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. Specification Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details. The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided. The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because of the inclusion of legal phraseology such as “comprises” and “comprising”. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b). 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 appl icant regards as his invention. Claims 24-46 are 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Regarding claim 24, the phrase "particularly a total organic carbon analyser using a high temperature oxidation method" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the word “particularly” are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). For purposes of examination, claim 24 is being interpreted as being a reactor assembly comprising an outer reactor tube and an inner reactor tube being removably inserted into the outer reactor tube since the intended use of an apparatus is accorded no patentable weight. A recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the structural limitations of that claimed. On line 1 of claim 33, the phrase “the collection receptacle” lacks antecedent basis since claim 33 depends from claim 31, and claim 31 does not positively recite a collection receptacle. Regarding claim 35, the phrase "particularly for total organic carbon analysis using a high temperature oxidation method" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the word “particularly” are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). For purposes of examination, claim 35 is being interpreted as being an industrial water analysis device comprising a housing and the reactor assembly according to claim 24 since the intended use of an apparatus is accorded no patentable weight. A recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the structural limitations of that claimed. On lines 1-2 of claim 39, the phrase “the top cover assembly and bottom cover assembly” lacks antecedent basis since claim 39 depends from claims 35 and 24, and neither of claims 35 or 24 positively recite a top cover assembly and a bottom cover assembly. On line 2 of claim 42, the phrase “the outlet opening of the inner reactor tube” lacks antecedent basis. In claim 44, the phrase “a fixation extension” is indefinite since it is not clear what structure this extension has. Is the fixation extension some type of physical protrusion extending from the gas permeable wall that serves to contact an inner wall of the inner reactor tube so as to fix the gas permeable wall to the inner wall of the inner reactor tube? On line 2 of claim 45, the “at least one tool engagement feature” is indefinite since it is not clear what physical structure this feature has. Is the tool engagement feature a notch or indent formed in the inner reactor tube so as to allow an outside tool to engage and/or pick up the inner reactor tube? Inventorship 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. 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 ( i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. The 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) 24-25, 27-28 and 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Aoki et al (US 2014/0151277, submitted in the IDS filed on February 27, 2023) . With regards to claim 24 , Aoki et al teach of a reactor assembly for decomposing organic substances in a target fluid using an oxidation reaction while heating and pressurizing the target fluid. In particular, the reactor assembly taught by Aoki et al can be used for measuring total organic carbon (TOC) in a water sample (see paragraph 0084 in Aoki et al). The reactor assembly 20 comprises an outer reactor tube 21 and an inner reactor tube formed by the combination of inner tube 22 and a flow tube 26 inserted into the open top end of the inner tube 22. The inner reactor tube 22/26 is removable inserted into the lower open end of the outer reactor tube 21. See Figures 1, 2 and 6, and paragraphs 0023- 0025 and 0082-0084 in Aoki et al. With regards to claim 25 , Aoki et al teach that the inner reactor tube 22/26 partially rests on the outer reactor tube 21 where a collar at the top of the flow tube 26 and a collar 22a at the lower open end of the inner tube 22 rest on a top surface of the outer tube 21 at both the top and bottom ends of the outer tube 21. See Figures 1-2 in Aoki et al. With regards to claim 27 , Aoki et al teach that the flow tube 26 at the top of the inner reactor tube and the lower end of the inner reactor tube 22 comprise a resting surface or collar 22a that are aligned with a surrounding resting surface of the outer reactor tube at both the top and bottom ends of the outer tube 21. See Figures 1-2 in Aoki et al. With regards to claim 28 , Aoki et al teach that the reactor assembly comprises a top cover assembly formed of components 15 and 17 that rest on both the inner reactor rube 22/26 and the outer reactor tube 21 by threadably engaging the top end of the outer reactor tube 21. See Figures 1-2 in Aoki et al. With regards to claim 30 , Aoki et al teach that a bottom cover assembly formed of components 16 and 18 is provided in the reactor assembly that receives the inner reactor tube 22/26 and sealingly engages the outer reactor tube 21 by threadably engaging the lower end of the outer reactor tube 21. See Figures 1-2 in Aoki et al. Claim(s) 24, 28 and 30-33 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Hecker (DE 29909453, submitted in the IDS filed on March 16, 2023) . With regards to claim 24 , Hecker teaches of a reactor assembly for the pyrolysis of organic samples at high temperatures. The reaction assembly comprises an outer reactor tube 2 and an inner reactor tube 3 being removably inserted into the outer reactor tube 2. See Figure 1 and claim 1 in Hecker. With regards to claim 28 , Hecker teaches that the reactor assembly further comprises a top cover assembly formed of components 16, 13 and 5 resting on both the inner reactor tube 3 and the outer reactor tube 2. See Figures 1 and 2 , the first full paragraph on page 4, and claim 1 of the English-language translation of Hecker. With regards to claim 30 , Hecker teaches that the reactor assembly further comprises a bottom cover assembly formed of components 17, 6 and 13 for receiving the inner reactor tube 3 and sealingly engaging the outer reactor tube 2. See Figures 1 and 2, the second full paragraph on page 4, and claims 1-3 of the English-language translation of Hecker. With regards to claim 31 , Hecker teaches that the bottom cover assembly comprises a funnel 10 having a funnel diameter larger than an inner diameter of the inner reactor tube 3. See Figures 1-2 in Hecker which depict a funnel 10 as part of the bottom cover assembly 17/6/13, wherein the funnel 10 forms a conical widening in front and against the longitudinal ends of the inner reactor tube 3. Also, see the second full paragraph on page 4, and claim 1 of the English-language translation of Hecker. With regards to claim 32 , Hecker teaches that the bottom cover assembly comprises a collection receptacle 17 arranged underneath an outlet opening of the inner reactor tube 3. It is noted that component 17 taught by Hecker is a screw valve located at the external end of the bottom cover assembly, and when this screw valve 17 is closed, it has the ability to act as a “collection receptacle” for any particles that flow from the inner reactor tube 3 through the funnel 10, through the holder 6 and into the closed screw valve 17. See Figure 2, the last paragraph on page 4 and the first paragraph on page 5 of the English-language translation of Hecker. With regards to claim 33 , Hecker teaches that the collection receptacle 17 is arranged underneath the funnel 10. See Figure 2 in Hecker. Claim(s) 24, 29 and 35-38 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Ehrling et al (US 2018/0156762, submitted in the IDS filed on February 27, 2023) . With regards to claim 24 , Ehrling et al teach of a reactor assembly 3 for determining a measured variable such as total organically bound carbon content (total organic carbon, TOC) in a sample. The reactor assembly 3 comprises a housing 8 and an inner decomposition reactor 4 tube located inside the housing 8. The housing 8 also contains outer reactor tubes 19.1 and 19.2 therein which surround the inner reactor tube 4. See Figure 2, and paragraphs 0001-0002, 0037 and 0039 in Ehrling et al. With regards to claim 29 , the inner reactor tube 4 taught by Ehrling et al protrudes from the outer reactor tubes 19.1/19.2 at both ends thereof. See Figure 2, and parag raph 0039 in Ehrling et al. With regards to claim 35, Ehrling et al teach of system for determining total organic carbon in samples such as water comprising a housing 8 , and a reactor assembly comprising an inner decomposition reactor 4 tube , and outer reactor tubes 19.1 and 19.2 that surround the inner reactor tube 4 inside the housing 8. See Figure 2, and paragraphs 0001-0002, 0037 and 0039 in Ehrling et al. With regards to claim 36, Ehrling et al teach that the housing 8 has an upper wall 8.2 having an access opening , and wherein the inner reactor tube 4 is accessible through the access opening from the outside of the housing 8. See Figure 2, and paragraph 0039 in Ehrling et al. With regards to claim 37, Ehrling et al teach that a heating unit 6 is provided in the housing 8 for heating the reactor assembly. See Figure 2, and paragraph 0041 in Ehrling et al. With regards to claim 38, Ehrling et al teach that at least the inner reactor tube 4 protrudes from the housing 8 from two opposing sides. See Figure 2, and paragraph 0039 in Ehrling et al. Claim(s) 24-28, 40-41, 43 and 46 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Bettmann et al (US 2011/0076198) . With regards to claim 24 , Bettman n et al teach of a reactor assembly for determining a content of an oxidizable constituent of an aqueous sample, such as total organic carbon content (TOC) of a wastewater sample (see paragraphs 0001-0002 and 0033 in Bettman n et al). The reactor assembly 1 comprises an outer reactor tube 7 and an inner reactor tube 9 that is removably inserted into the outer reactor tube 7. See Figure 1, and paragraph 0033 in Bettman n et al. With regards to claim 25 , Bettman n et al teach that the inner reactor tube 9 partially rests on the outer reactor tube 7 by a collar extending from the upper end of the inner reactor tube 9 resting on a ledge formed on an inner surface of the outer reactor tube 7 at an upper end of the outer reactor tube. See Figure 1 in Bettman n et al. With regards to claim 26 , Bettman n et al teach that the inner reactor tube 9 comprises a radially protruding collar received in a recess of the outer reactor tube 7. See Figure 1 in Bettman n et al. With regards to claim 27 , Bettman n et al teach that the inner reactor tube 9 comprises a resting surface in the form of a collar extending from the upper end of the inner reactor tube 9, wherein this resting surface is aligned with a surrounding resting surface of the outer reactor tube 7 (i.e. the surrounding ledge formed on an inner surface of the outer reactor tube 7 at an upper end of the outer reactor tube 7). See Figure 1 in Bettman n et al. With regards to claim 28 , Bettman n et al teach that the reactor assembly 1 further comprises a top cover assembly resting on both the inner reactor tube 9 and the outer reactor tube 7. See the cover assembly depicted in Figure 1 of Bettman n et al that serves to cover both the inner 9 and outer 7 reactor tubes. With re gards to claim s 40 and 43 , the inner reactor tube 9 taught by Bettman n et al contains a gas permeable wall in the form of a sieve floor at the bottom of the interior of the inner reactor tube 9. The sieve floor of the inner reactor tube 9 contains passageways 12 for allowing gas and other small particles to pass therethrough. See Figure 1 and paragraph 0033 in Bettman n et al. With regards to claim 41 , Bettman n et al teach that the gas permeable wall/sieve wall is arranged in a bottom quarter of the inner reactor tube 9. See Figure 1 and paragraph 0033 in Bettman n et al. With regards to claim 46, Bettman n et al teach that the inner reactor tube 9 further comprises a filling material in the form of a catalyst 10 and other additional bulk material arranged between an inlet opening of the inner reactor tube 9 and the gas permeable/sieve wall. See Figure 1 and paragraph 0033 in Bettman n et al. 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 . Claim (s) 34 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over any one of Aoki et al, Hecker, Ehrling et al or Bettman n et al . For a teaching of Aoki et al, Hecker, Ehrling et al and Bettman n et al, see previous paragraphs in this Office action. With regards to claim 34 , each of Aoki et al, Hecker, Ehrling et al and Bettman n et al fail to teach that both the inner reactor tube and the outer reactor tube are formed of the same material. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the same material for both the inner reactor tube and the outer reactor tube of the reactor assemblies taught by each of Aoki et al, Hecker, Ehrling et al and Bettman n et al because doing so would help to avoid problems due to different coefficients of thermal expansion. Claim (s) 39 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ehrling et al (US 2018/0156762, submitted in the IDS filed on February 27, 2023) . For a teaching of Ehrling et al, see previous paragraphs in this Office action. With regards to claim 39 , Ehrling et al teach of a top cover assembly 8.2 and a bottom cover assembly 8.1 inside the housing 8 of the reactor assembly, but fail to teach that either or both of the top and bottom cover assemblies 8.2, 8.1 can be arranged outside the housing 8 . However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the reactor assembly taught by Ehrling et al with a top and a bottom cover assembly located outside of the housing 8 because such exterior top and bottom cover assemblies would allow both the openings of the inner 4 and outer 19.1, 19.2 reactor tubes to be covered and protected from contamination in the external environment. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 42, 44 and 45 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims since the closest prior art to Bettman n et al (US 2011/0076198) fails to teach or fairly suggest that the gas permeable/sieve wall provided with passageways 12 at the bottom of the inner reactor tube 9 is distanced from a separate outlet opening of the inner reactor tube 9, that a fixation extension extends from the gas permeable/sieve wall provided with passageways 12, and that the inner reactor tube 9 comprises at least one tool engagement feature. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Please make note of: Arts et al (US 2017/0343523) who teach of an analysis system for analyzing water; Arts et al (US 2019/0277737) who teach of a measurement system for determining a constituent substance or a quality parameter of a water or wastewater sample; and Rothe et al (US 2023/0324360) who teach of an industrial water analysis device. It is noted that Rothe et al is not prior art against the instant claims since it has the same effective filing date as the instant application. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Value for firstName-middleName-lastName?" \* MERGEFORMAT MAUREEN M WALLENHORST whose telephone number is FILLIN "Insert your individual area code and phone number." \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-1266 . The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday from 6:30 AM to 4:30 PM. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, FILLIN "Insert your SPE’s name." \* MERGEFORMAT Lyle Alexander , can be reached at telephone number FILLIN "Insert your SPE’s area code and phone number." \* MERGEFORMAT 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 an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center to authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to the USPTO patent electronic filing system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). Examiner interviews are available via a variety of formats. See MPEP § 713.01. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/ InterviewPractice . /MAUREEN WALLENHORST/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1797 December 11, 2025