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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant argument regarding “injecting a converted form as droplets of liquid” (p. 8 last para 4-5; p. 10 para 1 lines 2-4), the examiner provided a response in the last office action with two evidentiary references.
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 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.
Claim(s) 1, 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 9606088 B2 (hereinafter Spartz) and in view of Urban, Carolin, et al. "Production of drop-in fuels from biomass at high selectivity by combined microbial and electrochemical conversion." Energy & Environmental Science 10.10 (2017): 2231-2244 (hereinafter Urban).
Regarding claim 1, Spartz teaches a method for detecting and/or mapping a solute in a medium, comprising: extracting solute from one or more probes that are each arranged at a respective location in the medium (col 3 lines 14-22; extracting solute from the medium by the liquid chromatography; see evidentiary reference JP 09127084 A fig. 2); loading a solute sample from the extracted solute from each of the one or more probes (this is 12 in fig. 2B, the solute is extracted by the probe 12); injecting each solute sample as droplets of liquid (the liquid chromatography produces droplets of solute as shown in fig. 2 of JP 09127084 A) into a heated, partial-vacuum evacuated absorption cell of a gas phase optical spectrometer (this is sample cell 14 in fig. 2B with heater 36 and ; col 10 last para), wherein the droplets undergo evaporation-induced volatilization internal to the absorption cell due to its heated (col 13 lines 7-16), low pressure environment to produce a gas phase trapped sample in the absorption cell (col 10 lines 50-54); using gas phase optical spectrometry to determine concentration from each trapped sample in the absorption cell (fig. 8, col 33 lines 20-26); and outputting an indication of detected solute based on the determined concentration from each trapped sample or a map of detected solute based on the determined concentration from each trapped sample (col 18 lines 41-47).
Spartz fails to teach “converting each solute sample to a more volatile converted form by acid/base addition or electrochemical conversion;” and “wherein the concentration from each trapped sample serves as a proxy for concentration in the respective solute sample”. These limitations are described in p. 12 para 2, which is the addition of microfluidic or electrolytic reactor.
Urban, from the same field of endeavor as Spartz, teaches “converting each solute sample to a more volatile converted form by acid/base addition or electrochemical conversion;” (fig. 1 “Kolbe electrolysis”; p. 6 col 2 para 2 lines 1-3) and “wherein the concentration from each trapped sample serves as a proxy for concentration in the respective solute sample” (applying the teaching of Urban to Spartz before the sample goes to element 12 in fig. 2B of Spartz will teach this limitation).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to apply the teaching of Urban to Spartz to have “converting each solute sample to a more volatile converted form by acid/base addition or electrochemical conversion;” and “wherein the concentration from each trapped sample serves as a proxy for concentration in the respective solute sample” in order for the sample to easily vaporize (p. 6 col 2 para 2 lines 1-3).
Regarding claim 22, Spartz teaches a method for detecting and/or mapping a solute in a medium (fig. 2b), comprising: extracting solute from the medium (fig. 2B element 12 which is liquid chromatography); “loading a solute sample from the extracted solute” (fig. 2B element 12 which is liquid chromatography); “injecting the solute sample as droplets of liquid into an absorption cell” (fig. 2B, valve 26 injects the droplets to sample cell 14) of a spectrometer (fig. 2B element 16, col 11 lines 23-26) that has been heated to at least 25°C (col 13 para 2) and/or evacuated to a partial vacuum of less than 50 Torr, wherein “the droplets undergo evaporation-induced volatilization internal to the absorption cell due to its heated” (droplets evaporates in the sample cell due to the heater 36, ) and/or low pressure environment to “produce a gas phase trapped sample in the absorption cell” (col 10 last para to para 11 lines 1-3, col 13 lines 7-13); “using spectrometry to determine concentration from the trapped sample in the absorption cell” (col 14 para 3); and “outputting an indication of detected solute based on the determined concentration from the trapped sample or a map of detected solute based on the determined concentration from the trapped sample” (col 14 para 3).
Spartz does not teach converting the solute sample to a more volatile converted form by mixing an additive into the solute sample; wherein the concentration from the trapped sample serves as a proxy for concentration in the solute sample.
Urban, from the same field of endeavor as Spartz, teaches converting the solute sample to a more volatile converted form by mixing an additive into the solute sample (fig. 1 “Kolbe electrolysis”; p. 6 col 2 para 2 lines 1-3); wherein the concentration from the trapped sample serves as a proxy for concentration in the solute sample (applying the teaching of Urban to Spartz before the sample goes to element 12 in fig. 2B of Spartz will teach this limitation).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to apply the teaching of Urban to Spartz to have converting the solute sample to a more volatile converted form by mixing an additive into the solute sample; wherein the concentration from the trapped sample serves as a proxy for concentration in the solute sample in order for the sample to easily vaporize (p. 6 col 2 para 2 lines 1-3).
Claim(s) 1, 3, 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Daito; S. et al., US 20160124112 A1 (hereinafter Daito) and in view of Spartz and further in view of Urban.
Regarding claim 1, Daito teaches a method for detecting and/or mapping a solute in a medium, comprising: extracting solute from one or more probes that are each arranged at a respective location in the medium (this is shown in fig. 1 probe 40 is extracting medium from element 38); loading a solute sample from the extracted solute from each of the one or more probes this is shown in fig. 1 probe 40 is extracting medium from element 38); injecting each solute sample as droplets of liquid into a heated, partial-vacuum evacuated absorption cell of a gas phase optical spectrometer (this is shown in fig. 9, the liquid sample goes to element 80 and then to element 50), low pressure environment to produce a gas phase trapped sample in the absorption cell (para [0035] lines 13-19); using gas phase optical spectrometry to determine concentration from each trapped sample in the absorption cell (para [0018] last sentence); and outputting an indication of detected solute based on the determined concentration from each trapped sample or a map of detected solute based on the determined concentration from each trapped sample (para [0020] lines 4-10).
Daito fails to teach wherein the droplets undergo evaporation-induced volatilization evaporate internal to the absorption cell due to its heated, “converting each solute sample to a more volatile converted form by acid/base addition or electrochemical conversion;” and “wherein the concentration from each trapped sample serves as a proxy for concentration in the respective solute sample”.
Spartz, from the same field of endeavor as Daito, teaches wherein the droplets undergo evaporation-induced volatilization evaporate internal to the absorption cell due to its heated (col 13 lines 7-16).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to apply the teaching of Spartz to Daito to have wherein the droplets undergo evaporation-induced volatilization evaporate internal to the absorption cell due to its heated in order to analyze samples with varying vapor pressures or boiling points, e.g., to measure semi-volatile or even nearly non-volatile compounds (col 13 lines 7-13).
Daito, when modified by Spartz, does not teach wherein the droplets undergo evaporation-induced volatilization evaporate internal to the absorption cell due to its heated, “converting each solute sample to a more volatile converted form by acid/base addition or electrochemical conversion;” and “wherein the concentration from each trapped sample serves as a proxy for concentration in the respective solute sample”.
Urban, from the same field of endeavor as Daito, teaches “converting each solute sample to a more volatile converted form by acid/base addition or electrochemical conversion;” (fig. 1 “Kolbe electrolysis”; p. 6 col 2 para 2 lines 1-3) and “wherein the concentration from each trapped sample serves as a proxy for concentration in the respective solute sample” (applying the teaching of Urban to Daito and Spartz before the sample goes to element 50 of Daito in fig. 9 and element 12 in fig. 2B of Spartz will teach this limitation).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to apply the teaching of Urban to Spartz to have “converting each solute sample to a more volatile converted form by acid/base addition or electrochemical conversion;” and “wherein the concentration from each trapped sample serves as a proxy for concentration in the respective solute sample” in order for the sample to easily vaporize (p. 6 col 2 para 2 lines 1-3).
Regarding claim 3, Daito teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the medium is soil (Fig. 1 element 38 is a soil).
Regarding claim 22, Daito teaches a method for detecting and/or mapping a solute in a medium, comprising: extracting solute from the medium (this is shown in fig. 1 probe 40 is extracting medium from element 38); loading a solute sample from the extracted solute (this is shown in fig. 1 probe 40 is extracting medium from element 38); injecting the solute sample as droplets of liquid into an absorption cell of a spectrometer (this is shown in fig. 9, the liquid sample goes to element 80 and then to element 50) using spectrometry to determine concentration of the solute from the trapped sample in the absorption cell (para [0020]); and outputting an indication of detected solute based on the determined concentration from the trapped sample or a map of detected solute based on the determined concentration from the trapped sample (para [0020]).
Daito does not teach that has been heated to at least 25°C and/or evacuated to a partial vacuum of less than 50 Torr, wherein the droplets undergo evaporation-induced volatilization internal to the absorption cell due to its heated and/or low pressure environment to produce a gas phase trapped sample in the absorption cell, converting the solute sample to a more volatile converted form by mixing an additive into the solute sample; wherein the concentration from the trapped sample serves as a proxy for concentration in the solute sample.
Spartz, from the same field of endeavor as Daito, teaches that has been heated to at least 25°C and/or evacuated to a partial vacuum of less than 50 Torr (col 13 lines 7-16), wherein the droplets undergo evaporation-induced volatilization internal to the absorption cell due to its heated and/or low pressure environment to produce a gas phase trapped sample in the absorption cell (col 13 lines 7-16).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to apply the teaching of Spartz to Daito to have that has been heated to at least 25°C and/or evacuated to a partial vacuum of less than 50 Torr, wherein the droplets undergo evaporation-induced volatilization internal to the absorption cell due to its heated and/or low pressure environment to produce a gas phase trapped sample in the absorption cell in order to analyze samples with varying vapor pressures or boiling points, e.g., to measure semi-volatile or even nearly non-volatile compounds (col 13 lines 7-13).
Daito, when modified by Spartz, does not teach converting the solute sample to a more volatile converted form by mixing an additive into the solute sample; wherein the concentration from the trapped sample serves as a proxy for concentration in the solute sample.
Urban, from the same field of endeavor as Spartz, teaches converting the solute sample to a more volatile converted form by mixing an additive into the solute sample (fig. 1 “Kolbe electrolysis”; p. 6 col 2 para 2 lines 1-3); wherein the concentration from the trapped sample serves as a proxy for concentration in the solute sample (applying the teaching of Urban to Daito before the sample goes to element 50 in fig. 9 of Daito will teach this limitation).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to apply the teaching of Urban to Daito, when modified by Spartz, to have converting the solute sample to a more volatile converted form by mixing an additive into the solute sample; wherein the concentration from the trapped sample serves as a proxy for concentration in the solute sample in order for the sample to easily vaporize (p. 6 col 2 para 2 lines 1-3).
Claim(s) 2, 8, 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Spartz and Urban applied to claim(s) 1 and in view of Inselsbacher, Erich, et al. "The potential of microdialysis to monitor organic and inorganic nitrogen compounds in soil." Soil Biology and Biochemistry 43.6 (2011): 1321-1332 (hereinafter Erich) OR over Daito, Spartz, and Urban as applied to claim(s) 1 and further in view of Erich.
Regarding claim 2, Spartz or Daito does not teach the method of claim 1, wherein the one or more probes are microdialysis (MD) probes that are perfused with water, and the solute is a dialysate from the MD probes.
Erich, from the same field of endeavor as Spartz or Daito, teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the one or more probes are microdialysis (MD) probes that are perfused with water, and the solute is a dialysate from the MD probes (this is shown in Fig. 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to apply the teaching of Erich to Spartz or Daito, to have the method of claim 1, wherein the one or more probes are microdialysis (MD) probes that are perfused with water, and the solute is a dialysate from the MD probes in order to provide essential data on diffusion rates of a variety of plant nitrogen compounds in the soil that might be used for monitoring quantitative and qualitative changes of plant nitrogen pools in soil microsites such as the rhizosphere (section 5. Conclusions lines 18-81).
Regarding claim 8, Spartz or Daito does not teach the method of claim 1, wherein the solute is nitrite (NO2) and the converted form is nitrous acid (HONO), the solute is nitrate (NO3-) and the converted form is nitric acid (HNO3), the solute is acetate (C2H302) and the converted form is acetic acid (CH3COOH), the solute is carbonate (CO3-2) and the converted form is carbonic acid (H2CO3) or carbon dioxide (CO2), the solute is formate (CHO2) and the converted form is formic acid (CH202), the solute is ammonium (H4N+) and the converted form is ammonia (NH3), the solute is cyanide (CN-) and the converted form is hydrogen cyanide (HCN), the solute is sulfate (04S-2), and the converted form is sulfur dioxide (SO2), the solute is phosphate (04P-3) and the converted form is phosphine (PH3), or the solute is a halide and the converted form is a dihalide.
Erich, from the same field of endeavor as Spartz and Daito, teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the solute is nitrite (NO2) and the converted form is nitrous acid (HONO), the solute is nitrate (NO3-) and the converted form is nitric acid (HNO3), the solute is acetate (C2H302) and the converted form is acetic acid (CH3COOH), the solute is carbonate (CO3-2) and the converted form is carbonic acid (H2CO3) or carbon dioxide (CO2), the solute is formate (CHO2) and the converted form is formic acid (CH202), the solute is ammonium (H4N+) and the converted form is ammonia (NH3) (ammonium perfused with water is converted to ammonia; Abstract lines 7-8 and Fig. 1), the solute is cyanide (CN-) and the converted form is hydrogen cyanide (HCN), the solute is sulfate (04S-2), and the converted form is sulfur dioxide (SO2), the solute is phosphate (04P-3) and the converted form is phosphine (PH3), or the solute is a halide and the converted form is a dihalide.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to apply the teaching of Erich to Spartz or Daito to have the method of claim 1, wherein the solute is nitrite (NO2) and the converted form is nitrous acid (HONO), the solute is nitrate (NO3-) and the converted form is nitric acid (HNO3), the solute is acetate (C2H302) and the converted form is acetic acid (CH3COOH), the solute is carbonate (CO3-2) and the converted form is carbonic acid (H2CO3) or carbon dioxide (CO2), the solute is formate (CHO2) and the converted form is formic acid (CH202), the solute is ammonium (H4N+) and the converted form is ammonia (NH3), the solute is cyanide (CN-) and the converted form is hydrogen cyanide (HCN), the solute is sulfate (04S-2), and the converted form is sulfur dioxide (SO2), the solute is phosphate (04P-3) and the converted form is phosphine (PH3), or the solute is a halide and the converted form is a dihalide in order to provide essential data on diffusion rates of a variety of plant nitrogen compounds in the soil that might be used for monitoring quantitative and qualitative changes of plant nitrogen pools in soil microsites such as the rhizosphere (section 5. Conclusions lines 18-81).
Regarding claim 11, Spartz or Daito does not teach the method of claim 1, wherein the extracting, loading, converting, injecting, and using are repeated to cycle through solute samples from the probes at the different locations over a measurement period, and the outputting outputs a temporal and spatial map.
Erich, from the same field of endeavor as Spartz and Daito, teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the “extracting, loading, converting, injecting, and using are repeated to cycle through solute samples from the probes at the different locations (the samples where extracted, loaded, and injecting in the TUV detector; section 2.4.1 col 1 para 1 lines 1-6) over a measurement period, and the outputting outputs a temporal and spatial map (section 4 col 1 para 2 and Fig. 3; Fig. 3 shows the probes are placed at different locations in the soil and Fig. 4 shows at different period in time).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to apply the teaching of Erich to Spartz or Daito to have the method of claim 1, wherein the extracting, loading, converting, injecting, and using are repeated to cycle through solute samples from the probes at the different locations over a measurement period, and the outputting outputs a temporal and spatial map in order to provide essential data on diffusion rates of a variety of plant nitrogen compounds in the soil that might be used for monitoring quantitative and qualitative changes of plant nitrogen pools in soil microsites such as the rhizosphere (section 5. Conclusions lines 18-81).
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Spartz and Urban as applied to claims 1, and in view of Daito.
Regarding claim 3, Spartz does not teach the method of claim 1, wherein the medium is soil.
Daito, from the same field of endeavor as Spartz, teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the medium is soil (Fig. 1 element 38 is a soil).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to apply the teaching of Daito to Spartz to have the method of claim 1, wherein the medium is soil in order to obtain and measure downhole characteristics (para [0003] last sentence).
Claim 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Spartz and Urban as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Warren, Charles R. "Development of online microdialysis-mass spectrometry for continuous minimally invasive measurement of soil solution dynamics." Soil Biology and Biochemistry 123 (2018): 266-275 (hereinafter Warren) OR Daito and Spartz as applied to claim(s) 1, and further in view of Warren.
Regarding claim 4, Spartz teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the one or more probes, and the method further comprises: “multiplexing solute from the probe to a sample injector” (the sample injection corresponds to the valve 26A , the probe is 12, in fig. 2B 12) that “successively produces solute samplesl” (fig. 2B shows 26A is connected to cell 14).
However, Spartz, does not a plurality of probes.
Warren, from the same field of endeavor as Spartz, teaches a plurality of probes. (multiple probes were installed in the soil and injected the samples to the absorption cell of the mass spectrometer; Fig. 1, section 3.3 para 1 lines 1-3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to apply the teaching of Warren to Spartz, when modified by Daito, to have a plurality of probes in order to enable minimally invasive measurement of the sample (Abstract 5-6).
Claim 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Spartz, and Daito, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Erich OR Daito, Spartz, and Urban as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Erich.
Regarding claim 10, Spartz, when modified by Urban, or Daito, when modified by Spartz, and Urban, does not teach the method of claim 1, wherein the converting is acid/base addition provides additional hydrogen ions (H+) or hydroxide ions (OH-).
Erich, from the same field of endeavor as Spartz and Daito, teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the converting is acid/base addition provides additional hydrogen ions (H+) or hydroxide ions (OH-) (section 2.4.1 col 2 lines 5-16).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to apply the teaching of Erich to Spartz, when modified by Urban, or Daito, when modified by Spartz, and Urban, to have the method of claim 1, wherein the converting is acid/base addition provides additional hydrogen ions (H+) or hydroxide ions (OH-) in order to provide essential data on diffusion rates of a variety of plant nitrogen compounds in the soil that might be used for monitoring quantitative and qualitative changes of plant nitrogen pools in soil microsites such as the rhizosphere (section 5. Conclusions lines 18-81).
Claim(s) 12, 13, 16, 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Spartz, Daito, and further in view of Urban.
Regarding claim 12, Spartz teaches an instrument for detecting and/or mapping a solute in a medium (fig. 2B), comprising: “one or more probes configured to extract solute from in the medium” (col 3 lines 14-22; extracting solute from the medium by the liquid chromatography; see evidentiary reference JP 09127084 A fig. 2); “a sample injector configured to successively load a predetermined amount of solute into a sample loop from each of the one or more probes”; “a gas phase optical spectrometer having an absorption cell configured to receive the injected droplets of each solute sample” (this is sample cell 14 in fig. 2B with heater 36; col 10 last para), “wherein the absorption cell is further configured to cause the droplets to undergo evaporation-induced volatilization internal to the absorption cell to produce a gas phase trapped sample in the absorption cell” (col 10 last para to col 11 lines 1-3; the droplets are evaporated by the heater, col 13 lines 7-13); and “control electronics configured to execute software that controls the gas phase optical spectrometer to determine concentration from each trapped sample in the absorption cell” (fig. 2B “14”, col 14 para 3) and to “output an indication of detected solute based on the determined concentration from each trapped sample or a map of detected solute based on the determined concentration from each trapped sample” (col 14 para 3, ref 34 performed analysis of the sample).
Spartz does not explicitly teach a respective location, a sample preparation unit configured to chemically alter each solute sample to a more volatile converted form by mixing an additive into the solute sample; optical spectrometer is configured to inject each converted form as droplets of liquid into the absorption cell, and the absorption cell is configured to receive the injected droplets of each converted form.
Daito, from the same field of endeavor as Spartz, teaches “a respective location and (this is shown in fig. 9 elements 76 and 50 para [0036], samples are from a soil).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to apply the teaching of Daito to Spartz to have a respective location in order to obtain and measure downhole characteristics (para [0003] last sentence).
Spartz, when modified by Daito, fails to teach a sample preparation unit configured to chemically alter each solute sample to a more volatile converted form by mixing an additive into the solute sample; optical spectrometer is configured to inject each converted form as droplets of liquid into the absorption cell, and the absorption cell is configured to receive the injected droplets of each converted form.
Urban, from the same field of endeavor as Spartz, teaches a sample preparation unit configured to chemically alter each solute sample to a more volatile converted form by mixing an additive into the solute sample (fig. 1 “Kolbe electrolysis”; p. 6 col 2 para 2 lines 1-3); optical spectrometer is configured to inject each converted form as droplets of liquid into the absorption cell, and the absorption cell is configured to receive the injected droplets of each converted form (applying the teaching of Urban to Spartz before the sample goes to element 12 in fig. 2B of Spartz will teach this limitation).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to apply the teaching of Urban to Spartz, when modified by Daito, to have a sample preparation unit configured to chemically alter each solute sample to a more volatile converted form by mixing an additive into the solute sample; optical spectrometer is configured to inject each converted form as droplets of liquid into the absorption cell, and the absorption cell is configured to receive the injected droplets of each converted form in order for the sample to easily vaporize (p. 6 col 2 para 2 lines 1-3).
Regarding claim 13, Spartz teaches the instrument of claim 12, further comprising: a heater configured to heat the absorption cell to an elevated temperature to induce volatilization of species (col 10 last para to col 11 lines 1-3).
Regarding claim 16, Spartz does not teach the instrument of claim 12, wherein the medium is soil.
Daito, from the same field of endeavor as Spartz, teaches the instrument of claim 12, wherein the medium is soil (Fig. 1 element 38 is a soil).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to apply the teaching of Daito to Spartz to have the instrument of claim 12, wherein the medium is soil in order to obtain and measure downhole characteristics (para [0003] last sentence).
Regarding claim 21, Spartz teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the adsorption cell is heated to at least 25°C (col 13 para 2) and/or evacuated to partial vacuum of less than 50 Torr to cause evaporation of the droplets internal to the absorption cell.
Claim(s) 12, 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Daito and in view of Spartz, and further in view of Urban.
Regarding claim 12, Daito teaches an instrument for detecting and/or mapping a solute in a medium, comprising: one or more probes configured to extract solute from respective locations in the medium (this is shown in fig. 1 probe 40 is extracting medium from element 38); a sample injector configured to successively load a predetermined amount of solute into a sample loop from each of the one or more probes (fig. 9 liquid sample goes to element 80) and inject each solute sample as droplets of liquid (this is shown in fig. 9, the liquid sample goes to element 80 and then to element 50); a gas phase optical spectrometer having an absorption cell configured to receive the injected droplets of each solute sample (this is element 76 in fig. 9), and control electronics configured to execute software that controls the gas phase optical spectrometer (para [0024]) to determine concentration from each trapped sample in the absorption cell and to output an indication of detected solute based on the determined concentration from each trapped sample or a map of detected solute based on the determined concentration from each trapped sample (para [0020]).
Daito does not teach wherein the absorption cell is further configured to cause the droplets to undergo evaporation-induced volatilization internal to the absorption cell to produce a gas phase trapped sample in the absorption cell, a sample preparation unit configured to chemically alter each solute sample to a more volatile converted form by mixing an additive into the solute sample; optical spectrometer is configured to inject each converted form as droplets of liquid into the absorption cell, and the absorption cell is configured to receive the injected droplets of each converted form.
Spartz, from the same field of endeavor as Daito, teaches wherein the absorption cell is further configured to cause the droplets to undergo evaporation-induced volatilization internal to the absorption cell to produce a gas phase trapped sample in the absorption cell (col 13 lines 7-16).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to apply the teaching of Spartz to Daito to have wherein the absorption cell is further configured to cause the droplets to undergo evaporation-induced volatilization internal to the absorption cell to produce a gas phase trapped sample in the absorption cellin order to analyze samples with varying vapor pressures or boiling points, e.g., to measure semi-volatile or even nearly non-volatile compounds (col 13 lines 7-13).
Daito, when modified by Spartz, does not teach a sample preparation unit configured to chemically alter each solute sample to a more volatile converted form by mixing an additive into the solute sample; optical spectrometer is configured to inject each converted form as droplets of liquid into the absorption cell, and the absorption cell is configured to receive the injected droplets of each converted form.
Urban, from the same field of endeavor as Spartz, teaches a sample preparation unit configured to chemically alter each solute sample to a more volatile converted form by mixing an additive into the solute sample (fig. 1 “Kolbe electrolysis”; p. 6 col 2 para 2 lines 1-3); optical spectrometer is configured to inject each converted form as droplets of liquid into the absorption cell, and the absorption cell is configured to receive the injected droplets of each converted form (applying the teaching of Urban to Spartz before the sample goes to element 12 in fig. 2B of Spartz will teach this limitation).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to apply the teaching of Urban to Spartz, when modified by Daito, to have a sample preparation unit configured to chemically alter each solute sample to a more volatile converted form by mixing an additive into the solute sample; optical spectrometer is configured to inject each converted form as droplets of liquid into the absorption cell, and the absorption cell is configured to receive the injected droplets of each converted form in order for the sample to easily vaporize (p. 6 col 2 para 2 lines 1-3).
Regarding claim 16, Daito, teaches the instrument of claim 12, wherein the medium is soil (Fig. 1 element 38 is a soil).
Claim 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Spartz Daito, and Urban as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Amir OR Daito Spartz, and Urban as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Amir .
Regarding claim 14, Spartz, when modified by Daito, or Daito, when modified by Spartz, fails to teach the instrument of claim 12, further comprising: a vacuum pump configured to evacuate the absorption cell to a partial vacuum to promote evaporation of the trapped sample and induce volatilization of species.
Amir, from the same field of endeavor as Spartz and Daito, teaches the instrument of claim 12, further comprising: a vacuum pump configured to evacuate the absorption cell to a partial vacuum to promote evaporation of the trapped sample and induce volatilization of species (para [0046] lines 5-13).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to apply the teaching of Amir to Spartz, when modified by Daito, or Daito, when modified by Spartz, to have the instrument of claim 12, further comprising: a vacuum pump configured to evacuate the absorption cell to a partial vacuum to promote evaporation of the trapped sample and induce volatilization of species in order to to improve evaporation and thus less energy is needed than for heating the sample to the extent needed to get the same effect (para [0046] lines 5-13).
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Spartz Daito, and Urban as applied to claim(s) 12, and further in view of Erich OR Daito Spartz, and Urban as applied to claim(s) 12, and further in view of Erich.
Regarding claim 15, Spartz, when modified by Daito, or Daito, when modified by Spartz, fails to disclose the instrument of claim 12, wherein the one or more probes are microdialysis (MD) probes that are configured to be perfused with water, and the solute is a dialysate from the MD probes.
Erich, from the same field of endeavor as Daito and Spartz, teaches the instrument of claim 12, wherein the one or more probes are microdialysis (MD) probes that are configured to be perfused with water, and the solute is a dialysate from the MD probes (this is shown in Fig. 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to apply the teaching of Erich to Spartz, when modified by Daito, or Daito, when modified by Spartz, to have the instrument of claim 12, wherein the one or more probes are microdialysis (MD) probes that are configured to be perfused with water, and the solute is a dialysate from the MD probes in order to minimize disturbance of the soil structure during data gathering (Abstract lines 7-9).
Claim 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Spartz Daito, and Urban, as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Cocovi-Solberg, David J., Maria Rosende, and Manuel Miró. "Automatic kinetic bioaccessibility assay of lead in soil environments using flow-through microdialysis as a front end to electrothermal atomic absorption spectrometry." Environmental science & technology 48.11 (2014): 6282-6290 (hereinafter Cocovi) OR Daito Spartz, and Urban, as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Cocovi.
Regarding claim 17, Spartz, when modified by Daito, or Daito, when modified by Spartz, fails to teach the instrument of claim 12, wherein the one or more probes are a plurality of probes, and the instrument further comprises: a selector valve configured to multiplex solute from each of the plurality of probes to the sample injector, wherein the software of the control electronics is configured to control the selector valve and sample injector to successively produces solute samples that are injected into the absorption cell over a measurement period.
Cocovi, from the same field of endeavor as Spartz and Daito, teaches the instrument of claim 12, wherein the one or more probes are a plurality of probes (Fig. 1 “DIALYSATE LINE”), and the instrument further comprises: a selector valve (Fig. 1, p. 3 col 2 para 1 lines 18-25; ports 2 and 4 are connected to the selection valve) configured to multiplex solute from each of the plurality of probes to the sample injector (Fig. 1 ports 2 and 4 are multiplexing samples to the ETAAS autosampler), wherein the software of the control electronics is configured to control the selector valve (the selection valve has a software; p. 3 col 2 para 1 lines 3-6) and sample injector that are injected into the absorption cell (the absorption cell is the electrothermal atomic absorption spectrometry (ETAAS); ports 2 and 4 delivered solute sample to the autosampler) over a measurement period (this is shown in Fig. 3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to apply the teaching of Cocovi to Spartz, when modified by Daito, or Daito, when modified by Spartz, to have the instrument of claim 12, wherein the one or more probes are a plurality of probes, and the instrument further comprises: a selector valve configured to multiplex solute from each of the plurality of probes to the sample injector, wherein the software of the control electronics is configured to control the selector valve and sample injector to successively produces solute samples that are injected into the absorption cell over a measurement period in order to simplify the overall procedure by accurate detection of steady-state conditions and overcome sample filtration or centrifugation (Abstract lines 8-10).
Claim 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Spartz Daito, and Urban, as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Erich OR Daito Spartz, and Urban, as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Erich.
Regarding claim 20, Spartz, when modified by Daito, or Daito, when modified by Spartz, does not teach the instrument of claim 12, wherein the solute is hydroxylamine (NH2OH), nitrite (NO2-), nitrate (NO3-), acetate (C2H302-), carbonate (CO3-2), formate (CHO2-), ammonium (H4N+), cyanide (CN-), sulfate (045-2), phosphate (04P-3) or a halide.
Erich, from the same field of endeavor as Spartz and Daito, teaches the instrument of claim 1, wherein the solute is hydroxylamine (NH2OH), nitrite (NO2-), nitrate (NO3-), acetate (C2H302-), carbonate (CO3-2), formate (CHO2-), ammonium (H4N+) (ammonium perfused with water is converted to ammonia; Abstract lines 7-8 and Fig. 1), cyanide (CN-), sulfate (045-2), phosphate (04P-3) or a halide.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to apply the teaching of Erich to Spartz, when modified by Daito, or Daito, when modified by Spartz, to have the instrument of claim 1, wherein the solute is hydroxylamine (NH2OH), nitrite (NO2-), nitrate (NO3-), acetate (C2H302-), carbonate (CO3-2), formate (CHO2-), ammonium (H4N+), cyanide (CN-), sulfate (045-2), phosphate (04P-3) or a halide in order to provide essential data on diffusion rates of a variety of plant nitrogen compounds in the soil that might be used for monitoring quantitative and qualitative changes of plant nitrogen pools in soil microsites such as the rhizosphere (section 5. Conclusions lines 18-81).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERTO FABIAN JR whose telephone number is (571)272-3632. The examiner can normally be reached M-F (8-12, 1-5).
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, KARA GEISEL can be reached at (571)272-2416. 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.
/ROBERTO FABIAN JR/Examiner, Art Unit 2877
/DOMINIC J BOLOGNA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2877
Prosecution Insights