysis zone and the detector for the spatial decomposition of a diffused light as a function of a wavelength and its transmission on the measurement area (Salisbury [0027]; The scattered radiation is frequency dispersed using a suitable dispersive element such as a grating. Diffraction gratings are known in the art to spatially separated different wavelengths of light. The dispersed Raman scattering is imaged onto the detector).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Kemper in view of Lee-Alvarez to incorporate the teachings of Salisbury to include wherein the detection sensor comprises a detector having a measurement area for measuring intensities of light falling in spatially separated areas of this measurement area and a prism or a diffraction grating arranged between the analysis zone and the detector for the spatial decomposition of a diffused light as a function of a wavelength and its transmission on the measurement area; for the advantage of a convenient means of dispersion for enhanced detector imaging (Salisbury [0027]-[0028]).
As to claim 13, Kemper in view of Lee-Alvarez does not explicitly disclose wherein the sensor comprises a CCD sensor.
Salisbury, in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention, teaches wherein the sensor comprises a CCD sensor ([0033]; a CCD Kaiser Optic RXN1-785 Raman spectrometer is used for data collection).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Kemper in view of Lee-Alvarez to incorporate the teachings of Salisbury to include wherein the sensor comprises a CCD sensor, for the advantage of utilizing fixed-dispersive monochromators for a convenient means of dispersion for enhanced detector imaging (Salisbury [0027]-[0028]).
Claims 12 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kemper in view of Lee-Alvarez, and further in view of Fudan University (CN108051422B).
As to claim 12, Kemper in view of Lee-Alvarez does not explicitly disclose wherein the electromagnetic source has a wavelength between 400 nm and 800 nm.
Fudan University, in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention, teaches wherein the electromagnetic source has a wavelength between 400 nm and 800 nm (Fudan University [0056]; The excitation laser wavelength of the Raman spectrometer is 488-632nm).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Kemper in view of Lee-Alvarez to incorporate the teachings of Fudan University to include wherein the electromagnetic source has a wavelength between 400 nm and 800 nm, for the advantage of a low-cost detector (Fudan University [0031]).
As to claim 14, Kemper in view of Lee-Alvarez does not explicitly disclose wherein the analysis zone is thermostatted at a temperature between -40 and + 200°C.
Fudan University, in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention, teaches wherein the analysis zone is thermostatted at a temperature between -40 and + 200°C (Fudan University [0017]; the heating temperature is 50-200 degrees C).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Kemper in view of Lee-Alvarez to incorporate the teachings of Fudan University to include wherein the analysis zone is thermostatted at a temperature between -40 and + 200°C, for the advantage of heating to purge more normal byproducts (Kemper [0071]).
Claims 11 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kemper in view of Lee-Alvarez and Porterat (US20100092367A1), further in view of Generon (Argon vs. Nitrogen Purging for Atmospheric Inerting, 31 March 2020).
As to claim 11, Kemper teaches wherein the gaseous flow is, or contains, an inert gas (fig. 1b; [0085]; The gas is purged from chamber 2 to chamber 2a by means of an inert gas).
However, Kemper in view of Lee-Alvarez does not explicitly disclose the inert gas including argon or helium.
Porterat, in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention, teaches the inert gas including argon or helium (Porterat [0068]; the inert gas can be a rare gas such as argon).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Kemper in view of Lee-Alvarez to incorporate the teachings of Porterat to include the inert gas including argon or helium, for the advantage of a higher density inert gas, increasing efficiency to keep moisture and oxygen out (Generon: Argon vs. Nitrogen Inert Atmosphere).
As to claim 19, Kemper teaches wherein transfer of the gaseous products emitted by the sample between the first chamber and the second chamber takes place by means of a gaseous flow (fig. 1b; [0085]; The gas is purged from chamber 2 to chamber 2a by means of an inert gas such as nitrogen. Gaseous flow is inherent to gas purging) which contains or is an inert gas (fig. 1b; [0085]; The gas is purged from chamber 2 to chamber 2a by means of an inert gas).
However, Kemper in view of Lee-Alvarez does not explicitly disclose the inert gas including argon or helium.
Porterat, in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention, teaches the inert gas including argon or helium (Porterat [0068]; the inert gas can be a rare gas such as argon).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Kemper in view of Lee-Alvarez to incorporate the teachings of Porterat to include the inert gas including argon or helium, for the advantage of a higher density inert gas, increasing efficiency to keep moisture and oxygen out (Generon: Argon vs. Nitrogen Inert Atmosphere).
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 KEMAYA NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-9078. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 8:30 am - 5:00pm ET.
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, Tarifur Chowdhury can be reached on (571) 272-2287. 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.
/KEMAYA NGUYEN/Examiner, Art Unit 2877
/TARIFUR R CHOWDHURY/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2877