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 Status
Claims 1-16 are pending and examined.
Examiner’s Note: as noted in the Claim Objections section in the instant Office Action, claim 9 is an improper multiple dependent claim, and therefore has not been further treated on the merits.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) received on 10/20/2023 and 7/16/2024 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 9 is objected to under 37 CFR 1.75(c) as being in improper form because a multiple dependent claim should refer to other claims in the alternative only. See MPEP § 608.01(n). Accordingly, the claim has not been further treated on the merits.
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 1-8 and 10-16 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 claim recites the term “ring line”, which not a term that is known in the art. Therefore, it is unclear what structure must be present in a line to be considered a “ring line”. Further clarification is needed. For purposes of compact prosecution, the term “ring line” has been examined as any line having an inlet and a plurality of outlets.
Claims 2-8 and 10-16 are rejected at least for depending on a rejected claim.
Regarding claim 6, the claim recites that the check valves are electronically or pneumatically controlled. However, it is unclear from this limitation whether a controller for electronically or pneumatically controlled is required in order to satisfy the claim. Further clarification is needed.
Claim 7 is rejected at least for depending on a rejected claim.
Regarding claim 11, the claim recites that step c) is only performed “if necessary”. However, it is unclear under what circumstances step c) would be considered necessary. Who/what determines that step c) is necessary? Does an operator determine that step c) is necessary. Does the detection of some substance reaching a certain threshold in a selected one of the filter units trigger step c) being deemed necessary? Or something else? Further clarification is needed.
Claims 12-13 and 16 are rejected at least for depending on a rejected claim.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Culp et al (US Pub. No. 2009/0192340; hereinafter Culp).
Regarding claim 1, Culp discloses a valve device for an elemental analyzer ([0033]-[0036], see Fig. 2 at system 100 comprising feed for infrared analyzer 108, where the system comprises valves in lines 116, 118, 120, 122, 126, 128, 130, 132). The valve device comprises first and second ring lines, the first and second ring lines each having an inlet and a plurality of outlets, each outlet being provided with a check valve, and the check valves being openable independently of each other ([0033]-[0036], see Fig. 2 at system 100 comprising feed for infrared analyzer 108, where the system comprises valves in lines 116, 118, 120, 122, 126, 128, 130, 132. Further, the feed to reactor 102 comprises a single inlet 110 and multiple outlets 116, 118, 120, 122, and the feed to reactor 106 comprises a single inlet 114 and multiple outlets 126, 128, 130, 132. Each outlet has a valve, and as the flow is in one direction, the valves are check valves. Further, the valves are independently openable).
Note: The instant Claims contain a large amount of functional language (ex: “openable independently of each other…”, “for heating the adsorbent material …”, “for cooling the adsorbent material…”, etc.). However, functional language does not add any further structure to an apparatus beyond a capability. Apparatus claims must distinguish over the prior art in terms of structure rather than function (see MPEP 2114). Therefore, if the prior art structure is capable of performing the function, then the prior art meets the limitation in the claims.
Regarding claim 2, Culp discloses the valve device according to claim 1, wherein the outlets of the two ring lines are each connected to one another in pairs by a respective connecting line, a further outlet being arranged in each connecting line (see Fig. 2 at connecting lines 124, 134).
Regarding claim 3, Culp discloses the valve device according to claim 1, wherein the two ring lines as well as the inlets and outlets respectively connected to the ring lines form a structural unit (see Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 14, Culp discloses the valve device according to claim 1, wherein the valve device is designed for a gas or a gaseous mixture ([0012]).
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Schmutz et al. (US Pub. No. 2007/0051413; hereinafter Schmutz).
Regarding claim 1, Schmutz discloses a valve device for an elemental analyzer ([0024]-[0038], see Fig. 3 at fluid system 4 comprising valve devices 52). The valve device comprises first and second ring lines, the first and second ring lines each having an inlet and a plurality of outlets, each outlet being provided with a check valve, and the check valves being openable independently of each other ([0024]-[0038], especially at [0038], which states that additional valve devices 52 can be connected to ring lines 62, 70, 74, see Fig. 3 at ring lines 62 and 74, which each have an inlet at connection to liquid sources 48, 66, respectively, and an outlet at branch lines 60, 72, respectively, where branch line 60 has a valve 56, and branch line 72 has a valve 58. When additional valve devices 52 are connected to the ring line, each ring line will have multiple outlets, each with a valve. Further, the valves are check valves, as they provide flow from the direction of liquid sources 48, 66 to valve devices 52, and the valves are independently openable).
Note: The instant Claims contain a large amount of functional language (ex: “openable independently of each other…”, “for heating the adsorbent material …”, “for cooling the adsorbent material…”, etc.). However, functional language does not add any further structure to an apparatus beyond a capability. Apparatus claims must distinguish over the prior art in terms of structure rather than function (see MPEP 2114). Therefore, if the prior art structure is capable of performing the function, then the prior art meets the limitation in the claims.
Further Note: Regarding the valve device being for an elemental analyzer, see MPEP 2111.02, which states that, “if the body of a claim fully and intrinsically sets forth all the limitations of the claimed invention, and the preamble merely states, for example, the purpose or intended use of the invention, rather than any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations, then the preamble is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction.”
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.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Culp, as applied to claims 1-3 and 14 above, in view of Deves et al. (US Pat. No. 6,558,625; hereinafter Deves; already of record on the IDS received 10/20/2023).
Regarding claim 4, Culp discloses the valve device according to claim 3.
Culp fails to explicitly disclose that the two ring lines are formed in the form of bores in a cuboid block.
Deves is in the analogous field of distribution devices for a gaseous analyzer (Deves; Col. 1 Lns. 7-26, Col. 3 Lns. 17-25). Deves teaches lines that are formed in the form of bores in a cuboid block (Deves; Col. 6 Ln. 13-Col. 7 Ln. 13, see Figs. 4A-4D). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the valve device of Culp with the teaching of Deves so that the two ring lines are formed in the form of bores in a cuboid block, in order to achieve a more compact design.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Culp.
Regarding claim 5, Culp discloses the valve device according to claim 1, and all limitations recited therein. Culp further disclose that the outlets of a ring line are equally spaced from each other, respectively (see Fig. 2 at outlets 116, 118, 120, 122 of reactor 102, and outlets 126, 128, 130, 132 of reactor 106).
Culp fails to explicitly disclose that the inlet of each ring line is equally spaced from the two immediately adjacent outlets of the same ring line, respectively.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have the inlet of each ring line be equally spaced apart from the two immediately adjacent outlets of the same ring line, respectively, since the particular placement of the inlet with respect to the outlets would be an obvious matter of design choice. See In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975), and MPEP 2144.04(VI)(C). The motivation would have been to ensure that materials can reach each of the two immediately adjacent outlets of the same ring line from the inlet simultaneously, thereby ensuring that components from the two immediately adjacent outlets can be simultaneously delivered, if desired.
Claims 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Culp as applied to claims 1-3 and 14 above, and further in view of Watanabe (Translation of JP Pub. No. H05-113391).
Regarding claim 6, Culp discloses the valve device according to claim 1, and all limitations recited therein.
Culp fails to explicitly disclose that the check valves are electronically or pneumatically controlled.
Watanabe is in the analogous field of gas concentration measuring devices (Watanabe Pg. 3 2nd Para.). Watanabe teaches valves that are electronically controlled and closed in the de-energized state (Watanabe; Pg. 4 1st-3rd Paras., see Fig. 1 at on-off valves 9, 10, which are electromagnetic and have a normally closed structure). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the valve device of Culp with the teachings of Watanabe so that the check valves are electronically controlled and closed in the de-energized state, as Watanabe teaches that electronically controlled valves can be used to transport gas therethrough as desired (Watanabe; Pg. 4 1st-3rd Paras., see Fig. 1 at on-off valves 9, 10). Further, having the valves be closed in the de-energized state will ensure that the valves are not open in the event of an electrical failure, thereby preventing contaminants from passing through the valve and out of the device.
Regarding claim 7, modified Culp discloses the valve device according to claim 6, wherein the check valves are electronically controlled and are closed in the de-energized state (see Claim 6 above at Watanabe teachings electronically controlled valves that are closed in the de-energize state in Pg. 4 1st-3rd Paras., Fig. 1).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8, 10-13, and 15-16 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claim 8 would be allowable for reciting an adsorption device for an elemental analyzer, the adsorption device comprising a first valve device according to claim 1 and a plurality of filter units, each filter unit having an inlet and an outlet, wherein the filter units are connected to the first valve device in such a way that each filter unit is connected via its inlet to a respective outlet of the first ring line and an outlet of the second ring line of the first valve device.
Culp, Schmutz, Deves, and Watanabe teach a device similar to that claimed. However, Culp, Schmutz, Deves, and Watanabe do not teach, either alone or in combination with the prior art, an adsorption device for an elemental analyzer, the adsorption device comprising a first valve device according to claim 1 and a plurality of filter units, each filter unit having an inlet and an outlet, wherein the filter units are connected to the first valve device in such a way that each filter unit is connected via its inlet to a respective outlet of the first ring line and an outlet of the second ring line of the first valve device.
Specifically, although Culp, which is considered to be the closest prior art of record, teaches a valve device ([0033]-[0036], see Fig. 2), Culp does not teach that an adsorption device having a plurality of filter units, each filter unit having an inlet and an outlet, wherein the filter units are connected to the first valve device in such a way that each filter unit is connected via its inlet to a respective outlet of the first ring line and an outlet of the second ring line of the first valve device. There is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation, either alone or in combination with the prior art, to modify the valve device of Culp with a plurality of filter units, let alone a plurality of filter units having the instantly claimed configuration. Further, although Schmutz teaches a valve device ([0024]-[0038], see Fig. 3), there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation, either alone or in combination with the prior art, to modify the valve device of Culp with a plurality of filter units, let alone a plurality of filter units having the instantly claimed configuration.
Claims 10-13 and 15-16 would be allowable for depending on an allowable claim.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to John McGuirk whose telephone number is (571)272-1949. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-530pm.
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, Charles Capozzi can be reached at (571) 270-3638. 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.
/JOHN MCGUIRK/Examiner, Art Unit 1798