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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-24 are pending for examination and are considered on the merits below.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-12, in the reply filed on November 5, 2025, is acknowledged.
Claims 13-24 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on November 5, 2025.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on March 29, 2023 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informality: the term “received” in line 4 appears to be a typographical error. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation is a mercury containment system in claim 11. The limitation “mercury containment system” does not connotate any particular structure and is synonymous with a means for mercury containment. The corresponding structure in the specification is (i) one or more packets of mercury absorbing material (e.g., zinc oxide powder) (see Applicant’s specification, ¶ [0030]), or (ii) an air permeable mercury phobic membrane (see Applicant’s specification, ¶ [0030]).
Because this claim limitation is being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it is being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this limitation interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 (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 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 1-2, 7-8, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seltzer (U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2003/0103206) in view of Raal (U.S. Pat. No. 5,147,612), and further in view of Huang et al. (U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2022/0003729; hereinafter “Huang”).
Regarding claim 1, Seltzer teaches a mercury vapor reference (see ¶ [0024]; Fig. 1) configured to deliver a reference mercury vapor for testing a mercury vapor analyzer, the mercury vapor reference (see ¶¶ [0010] and [0012]-[0013]; Fig. 1) comprising:
a mercury vapor source (source of mercury vapor 11; ¶ [0024]; Fig. 1) configured to produce mercury vapor (mercury vapor 120; ¶ [0024]; Fig. 1);
a dilution chamber (constant temperature chamber 10 which receives mercury vapor and air and is therefore interpreted as the dilution chamber; ¶ [0025]; Fig. 1) configured to selectively receive and dispense the mercury vapor from the mercury vapor source (see ¶¶ [0024]-[0026]; Fig. 1) and a dilution gas (air; ¶ [0025]; Fig. 1), wherein the mercury vapor from the mercury vapor source is diluted with the dilution gas in the dilution chamber to produce a diluted mercury vapor (mercury vapor/carrier air stream 122; ¶¶ [0025]-[0026]; Fig. 1) prior to dispensing (see ¶¶ [0025]-[0026]; Fig. 1);
a mixing chamber (aerosol mixing device 14; ¶ [0026]; Fig. 1) having an airflow path (wherein aerosol mixing device 14 has an airway path between inputs 18 and 19 and the output in which total flow 124 exits aerosol mixing device 14; ¶ [0026]; Fig. 1) and a mercury vapor inlet port configured to receive the diluted mercury vapor from the dilution chamber and introduce the received diluted mercury vapor to the mixing chamber (input 19 for receiving and introducing the mercury vapor/carrier air to aerosol mixing device 14; ¶ [0026]; Fig. 1); and
a controller coupled to the dilution chamber (a mass flow controller or other means for controlling air flow; ¶ [0013]), the controller configured to control the dilution chamber to receive the dilution gas (a mass flow controller or other means for controlling air flow; ¶ [0013]), wherein the reference mercury vapor is produced in the airflow path when the diluted mercury vapor is introduced to the airflow path via the inlet port (wherein total flow 124, which is interpreted as the reference mercury vapor, is produced in aerosol mixing device 14 when mercury vapor/carrier air stream 122 is introduced into aerosol mixing device 14; ¶ [0026]; Fig. 1).
However, Seltzer does not explicitly teach that (i) the dilution chamber is a variable volume dilution chamber, and (ii) the controller is configured to control the variable volume dilution chamber to receive and dispense the mercury vapor and dispense the dilution gas to produce the diluted mercury vapor. Raal, in the analogous art of apparatus for preparation of calibration gas mixtures, teaches a variable volume dilution chamber (see abstract, col. 2, ll. 36-50; Fig. 1). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the dilution chamber of Seltzer with a variable volume dilution chamber as taught by Raal for the benefit of transferring precise volumes of gas (Raal, abstract and col. 2, ll. 46-49).
Seltzer in view of Raal does not explicitly teach that the controller is configured to control the variable volume dilution chamber to receive and dispense the mercury vapor and dispense the dilution gas to produce the diluted mercury vapor. Huang, in the analogous art of systems for calibrating a gas detector, teaches a controller (valve and pump controller 210; ¶ [0052]; Fig. 2) configured to switch states of valves between an open state and a closed state to control flow of the ambient air and the calibration gas in a gas detector calibration system (see ¶¶ [0052] and [0064]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the mercury vapor reference of Seltzer in view of Raal to incorporate the controller as taught by Huang, thereby controlling the variable volume dilution chamber of Seltzer in view of Raal to receive and dispense the mercury vapor and dispense the dilution gas to produce the diluted mercury vapor, for the benefit of automating flow operations (Huang, ¶ [0052]).
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Seltzer, Raal, and Huang teaches the mercury vapor reference of claim 1 as discussed above. Seltzer in view of Raal and Huang further teaches wherein the variable volume dilution chamber (wherein Seltzer as modified by Raal in claim 1 above teaches the variable volume dilution chamber) comprises a syringe having a barrel (Raal’s cylinder 1 has an outer wall which is interpreted as a barrel; Raal, col. 3, ll. 53-55; Raal, Fig. 1) and a piston inserted within the barrel (Raal’s piston 7 within cylinder 1; Raal, col. 3, ll. 53-55; Raal, Fig. 1); and a stepper motor configured to received signals from a controller and to move the piston within the barrel to vary the volume of the variable volume dilution chamber responsive to the signals (wherein Raal’s stepper motor is driven electronically and therefore interpreted as being configured to receive signals from a controller; Raal, abstract, col. 7, ll. 34-41).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Seltzer, Raal, and Huang teaches the mercury vapor reference of claim 1 as discussed above. Huang further teaches wherein the controller comprises a data connection configured for communication with the vapor analyzer (wherein control unit 104 is configured to receive signals from the temperature sensor 134 regarding the second temperature and any other temperature between the first temperature and the second temperature of the gas detector 102; ¶ [0043]) and wherein the controller is configured to control the vapor analyzer during a testing phase (see ¶¶ [0059], [0064], and [0066]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the controller of Seltzer, Raal, and Huang to incorporate a data connection with a vapor analyzer (e.g., a mercury vapor reference) as taught by Huang for the benefit of making adjustments during calibration (Huang, ¶ [0066]).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Seltzer, Raal, and Huang teaches the mercury vapor reference of claim 1 as discussed above. Seltzer further teaches a valve (3-way solenoid valve 13; ¶ [0026]; Fig. 1) positioned between the variable volume dilution chamber, the mercury vapor source, and an air source (wherein solenoid valve 13 is positioned between constant temperature chamber 10, source of mercury vapor 11, and source of diluent air 125; ¶ [0026]; Fig. 1); wherein airflow to the mercury vapor inlet port of the mixing chamber is one way (see ¶¶ [0012] and [0026]).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Seltzer, Raal, and Huang teaches the mercury vapor reference of claim 1 as discussed above. Seltzer further teaches a heat exchanger configured to control a temperature of the mercury vapor source (see ¶¶ [0024]-[0025]).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seltzer in view of Raal and Huang as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Heitz et al. (U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2013/0186475; hereinafter “Heitz”).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Seltzer, Raal, and Huang teaches the mercury vapor reference of claim 2 as discussed above. Seltzer in view of Raal and Huang further teaches wherein the syringe has an opening (Raal’s connection tubes 45 and 46; Raal, col. 4, l. 24; Raal, Fig. 1) and wherein the variable volume dilution chamber further comprises: a solenoid (Seltzer’s 3-way solenoid valve 13; Seltzer, ¶ [0026]; Seltzer, Fig. 1), the solenoid having a common port (wherein Seltzer’s 3-way solenoid valve 13 receives mercury vapor/carrier air stream 122 through an input, i.e., common port; Seltzer, ¶ [0026]; Seltzer, Fig. 1) coupled to the opening of the syringe (wherein Seltzer’s 3-way solenoid valve 13 would be coupled to the opening of the syringe of Seltzer as modified by Raal in claim 1 above; Seltzer, ¶ [0026]; Seltzer, Fig. 1), a port coupled to the mercury vapor inlet port of the mixing chamber (wherein Seltzer’s 3-way solenoid valve comprises an output, i.e., a port, coupled to an input, i.e., an inlet port, of aerosol mixing device 14; Seltzer, ¶ [0026]; Seltzer, Fig. 1), and a third port (wherein Seltzer’s 3-way solenoid valve comprises an output, i.e., a third port, toward trap 16; Seltzer, ¶ [0026]; Seltzer, Fig. 1).
Seltzer does not explicitly teach that the solenoid is coupled to a controller. Huang, in the analogous art of systems for calibrating a gas detector, teaches a controller (valve and pump controller 210; ¶ [0052]; Fig. 2) configured to switch states of valves between an open state and a closed state to control flow of the ambient air and the calibration gas in a gas detector calibration system (see ¶¶ [0052] and [0064]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the solenoid of Seltzer to couple to a controller as taught by Huang for the benefit of automating flow operations (Huang, ¶ [0052]).
Seltzer in view of Raal and Huang does not explicitly teach wherein the port coupled to the mercury vapor inlet port of the mixing chamber is a normally open port, and wherein the third port is a normally closed port coupled to the mercury vapor source. Heitz, in the analogous art of systems for supplying gas to calibrate a chemical analyzer, teaches a solenoid valve comprising a normally closed calibration gas inlet and a normally opened outlet to an analyzer (see ¶¶ [0034] and [0051]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the port of Seltzer in view of Raal and Huang coupled to the mixing chamber to be a normally open port as taught by Heitz, and to modify the third port of Seltzer in view of Raal and Huang to be a normally closed port coupled to a calibration gas (e.g., a mercury vapor source) as taught by Heitz, for the benefit of selectively modifying the flow path of the calibration process based on user defined conditions (Heitz, ¶ [0051]).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seltzer in view of Raal and Huang as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Schaedlich et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 6,475,802; hereinafter “Schaedlich”).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Seltzer, Raal, and Huang teaches the mercury vapor reference of claim 1 as discussed above. Seltzer in view of Raal and Huang further teaches wherein the controller (the controller of Seltzer in view of Raal and Huang as modified in claim 1 above) is configured to: prime the mercury vapor reference by drawing a concentrated mercury vapor from the mercury vapor source into the variable volume dilution chamber and dispensing the concentrated mercury vapor from the variable volume dilution chamber into the mixing chamber (Seltzer, ¶ [0013]).
However, Seltzer in view of Raal and Huang does not explicitly teach wherein the controller is configured to purge residual mercury vapor from the mercury vapor reference by drawing air from the mixing chamber into the variable volume dilution chamber. Schaedlich, in the analogous art of detection of mercury in gases, teaches purging residual mercury and air from zero air components (see col. 10, ll. 31-39). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the controller of Seltzer in view of Raal and Huang to purge residual mercury vapor as taught by Schaedlich, whereby air from the mixing chamber is drawn into the variable volume dilution chamber for the purge, for the benefit of keeping components free of mercury (Schaedlich, col. 10, ll. 31-39).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seltzer in view of Raal and Huang as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Chancey (U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2016/0077071).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Seltzer, Raal, and Huang teaches the mercury vapor reference of claim 1 as discussed above. Huang further teaches a temperature sensor configured to sense temperature in an airflow path (see ¶¶ [0026] and [0031]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the mercury vapor reference of Seltzer in view of Raal and Huang to further incorporate a temperature sensor as taught by Huang for the benefit of detecting variations in temperature that can cause improper calibration and lead to erroneous operation of the gas detectors during deployment (Huang, ¶ [0024]).
However, Seltzer in view of Raal and Huang does not explicitly teach wherein the controller determines density of air in the airflow path responsive to the sensed temperature to produce the reference mercury vapor. Chancey, in the analogous art of gas analyzers, teaches determining the density of air in an airflow path responsive to a sensed temperature (see ¶ [0032] and claim 2). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the controller of Seltzer in view of Raal and Huang to determine density of air as taught by Chancey for the benefit of making corrections in calibrating the analyzer (Chancey, ¶ [0032]).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seltzer in view of Raal and Huang as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Anderson et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 3,640,624; hereinafter “Anderson”).
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Seltzer, Raal, and Huang teaches mercury vapor reference of claim 1 as discussed above. However, Seltzer in view of Raal and Huang does not explicitly teach wherein the mercury vapor source has an inlet coupled to atmosphere and wherein the mercury vapor reference further comprises at least one of a filter coupled to the inlet of the mercury vapor source; or a desiccant coupled to the inlet of the mercury vapor source.
Anderson, in the analogous art of mercury vapor analyzers, teaches a mercury vapor source has an inlet coupled to atmosphere (see col. 2, ll. 1-2; Fig. 2) and wherein the mercury vapor reference further comprises a filter coupled to the inlet of the mercury vapor source (see col. 3, ll. 6-7; Fig. 2). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the mercury vapor source to incorporate an inlet having a filter as taught by Anderson for the benefit of providing an alternate source of carrier air.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-6 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. None of the prior art of record nor any other references found (alone or in combination) teaches or fairly suggests a mercury vapor reference comprising a mercury vapor inlet port located between an airflow input and an airflow output, and wherein a cylindrical airflow chamber has a greater cross-sectional area adjacent the mercury vapor input port than adjacent the airflow input and the airflow output as recited in claim 4.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Steven R. Castaneda whose telephone number is (571)272-0998. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday 10am - 6pm 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, Lyle Alexander can be reached at (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 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.
/STEVEN RAY CASTANEDA/Examiner, Art Unit 1797
/JENNIFER WECKER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1797