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 .
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 1-11 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 1, the limitation “the desorption chamber” in the last paragraph lacks sufficient antecedent basis. The Examiner will consider this limitation the same “central desorption chamber” cited in line 2 of the claim.
Regarding claim 2, the phrases “an ingress port”, “an egress port,” and “a toggleable door” are repeated from claim 1. It is ambiguous if these structures are the same and/or shared with the inlet airlock or different, specific to the outlet airlock. The Examiner recommends amending to “an outlet airlock ingress port,” and “an outlet airlock egress port,” and “an outlet toggleable door.”
Regarding claim 5, the limitation “heat exchange” in line 1 is unclear if this is meant to be a structural component or merely a process heat exchange step. The Examiner will assume this is meant to recite “heat exchanger” based on paragraph [0024] of the specification.
Regarding claim 6, it is unclear which ‘interior portion’ the radiative element is fixed to since its parent claim 1 recites an “interior portion” for the chamber and airlock. The Examiner will consider claim 6’s interior portion is referencing the desorption chamber.
Regarding claim 7, it is unclear which ‘interior portion’ comprises the resistive element since its parent claim 1 recites an “interior portion” for the chamber and airlock. The Examiner will consider claim 7’s interior portion is referencing the desorption chamber.
Regarding claim 8, the limitation “the gas desorption chamber” in lines 2 and 3 of the claim lacks sufficient antecedent basis. The Examiner will consider this limitation the same “central desorption chamber” cited in line 2 of the claim.
Regarding claims 9, 10 and 11, the limitation appears to have improper dependency. Claims 9, 10, and 11 are each dependent on claim 1, however claim 1 does not describe or mention the outlet airlock. Claim 2 does mention the outlet airlock and the Examiner will treat claim 9, 10 and 11 as dependent on claim 2.
Regarding claim 11, the phrase “gas adsorbent spheres” is unclear and unconventional in the art. The specification does not give guidance to its structural definition and it is unclear if the spheres are adsorbent particles, bubbles, or a different structure entirely. The Examiner will consider these as adsorbent particles.
Claims 3 and 4 are rejected under 112 by virtue of their dependency on claim 1.
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.
Claims 1, 3, 4, 6-8 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Christy US Patent 8,754,369 in view of Moller et al. EP 0381002 (see English translation provided).
Regarding claim 1, Christy teaches a system comprising:
a) A central desorption chamber (as thermal desorption chamber 30) comprising an interior portion for heating, where the heat is provided by heating element 26 (column 3 lines 45-46);
b) An inlet airlock as sample introduction chamber 14 which may be a load lock chamber maintaining a vacuum (column 4 lines 23-28); wherein the inlet airlock comprises:
i) An egress port as opening 42 that allows passage between the inlet airlock chamber 14 to the desorption chamber 30 (column 4 lines 56-59);
ii) An ingress port as opening 46 that allows passage between an exterior of the inlet airlock chamber into the interior portion of the airlock (in other words, an inlet to the sample introduction chamber)(column 4 lines 55-6);
iii) Toggleable doors (considered as valves 44 and 44) which are placed at each the egress port (valve 42) and the ingress port (valve 44) which seal the airlock chamber 14 when closed (column 4 lines 25-26 and lines 58-60, vacuum of the chamber 14 is maintained when the valves are closed)’
c) A pump system 1 coupled to the airlock chamber 14 through valve 44 and coupled to the desorption chamber 30 through valve 46 wherein the pump system is configured to maintain a pressure of the chamber 14 and desorption chamber 30; The pressures are maintained at vacuum at pressure of about 10-4 torr (column 3 line 16 and column 4 line 27) ; and
d) A channel disposed between the airlock chamber 14 and desorption chamber 30 through the line depicted through valve 42 in (Figure 1).
Christy does not explicitly teach an adsorbate chamber through which adsorbate desorbed during the gas desorption transfers from the desorption chamber to the adsorbate chamber. Christy does teach that adsorbate is routed to the mass spectrometer for measurement which may be implicitly considered as an adsorbate chamber since it is collecting the adsorbate.
Alternatively, Moller teaches a desorption system comprising desorption chamber 12 that sends adsorbate to an explicit collection chamber 17 which are stored for use or disposal (page 4 paragraphs 1 and 3).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to understand that Christy implicitly teaches and suggests a container for the adsorbate. Furthermore, it would have been obvious and considered conventional from the teaching of Moller to one having ordinary skill in the art to connect a storage chamber to gather the adsorbate collected from the desorption chamber for the purposes of further processing, use, or disposal.
Regarding claim 3, the pump comprises vacuum pumps for the inlet airlock chamber and the desorption chamber (column 3 line 16 and column 4 line 27).
Regarding claim 4, the vacuum pump system 1 is in line with the desorption chamber 30 through valve 46 (Figure 1). The modification of Christy and Moller would put the adsorbate chamber downstream of the desorption chamber which would also be in the same line as the vacuum pump 1 in Christy.
Regarding claim 5, Moller teaches heat exchanging by evaporator cooler 24 (Figure 1, page 4 2nd paragraph). It would thus be obvious to implement a heat exchanger in the channel in line with the pump in order to set the gas temperature to a desired range. Heat exchangers are known in the art to efficiently transfer heat while saving on capital costs and energy.
Regarding claim 6, Christy teaches heating elements 310 disposed in the interior of the desorption chamber. The heating is performed by heating lamps where the fluid within the chamber is heated, thus achieves heating by heating the fluid that passes through the heating elements (column 8 lines 30-33).
Regarding claim 7, Christy teaches heating elements 310 and further teaches resistive elements formed in the interior of the desorption chamber (column 3 lines 28-34).
Regarding claim 8, Christy teaches the heating elements may be external to the desorption chamber (heating element 26 in Figure 1 and column 3 line 45).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2, 9, and 10 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. Claim 2 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.
With regards to claim 2, the limitation describes an outlet airlock connected to the outlet end of the thermal adsorption chamber which also includes an inlet airlock connected to the thermal adsorption chamber. The prior art does not explicitly or implicitly disclose an outlet airlock coupled to the central desorption chamber, the outlet airlock comprising: an outlet airlock ingress port allowing passage from an interior portion of the outlet airlock from the interior portion of the central desorption chamber; an outlet airlock egress port allowing passage to an exterior portion of the outlet airlock from the interior portion of the outlet airlock; a vacuum line connected to the pump system; an outlet airlock toggleable door at each of the egress port and the ingress port of the outlet airlock sealing the interior portion of the outlet airlock when each said toggleable door is in a closed position; and, a purge gas vent coupled to a room temperature and pressure non-reactive gas source.
Repeating these elements of the outlet airlock fully described in claim 2 would not be an obvious repetition of parts because the airlock described in Christy and the prior art were deemed sufficient and there is no suggestion, explicitly or implicitly, to have an outlet airlock and an inlet airlock with the desorption chamber connected in between. There is no indication that multiple airlocks can be used while having this configuration of the desorption chamber in the middle and cannot be considered a mere design choice or an obvious benefit. There is further no indication or suggestion from the prior art that would direct one having ordinary skill in the art to merely attach the outlet airlock fully described in claim 2 without impermissible hindsight.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHARON PREGLER whose telephone number is (571)270-5051. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9am - 5pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, In Suk Bullock can be reached at (571) 272-5954. 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.
/SHARON PREGLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1772