, 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. Election/Restrictions Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 6-14 in the reply filed on March 13, 2026 is acknowledged. Claim Objections Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities: at line 1, “TOC” should be written out in its entirety prior to using an abbreviation. 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 6-14 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. Claim 6 recites the limitation "the basis of the carbon dioxide gas" in line 10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For claim 7, the shut-off device being “configured as a valve” is unclear as the Examiner is unable to determine if the structure is a valve or not. The phrase “configured as a valve” can be read as the shut-off device being a valve; however, the phrase can also be reasonably interpreted as a structure that is not a valve, but functions as a valve. As such, the claim is indefinite as there are at least two reasonable interpretations of the claim as currently presented. Claim 10 recites the limitations "the condensate" and “the condensation unit” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The Examiner notes that claim 10 depends from claim 9 which depends from claim 6. Claims 6 and 9 do not provide an antecedent basis for “the condensate” or “the condensation unit” thus the claim 10 lacks antecedent basis for the phrases in question. The Examiner also notes that the condensation unit is introduced in claim 8, and contends that claim 10 should depend from claim 8. For claim 13, the phrases “ambient air” and “gas mixture” are redundant as ambient air is inherently a gas mixture. Additionally, the phrase “in particular” is indefinite as the Examiner is unable to determine if the carrier gas is limited to a mixture of nitrogen and oxygen , or any other gas mixture recited in the claim. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 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) 6 , 7, 9-11, and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Inoue et al., (US 2014/0004003). For claim 6, Inoue et al., teach a total organic carbon detection device comprising an inlet for a carrier gas (paragraph 0030), a valve (shut-off device, paragraph 0032, figure 1 #18), a sample injection unit (injection unit, paragraph 0032), and a system controller (data processing unit, paragraph 0038) configured to control carrier gas supply, injection unit, and determine total organic carbon in the sample (paragraph 0032). The Examiner notes that the high temperature furnace and analysis unit are not positively recited in the claim; however, reference to Inoue et al., teach a high temperature furnace (paragraph 0028) and an NDIR sensor (paragraph 0029), both of which meet the limitations of the claimed high temperature furnace and analysis unit. For claim 7, Inoue et al., teach a flow rate control valve (shut-off device, paragraph 0032). For claim 9, Inoue et al., teach a humidifier (paragraph 0032). For claim 10, Inoue et al., teach a syringe pump (paragraph 0013). For claim 11, Inoue et al., teach a cooling tube (paragraphs 0029, 0046). For claim 14, Inoue et al., teach a membrane filter between the furnace and the NDIR sensor (paragraphs 0005, 0029). 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 . 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(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Inoue et al., (US 2014/0004003) in view of Simon et al., (US 2019/0072534). Regarding claim 8, Inoue et al., do not teach a condensation unit. Simon et al., teach a total organic carbon analyzer wherein the analyzer comprises a condensation chamber (abstract, paragraph 0044). Simon et al., teach that it is advantageous to provide a condensation chamber as a means of trapping a vaporized sample within a reactor thereby preventing multi-modal dispersion throughout the system (paragraph 0044). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Inoue et al., to include a condensation chamber in order to trap a vaporized sample and prevent multi-modal dispersion of the sample throughout the system as taught by Simon et al. Claim(s) 12 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Inoue et al., (US 20140004003) in view of Naatz et al., (US 2002/0068017). Regarding claim 12, Inoue et al., do not teach a processing unit. Naatz et al., teach a total organic carbon instrument comprising a column filled with soda lime (processing unit, paragraph 0032). Naatz et al., teach that it is advantageous to provide a column filled with soda lime as a means of removing carbon dioxide from ambient air (paragraph 0032). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Inoue et al., to include a column filled with soda lime in order to remove carbon dioxide from the ambient air as taught by Naatz et al. Regarding claim 13, Inoue et al., do not teach the carrier gas being ambient air, or a mixture of nitrogen and oxygen. Naatz et al., teach a total organic carbon instrument where the carrier gas can be ambient air or a mixture of nitrogen and oxygen (paragraph 0032). Naatz et al., teach that it is advantageous to utilize ambient air, or a mixture of nitrogen and oxygen as a carrier gas as a means of completely oxidizing the full amount of organic molecules in a samp l e to carbon dioxide (paragraph 0032). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Inoue et al., wherein ambient air, or a mixture of nitrogen and oxygen are utilized as a carrier gas in order to oxidize the full amount of organic molecules in a sample to carbon dioxide as taught by Naatz et al. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT DWAN A GERIDO whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)270-3714 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Mon-Fri 10-6 . 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Lyle Alexander can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* 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 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. /DWAN A GERIDO/ Examiner, Art Unit 1797 /LYLE ALEXANDER/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1797