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.
Claim 8 is 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 8, it is unclear if the claimed “active species” are the same as the reactive species mentioned in claim 1, and where the ‘active species” are coming from, are these species from the flame or plasma produced or emitted from the gas extraction probe. Furthermore, it is unclear whether it is the whole probe itself or just a component of the probe that serves to eliminate interfering background chemiluminescence and it is interpreted that any portion/component of the probe serves to eliminate background chemiluminescence and facilitating survival of an SiO.
Furthermore, it is unclear whether the active species recited in line 1, is the same as “an active species (SiO)”, and it is interpreted that SiO is the active species, produced from a plasma or flame produced/emitted from the probe.
Furthermore, Claim 8 recites the limitation "the active species" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation 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 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Godec et al (US Patent 5330714).
Regarding Claim 1, Godec et al teaches an improved method for sulfur chemiluminescence detection (see abstract) comprising a multicomponent combustion gas extraction probe (referred to as detector apparatus, which contains a sampling probe 28, and a flame jet 24 comprising an inner tube 27 and an outer chamber 25)
for collection and transfer of reactive species for their detection (see Figure 2 and Col. 5, line 58 – Col. 6, line 30 and Col. 6, line 57 – Col. 7, line 2), whereby both an inner component of the probe (such as inner tube 27) consists of an inert refractory and an outer component (such as outer chamber 25) are constructed of a refractory material (such as quartz) (see Col. 4, lines 37-44).
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) 1-4, 6, 7, 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ray et al (WO 9420835) in view of Egberts (US PGPub 2008/0210884).
Regarding Claim 1, Ray et al teaches an improved method for sulfur chemiluminescence detection (see abstract) comprising a multicomponent combustion gas extraction probe (referred to as a sample inlet system 2, wherein inlet system 2 is a high temperature pyrolysis injector for the pyrolysis of solid samples and injection of the volatilized components into the analyzer) for collection and transfer of reactive species for their detection (see page 11, line 5 – page 12, line 24). In addition, Ray et al teaches that sample inlet system 2 is a heated ceramic or quartz combustion assembly (see page 8, lines 2-30). Furthermore, Ray et al teaches that the combustion tube 7 is a ceramic or quartz tube having an outside diameter of approximately 0.25" and an inside diameter of 0.125" (see page 15, lines 17-25).
Ray et al does not explicitly disclose that the probe comprises an inner component of the probe, which consists of an inert refractory and an outer component which is a refractory material.
However, in the analogous art of irradiation of absorbing fluids, Egberts teaches al teaches a device for flow-through UV irradiation of absorbing liquid having at least two UV radiator assemblies with a cylindrical UV radiation source, arranged around three concentric jacket tubes (including inner and outer jackets), with a coolant for carrying away the heat of the UV radiation source flowing between an inner and a middle jacket tube, where the liquid to be irradiated flows round, and the liquid to be irradiated only comes into contact with the outer of the three jacket tubes (see claim 1). Furthermore, Egberts teaches that outer jacket tube 1, middle jacket tube 2 and inner jacket tube 3, are preferably made of UV-permeable quartz glass, are arranged concentrically to the UV radiation source 4 and are sealed with lateral holders 8, 9 having O-ring seals 7, plus an end cover 10. In addition, connectors 11 are provided for circulation of the coolant in the hollow space between the inner jacket tube 3 and the middle jacket tube 2 (see [0060]). In addition, Egberts teaches that a total of three quartz tubes 1, 2, 3 are provided for each radiator assembly, namely the inner jacket tube 3, the middle jacket tube 2, and the outer jacket tube 1 round which the liquid that is to be irradiated flows. This offers the possibility of circulating fully desalinated water or some other sufficiently UV-permeable liquid or gaseous coolant through the hollow space between inner jacket tube 3 and middle jacket tube 2 (see [0067]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to replace the quartz tube of Ray et al with the jacketed quartz tube of Egberts (which has an inner and outer components (jackets) made of quartz (a refractory material) for the benefit of providing for the possibility of circulating fully desalinated water or some other sufficiently UV-permeable liquid or gaseous coolant through the hollow space between inner jacket tube 3 and middle jacket tube 2, while providing a very uniform temperature for the probe and ensuring that a liquid to be irradiated only comes into contact with the outer component of the quartz probe.
Regarding Claim 2, Ray et al teaches an apparatus for sulfur chemiluminescence detection (see abstract) comprising: a. a dual combustion zone burner (referred to as dual burner assembly 4,14 illustrated in Figure 2); b. a chemiluminescence reaction cell (referred to as chemiluminescent reaction chamber 23) (see Figure 1 and page 14, line 11 – page 15, line 11); and c. a vacuum pump (13) (see page 14, lines 4-10 and page 15, line 1-11). In addition, Ray et al teaches a multicomponent combustion gas extraction probe (referred to as a sample inlet system 2, wherein inlet system 2 is a high temperature pyrolysis injector for the pyrolysis of solid samples and injection of the volatilized components into the analyzer) for collection and transfer of reactive species for their detection (see page 11, line 5 – page 12, line 24). In addition, Ray et al teaches that sample inlet system 2 is a heated ceramic or quartz combustion assembly (see page 8, lines 2-30). Furthermore, Ray et al teaches that the combustion tube 7 is a ceramic or quartz tube having an outside diameter of approximately 0.25" and an inside diameter of 0.125" (see page 15, lines 17-25).
Ray et al does not explicitly disclose that the probe comprises an inner component of the probe, which consists of an inert refractory and an outer component which is a refractory material.
However, in the analogous art of irradiation of absorbing fluids, Egberts teaches al teaches a device for flow-through UV irradiation of absorbing liquid having at least two UV radiator assemblies with a cylindrical UV radiation source, arranged around three concentric jacket tubes (including inner and outer jackets), with a coolant for carrying away the heat of the UV radiation source flowing between an inner and a middle jacket tube, where the liquid to be irradiated flows round, and the liquid to be irradiated only comes into contact with the outer of the three jacket tubes (see claim 1). Furthermore, Egberts teaches that outer jacket tube 1, middle jacket tube 2 and inner jacket tube 3, are preferably made of UV-permeable quartz glass, are arranged concentrically to the UV radiation source 4 and are sealed with lateral holders 8, 9 having O-ring seals 7, plus an end cover 10. In addition, connectors 11 are provided for circulation of the coolant in the hollow space between the inner jacket tube 3 and the middle jacket tube 2 (see [0060]). In addition, Egberts teaches that a total of three quartz tubes 1, 2, 3 are provided for each radiator assembly, namely the inner jacket tube 3, the middle jacket tube 2, and the outer jacket tube 1 round which the liquid that is to be irradiated flows. This offers the possibility of circulating fully desalinated water or some other sufficiently UV-permeable liquid or gaseous coolant through the hollow space between inner jacket tube 3 and middle jacket tube 2 (see [0067]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to replace the quartz tube of Ray et al with the jacketed quartz tube of Egberts (which has an inner and outer components (jackets) made of quartz (a refractory material) for the benefit of providing for the possibility of circulating fully desalinated water or some other sufficiently UV-permeable liquid or gaseous coolant through the hollow space between inner jacket tube 3 and middle jacket tube 2, while providing a very uniform temperature for the probe and ensuring that a liquid to be irradiated only comes into contact with the outer component of the quartz probe.
Regarding Claim 3, Ray et al further comprises a. a dual combustion zone burner (referred to as dual burner assembly 4,14 illustrated in Figure 2); b. a chemiluminescence reaction cell (referred to as chemiluminescent reaction chamber 23) (see Figure 1 and page 14, line 11 – page 15, line 11); and c. a vacuum pump (13) (see page 14, lines 4-10 and page 15, line 1-11).
Regarding Claim 4, the combination of Ray et al and Egberts teaches that the inner component contains glass wool (see page 12, line 17 of Ray et al).
Regarding Claims 6-7, the combination of Ray et al and Egberts teaches a quartz probe and components to increase (i.e. amplify) sample signal and reduce background noise (see page 8, line 2 – page 9, line 19 of Ray et al), thus improving the analysis of sulfur compounds in a sample (see page 8, lines 2-30 of Ray et al).
Regarding Claim 7, the combination of Ray et al and Egberts teaches
Regarding Claim 9, the combination of Ray et al and Egberts teaches that operating conditions are adjusted to maintain a consistent low level of background noise commensurate with high detector sensitivity and stability (see page 5, lines 23-27and page 9, line 29 – page 10, line 11 of Ray et al).
Regarding Claim 10, the combination of Ray et al and Egberts teaches a silicone-based transfer line (referred to as transfer line 22) is used from the burner (specifically second burner assembly 14) to the chemiluminescence reaction cell (23) (see Figure 1 and page 14, lines 4-10 of Ray et al).
Claim(s) 1-4, 6, 7, 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ray et al (WO 94/20835) in view of Ariya (US PGPub 2011/0158872).
Regarding Claim 1, Ray et al teaches an improved method for sulfur chemiluminescence detection (see abstract) comprising a multicomponent combustion gas extraction probe (referred to as a sample inlet system 2, wherein inlet system 2 is a high temperature pyrolysis injector for the pyrolysis of solid samples and injection of the volatilized components into the analyzer) for collection and transfer of reactive species for their detection (see page 11, line 5 – page 12, line 24). In addition, Ray et al teaches that sample inlet system 2 is a heated ceramic or quartz combustion assembly (see page 8, lines 2-30). Furthermore, Ray et al teaches that the combustion tube 7 is a ceramic or quartz tube having an outside diameter of approximately 0.25" and an inside diameter of 0.125" (see page 15, lines 17-25).
Ray et al does not explicitly disclose that the probe comprises an inner component of the probe, which consists of an inert refractory and an outer component which is a refractory material.
However, in the analogous art of multi-component systems for adsorbing contaminants and/or pollutants from a contaminated hot fluid, Ariya teaches an amalgam trap (GA trap) (100) comprising are two concentric quartz tubes (LaSalle Scientific, LaSalle, QC, Canada) (104, 106), which are superposed, and a nichrome resistance heating wire (Omega Engineering, Inc., Laval, QC, Canada) (108) capable of heating the GA trap (100) and releasing the amalgamated Hg. The outer quartz tube (104) (10.0 mm od, 8.0 mm id) used to coil the nichrome wire (108) (Ni80-Cr20, 85 cm, 36 loops, 1.015 O ft.sub.--1) easily slid around the inner quartz tube (106) (7.0 mm od, 5.0 mm id) allowing one to quickly heat the GA trap (100) to cool (see [0103]). Furthermore, Ariya teaches that the inner quartz tube (106) includes an Au-quartz wool matrix (see [0104]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to replace the quartz tube of Ray et al with the GA trap (which has an inner and outer components (tubes) made of quartz (a refractory material) for the benefit of providing the possibility of allowing the probe to be quickly heated and vary the heating temperature as needed to allow users to heat the GA trap (100) up to 500-600.degree. C.
Regarding Claim 2, Ray et al teaches an apparatus for sulfur chemiluminescence detection (see abstract) comprising: a. a dual combustion zone burner (referred to as dual burner assembly 4,14 illustrated in Figure 2); b. a chemiluminescence reaction cell (referred to as chemiluminescent reaction chamber 23) (see Figure 1 and page 14, line 11 – page 15, line 11); and c. a vacuum pump (13) (see page 14, lines 4-10 and page 15, line 1-11). In addition, Ray et al teaches a multicomponent combustion gas extraction probe (referred to as a sample inlet system 2, wherein inlet system 2 is a high temperature pyrolysis injector for the pyrolysis of solid samples and injection of the volatilized components into the analyzer) for collection and transfer of reactive species for their detection (see page 11, line 5 – page 12, line 24). In addition, Ray et al teaches that sample inlet system 2 is a heated ceramic or quartz combustion assembly (see page 8, lines 2-30). Furthermore, Ray et al teaches that the combustion tube 7 is a ceramic or quartz tube having an outside diameter of approximately 0.25" and an inside diameter of 0.125" (see page 15, lines 17-25).
Ray et al does not explicitly disclose that the probe comprises an inner component of the probe, which consists of an inert refractory and an outer component which is a refractory material.
However, in the analogous art of multi-component systems for adsorbing contaminants and/or pollutants from a contaminated hot fluid, Ariya teaches an amalgam trap (GA trap) (100) comprising are two concentric quartz tubes (LaSalle Scientific, LaSalle, QC, Canada) (104, 106), which are superposed, and a nichrome resistance heating wire (Omega Engineering, Inc., Laval, QC, Canada) (108) capable of heating the GA trap (100) and releasing the amalgamated Hg. The outer quartz tube (104) (10.0 mm od, 8.0 mm id) used to coil the nichrome wire (108) (Ni80-Cr20, 85 cm, 36 loops, 1.015 O ft.sub.--1) easily slid around the inner quartz tube (106) (7.0 mm od, 5.0 mm id) allowing one to quickly heat the GA trap (100) to cool (see [0103]). Furthermore, Ariya teaches that the inner quartz tube (106) includes an Au-quartz wool matrix (see [0104]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to replace the quartz tube of Ray et al with the GA grap (which has an inner and outer components (tubes) made of quartz (a refractory material) for the benefit of providing the possibility of allowing the probe to be quickly heated and vary the heating temperature as needed to allow users to heat the GA trap (100) up to 500-600.degree. C.
Regarding Claim 3, Ray et al further comprises a. a dual combustion zone burner (referred to as dual burner assembly 4,14 illustrated in Figure 2); b. a chemiluminescence reaction cell (referred to as chemiluminescent reaction chamber 23) (see Figure 1 and page 14, line 11 – page 15, line 11); and c. a vacuum pump (13) (see page 14, lines 4-10 and page 15, line 1-11).
Regarding Claim 4, the combination of Ray et al and Ariya teaches that the inner component contains glass wool (see page 12, line 17 of Ray et al and [0104] of Ariya).
Regarding Claims 6-7, the combination of Ray et al and Ariya teaches a quartz probe and components to increase (i.e. amplify) sample signal and reduce background noise (see page 8, line 2 – page 9, line 19 of Ray et al), thus improving the analysis of sulfur compounds in a sample (see page 8, lines 2-30 of Ray et al).
Regarding Claim 9, the combination of Ray et al and Ariya teaches that operating conditions are adjusted to maintain a consistent low level of background noise commensurate with high detector sensitivity and stability (see page 5, lines 23-27and page 9, line 29 – page 10, line 11 of Ray et al).
Regarding Claim 10, the combination of Ray et al and Ariya teaches a silicone-based transfer line (referred to as transfer line 22) is used from the burner (specifically second burner assembly 14) to the chemiluminescence reaction cell (23) (see Figure 1 and page 14, lines 4-10 of Ray et al).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ray et al and Egberts (or Ariya) as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Brantley et al (US PGPub 2010/0047139).
Regarding Claim 5, the combination of Ray et al and Egberts (or Ariya) does not explicitly disclose that a change in inner dimensions of the probe induces turbulence.
However, in the analogous art of fuel cell systems, Brantley et al teaches that walls and/or corners internal to the reformer 15 are chamfered to improve gaseous flow. For example, inner wall 412 of reformer 400 includes rounded and chamfered edges 414. Chamfering the corners reduces edges that induce turbulence in the passing gases and other local vortices or flow disturbances that detract from catalyst interaction and fuel processor efficiency (see [0112]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to chamfer (which would change the inner dimensions) the walls of the probe for the benefit of inducing turbulence and providing improved fuel processor efficiency.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8 and 11-13 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.
Regarding Claim 8, none of the above cited prior art teaches or fairly suggests the active species from a flame or plasma utilizing a quartz probe and components to eliminate interfering background chemiluminescence by means of surfaces to allow some survival of an active species (SiO) to facilitate high transport efficiency of SO.
Furthermore, while allowable subject matter has been indicated (in claim 8), applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements (i.e. the 35 USC 112 rejection above) or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
Regarding Claim 11, none of the above cited prior art teaches or fairly suggests an ozone destruction catalyst assembly with lower pressure drop and improved means for trapping particulates is used between the chemiluminescence reaction cell and the vacuum pump.
Regarding Claim 12, none of the above cited prior art teaches or fairly suggests that the dual combustion zone burner is operated with two hydrogen-rich reducing-zones.
Regarding Claim 13, none of the above cited prior art teaches or fairly suggests that the burner gas flows to the dual combustion zone burner are cyclically pulsed or modulated.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JENNIFER WECKER whose telephone number is (571)270-1109. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30AM - 6 PM EST M-F.
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.
/JENNIFER WECKER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1797