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 “comprise”. 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 applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 19-36 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.
On lines 1-2 of claim 19, the phrase “in particular industrial TOC and/or TNb water analysis” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase “in particular” are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). In addition, the full meanings for the abbreviations TOC and TNb should be recited. On lines 4-5 of claim 19, the phrase “the water analysis assembly being arranged within the housing and comprising at least one of a heating assembly and a reactor assembly” is indefinite since in order for water to be analyzed, some type of reactor assembly would have to be present, but the phrase “at least one of a heating assembly and a reactor assembly” leaves open the possibility that only a heating assembly is present in the water analysis assembly, which amounts to simply a heater rather than any sort of analysis device.
On line 2 of claim 26, the phrase “the guiding system” lacks antecedent basis since “a guide system” has been previously recited in claim 26. Claim 26 is indefinite since it is not clear where the “guide system is provided”. Is the guide system provided on the mounting assembly? On lines 3-4 of claim 26, the phrase “a guide slot or rail along which one of the water analysis assembly and the mounting assembly is guided slideably” is indefinite since according to the specification, only the water analysis assembly moves along the guide slot or rail relative to the mounting assembly, and the guide rail or slot is attached to the mounting assembly. The mounting assembly does not move along the guide slot or rail.
On line 2 of claim 27, the phrase “extends to a top section of the water analysis assembly” should be changed to –extends to the top section of the water analysis assembly—since the top section of the water analysis section is positively recited in independent claim 19.
On line 2 of claim 31, the phrase “the reactor tube” lacks antecedent basis since claim 31 depends from claim 29, and claim 29 does not positively recite a reactor tube. In order for this phrase to have proper antecedent basis, claim 31 should depend from claim 30.
At the end of claim 33, the reference numeral in parentheses “(80)” should be deleted.
On line 4 of claim 35, the “stored, predetermined schedule” is indefinite since it is not clear where this predetermined schedule is stored.
On lines 5-6 of claim 36, the phrase “a water analysis assembly of the industrial water analysis” should be changed to -- a water analysis assembly of the industrial water analysis device—so as to recite the same terminology as used in the preamble of claim 36. On lines 6-7 of claim 36, the phrase “the water analysis assembly comprising at least one of a heating assembly and a reactor assembly)” is indefinite since in order for water to be analyzed, some type of reactor assembly would have to be present, but the phrase “at least one of a heating assembly and a reactor assembly” leaves open the possibility that only a heating assembly is present in the water analysis assembly, which amounts to simply a heater rather than any sort of analysis device. In addition, the “)” symbol at the end of this phrase should be deleted.
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) 19-21, 27-28, 32, 34 and 36 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Arts et al ((US 2017/0343523, submitted in the IDS filed on February 27, 2023).
With regards to claim 19, Arts et al teach of an industrial water analysis device (see the title of Arts et al) comprising a housing 1’ having an access opening 1B’ formed by a door 3 on a front side of the housing 1’ (see Figure 2 and paragraph 0020 in Arts et al), a water analysis assembly EB arranged within the housing 1’, wherein the water analysis assembly comprises at least one of a reactor assembly and a heating assembly (see paragraph 0018 in Art et al where it states “The analysis device 1 comprises a thermal reaction vessel or a furnace EB”) and wherein the water analysis assembly further comprises a top section (i.e. see the location of the injector valve EB1 on the top of the reaction vessel/furnace EB) and a bottom section (i.e. the lower output side or the lower bottom plate of the reaction vessel/furnace EB), the top section being located above the bottom section in a vertical direction (see Figure 2 and paragraphs 0019 and 0023 in Arts et al), and a mounting assembly in the form of a carriage 5 attached to the interior of the housing 1’, wherein the water analysis assembly EB is attached to the mounting assembly 5 while being movable relative to the housing 1’ from an operating position inside the housing 1’ to a maintenance position outside the housing 1’, wherein in the maintenance position, at least parts of the water analysis assembly EB are moved out of the operating position in a direction pointing towards the access opening 3. See paragraph 0020 in Arts et al where it states “A carriage 5 having dimensions adapted to the opening 1B’, on which the furnace EB, the condensate vessel CM1, the quartz wool filter HQ3 and the acid trap HS1 are arranged, can be pulled out of the case to such an extent that said components are freely accessible (=maintenance position). In the retracted state of the carriage 5, the device housing 1’ is closed by the door 3 (=operating position).” It is noted that the carriage 5 comprises a drawer mounted onto a track, wherein it naturally follows that the track comprises a stationary part of the mounting assembly/carriage 5 which is mounted to the inside of the lower surface of the housing 1’, and the drawer holding the water analysis assembly EB comprises a movable part of the mounting assembly/carriage 5 which slides on the stationary track to enter and exit the access opening 1B’ of the housing 1’. See Figure 2, and paragraphs 0017-0023 in Arts et al.
With regards to claims 20-21, the water analysis system EB taught by Arts et al partly protrudes out of the housing 1’ when in the maintenance position, and additionally, the top section (i.e. where the valve EB1 is located) of the water analysis assembly EB protrudes out of the housing 1’ when in the maintenance position. See Figure 2 and paragraph 0020 in Arts et al.
With regards to claim 27, the reactor assembly EB of the water analysis assembly taught by Arts et al extends to the top section and is arranged accessible at the top section (i.e. where the valve EB1 is located) of the water analysis assembly. See Figure 2, and paragraphs 0018, 0020 and 0023 in Arts et al.
With regards to claim 28, the mounting assembly/carriage 5 taught by Arts et al comprises a frame in the form of a drawer into which the water analysis assembly EB is inserted. See Figure 2 in Arts et al.
With regards to claim 32, Arts et al teach that the reactor assembly EB comprises a reactor cover in the form of an injector valve EB1 that can be closed so as to form a cover, wherein the reactor cover EB1 is provided with at least one inflow fluid connector that is configured to be connected to a water supply since the injection valve EB1 is configured to be connected to a water supply via a syringe MM holding a volume of water, and when open, the valve EB1 connects the reactor assembly EB to the water supply in the syringe MM. The reactor assembly EB is also in sealing engagement with and is suspended from the reactor cover EB1. See Figure 2 in Arts et al.
With regards to claim 34, Arts et al teach that the water analysis assembly EB is connected to at least one of a water source and a fluid drain in the operating position, in the maintenance position and during movement between the operating position and the maintenance position since Arts et al teach that the water analysis assembly EB is connected to a condensate vessel CM1 at all times comprising in the operating position, in the maintenance position and during movement between the operating position and the maintenance position, and the condensate vessel CM1 serves as a fluid drain of the furnace EB.
With regards to claim 36, Arts et al teach of a mounting assembly comprising a carriage 5 configured to be mounted in an industrial water analysis device 1. The mounting assembly 5 comprises a stationary part in the form of a track configured to be attached to a lower interior surface of the housing 1’, a movable part comprising a drawer configured to support a water analysis assembly EB, wherein the water analysis assembly EB comprises at least one of a reactor assembly and a heating assembly (see paragraph 0018 in Art et al where it states “The analysis device 1 comprises a thermal reaction vessel or a furnace EB”), wherein the movable part is movable relative to the stationary part while the mounting assembly 5 is attached to both the water analysis assembly EB and the housing 1’. It is noted that the carriage 5 comprises a drawer mounted onto a track, wherein it naturally follows that the track comprises a stationary part of the mounting assembly/carriage 5 which is mounted to the inside of the lower surface of the housing 1’, and the drawer holding the water analysis assembly EB comprises a movable part of the mounting assembly/carriage 5 which slides on the stationary track to enter and exit the access opening 1B’ of the housing 1’. See Figure 2, and paragraphs 0017-0023 in Arts 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) 22-25, 29-31, 33 and 35 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arts et al (US 2017/0343523) in view of Kudo et al (JP 2014182081A, submitted in the IDS filed on February 27, 2023). For a teaching of Arts et al, see previous paragraphs in this Office action.
With regards to claims 22-25, Arts et al fail to teach that the mounting assembly can comprise a joint or hinge located closer to the bottom section and on a front side of the water analysis assembly EB, wherein the joint or hinge allows the mounting assembly to be rotated from the operating position to the maintenance position and vice-versa. With regards to claims 29-31, Arts et al fail to teach that the reactor assembly/furnace EB comprises a reactor tube held within the interior housing of the furnace EB, wherein the reactor tube protrudes through the maintenance opening at the top of the furnace EB where the valve EB1 is located and is configured to be removed from the interior housing through the maintenance opening, and that attachment means are located in the top section of the reactor assembly EB outside of the interior housing for holding the reactor tube to the interior housing.
Kudo et al (JP 2014182081A) teach of a high temperature analyzer for analyzing total nitrogen or total carbon in a sample comprising an electric furnace 71, a reactor assembly or reactor tube 11 configured to be inserted into the furnace 71, wherein the reactor tube 11 causes a sample to be analyzed to react with oxygen when heated in the furnace, and a mounting assembly comprising a movable base 73 on which the furnace 71 holding the reactor tube 11 is mounted. The movable base 73 of the mounting assembly is attached to a stationary pedestal 74 of the analyzer by a fixed joint or hinge 76 upon which the movable base 73 rotates so as to rotate both the electric furnace 71 holding the reactor tube 11 and the movable table 73 about an axis. The joint or hinge 76 allows the movable base 73 holding the furnace 71 to be moved from an operating position where the reactor tube 11 is held by an attachment means comprising the structure located on the right-hand side of the pedestal 74 to a maintenance position where the furnace 71 holding the reactor tube 11 is moved to a position where the reactor tube 11 can be easily taken out of the electric furnace 71. Kudo et al teach that this movement of the mounting assembly 73 from an operating position to a maintenance position allows the reaction tube 11 to be easily replaced. After the reactor tube 11 is replaced in the maintenance position, the mounting assembly 73 can be moved back into the operating position by rotating the mounting assembly 73 about the joint or hinge 76 until the new reactor tube 11 is fixed into the attachment means on the pedestal 74. Kudo et al teach that the electric furnace holding the reactor tube 11 can be covered with a casing. Kudo et al also teach that the reactor tube 11 is received into an interior core tube of the furnace 71, wherein the interior core tube comprises a top maintenance opening (see the right-hand opening of the core tube of the furnace in Figures 2(a), 2(b) and 3-5 of Kudo et al), and the reactor tube 11 protrudes out of the interior core tube through the top maintenance opening. The analyzer taught by Kudo et al also comprises attachment means comprising the structure located on the right-hand side of the pedestal 74 located outside of the interior tube of the furnace 71, wherein the reactor tube 11 is held to the interior core tube of the furnace 71 by the attachment means when in the operating position. The reactor tube 11 is configured to be removed from the interior core tube of the furnace 71 through the top maintenance opening of the furnace when the movable base 73 rotates so as to rotate the electric furnace 71 holding the reactor tube 11 about an axis to the maintenance position. See Figures 2(a), 2(b) and 3-5, the abstract, and the specification of the English-language translation of Kudo et al, provided with this Office action.
With regards to claims 22-25, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to replace the mounting assembly 5 in the water analysis system taught by Arts et al with the mounting assembly taught by Kudo et al comprising a joint or hinge that allows the mounting assembly to be rotated from an operating position to a maintenance position and vice-versa, wherein the joint or hinge is located closer to the bottom section and on a front side of the water analysis assembly EB taught by Arts et al, because Kudo et al teach this this type of rotatable mounting system for a reactor assembly comprising a furnace provided by a joint or hinge is advantageous for allowing maintenance of an analysis device since it allows for the easy replacement of reactor tubes therein by a simple rotational movement of the reactor assembly without having to shut down or completely dissemble the reactor assembly.
With regards to claims 29-31, 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/furnace EB taught by Arts et al with a reactor tube held within the interior housing of the furnace EB, wherein the reactor tube protrudes through the maintenance opening at the top of the furnace EB where the valve EB1 is located and is configured to be removed from the interior housing through the maintenance opening, and with attachment means located in the top section of the reactor assembly EB outside of the interior housing for holding the reactor tube to the interior housing because Kudo et al teach that it is advantageous to provide an electric furnace used to analyze gases such as oxygen, nitrogen and carbon in samples with a reactor tube located in an interior housing of the furnace and attached to the interior housing by attachment means located outside of the interior housing, wherein the reactor tube can be removed from the interior housing of the furnace through a top opening, because this allows for the continuous use of the furnace by having reactions occur in a reactor tube and the easy replacement of the reactor tubes when required.
With regards to claim 33, although Arts et al fail to teach that the mounting assembly comprises a releasable lock that is lockable at least in the maintenance position, 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 mounting assembly taught by Arts et al with such a releasable lock because this would ensure that the mounting assembly remains stationary in the maintenance position where the reactor assembly EB protrudes outside of the housing 1’ so that a user can properly provide maintenance to the reactor assembly by removing and/or servicing components therein.
With regards to claim 35, Arts et al teach that the water analysis system is configured to be connected to a water source through the syringe MM holding a water sample, but fails to teach that the water analysis system comprises a controller that is configured to automatically draw samples from the water source on a stored, programmable schedule. 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 such a controller in the water analysis system taught by Arts et al because Arts et al teach that the system comprises a means for automatically operating an ejection system of water samples from the syringe MM for ejecting predetermined amounts of water in a predetermined injection time period to the electric furnace (i.e. a stored, programmable schedule) (see paragraphs 0005 and 0025-0026 in Arts et al), and a controller would facilitate this automatic operation.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 26 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 references to Arts et al (Us 2017/0343523) and Kudo et al (JP 2014182081) fail to teach or fairly suggest an industrial water analysis device comprising a housing having an access opening, a water analysis assembly arranged within the housing, and a mounting assembly attached to the housing, wherein the water analysis assembly is attached to the mounting assembly while being movable relative to the housing from an operating position to a maintenance position, wherein in the maintenance position, parts of the water analysis system are moved out of the operating position in a direction pointing towards the access opening, and wherein the mounting assembly of the water analysis system further comprises a combination of a joint for moving the water analysis assembly from the operating position to the maintenance position and a guide rail or slot along which the water analysis assembly is guided slideably relative to the mounting assembly.
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 2019/0277737) who teach of a measurement arrangement and method for determining substances or quality parameters of water; and Rothe et al (US 2024/0027410) who teach of a reactor assembly for 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 MAUREEN M WALLENHORST whose telephone number is (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, Lyle Alexander, can be reached at telephone number 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 October 30, 2025