Ui
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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 12/12/2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues:
At p. 9 para 3 to p. 11 para 3 that “…Accordingly, Spartz and Daito cannot fairly be considered to suggest the claimed "inject each solute sample as droplets ... into a ... absorption cell of a gas phase optical spectrometer" as claimed in claim 1”.
Examiner response:
The examiner respectfully disagrees. As stated in col 8 line 60, the element 12 of fig. 2A can be a liquid chromatography system. This means the sample is in liquid form as shown in fig. 2 of JP 09127084, and when the liquid sample enters element 14 it will be in a droplet form.
In addition, Daito teaches the limitation "inject each solute sample as droplets ... into a ... absorption cell of a gas phase optical spectrometer". Para [0036] last sentence of Daito discloses the liquid sample can be on a microliter scale. When this microliter liquid sample enters element 50 of fig. 9, this sample will be in the form of a droplet (see evidentiary reference US 20170315024 A1 para [0035]).
Applicant argues:
At p. 11 last para to p. 13 para 1 that “…Accordingly, Spartz and Daito cannot fairly be considered to suggest the claimed "droplets undergo evaporation-induced volatilization internal to the absorption cell." as claimed in claim 1”.
Examiner response:
The examiner respectfully disagrees. Col 11 para 1 of Spartz teaches element 14 can reach a temperature of more than 300oC. This indicates the droplet liquid sample undergoes an evaporation-induced volatilization (see evidentiary reference WO 2014170400 A1, p. 9 claim 2). Thus, Spartz teaches "droplets undergo evaporation-induced volatilization internal to the absorption cell".
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) 1, 5, 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Spartz, M., et al., US 9606088 B2 (hereinafter Spartz).
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).
Regarding claim 5, Spartz teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the gas phase optical spectrometry directly detects a vaporized form of the solute (col 10 last para to col 11 lines 1-3; note Daito teaches also this limitation in fig. 9).
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 of the solute 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).
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, 3, 5, 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, M., et al., US 9606088 B2 (hereinafter Spartz).
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.
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).
Regarding claim 3, Daito teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the medium is soil (Fig. 1 element 38 is a soil).
Regarding claim 5, Daito teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the gas phase optical spectrometry directly detects a vaporized form of the solute (fig. 9).
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.
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).
Claim(s) 2, 7, 8, 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Spartz 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 and Spartz as applied to claim(s) 1 and further in view of Erich.
Regarding claim 2, Spartz or Daito, when modified by Spartz, 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 of 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, when modified by Spartz, 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 7, Spartz or Daito, when modified by Spartz, does not teach the method of claim 1, wherein the gas phase optical spectrometry detects a converted form of the solute resulting from acid/base addition or electrochemical conversion.
Erich, from the same field of endeavor as Spartz and Daito, teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the gas phase optical spectrometry detects a converted form of the solute resulting from acid/base addition or electrochemical conversion (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 or Daito, when modified by Spartz, to have the method of claim 1, wherein the gas phase optical spectrometry detects a converted form of the solute resulting from acid/base addition or electrochemical conversion 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, when modified by Spartz, does not teach the method of claim 7, 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 7, 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, when modified by Spartz, to have the method of claim 7, 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, when modified by Spartz, does not teach the method of claim 1, wherein the extracting, loading, 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, 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, when modified by Spartz, to have the method of claim 1, wherein the extracting, loading, 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 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 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 samples that are injected into the absorption cell” (fig. 2B shows 26A is connected to cell 14).
However, Spartz, when modified by Daito, 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(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Spartz applied to claim(s) 1 and in view of Liu, Shurong, Harry Vereecken, and Nicolas Brüggemann. "A highly sensitive method for the determination of hydroxylamine in soils." Geoderma 232 (2014): 117-122 (hereinafter Liu) OR over Daito and Spartz as applied to claim(s) 1 and further in view of Liu.
Regarding claim 6, Spartz or Daito, when modified by Spartz, does not teach the method of claim 1, wherein the solute is hydroxylamine (NH2OH).
Liu, from the same field of endeavor as Spartz and Daito, teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the solute is hydroxylamine (NH2OH) (Abstract lines 2-5).
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 Liu to Spartz or Daito, when modified by Spartz, to have the method of claim 1, wherein the solute is hydroxylamine (NH2OH) in order to determine the emission rates of the N2O (Abstract lines 2-5) which can measure whether the soil is toxic to plants or not.
Claim 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Spartz and Erich as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Liu OR Daito, Spartz, and Erich as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Liu.
Regarding claim 9, Spartz, when modified by Erich or Daito, when modified by Spartz and Erich, does not teach the method of claim 7, wherein the converted form is a more volatile form and the method further comprise: promoting conversion of the solute in the solute sample to the more volatile form by mixing an additive into the solute sample before injection into the absorption cell.
Liu, from the same field of endeavor as Spartz and Daito, teaches the method of claim 7, wherein the converted form is a more volatile form and the method further comprise: promoting conversion of the solute in the solute sample to the more volatile form by mixing an additive into the solute sample before injection into the absorption cell (fig. 1, p. 3 col 1 para 2).
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 Liu to Spartz, when modified by Erich or Daito, when modified by Spartz and Erich, to have the method of claim 7, wherein the converted form is a more volatile form and the method further comprise: promoting conversion of the solute in the solute sample to the more volatile form by mixing an additive into the solute sample before injection into the absorption cell in order to determine the emission rates of the N2O (Abstract lines 2-5) which can measure whether the soil is toxic to plants or not.
Claim 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Spartz, Erich, and Liu, as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Abramovich; A. et al., US 20200363326 A1 (hereinafter Amir) OR Daito, Spartz, Erich and Liu as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Amir.
Regarding claim 10, Spartz, when modified by Erich and Liu, or Daito, when modified by Spartz, Erich, and Liu, does not teach the method of claim 9, wherein the additive provides additional hydrogen ions (H+) or hydroxide ions (OH-).
Amir, from the same field of endeavor as Spartz and Daito, teaches the method of claim 9, wherein the additive provides additional hydrogen ions (H+) or hydroxide ions (OH-) (this is coming in the water para [0099] lines 1-5).
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 Erich and Liu, or Daito, when modified by Spartz, Erich, and Liu, to have the method of claim 9, wherein the additive provides additional hydrogen ions (H+) or hydroxide ions (OH-) in order to quantify the NH3 level in the solution with high accuracy (para [0100] lines 1-10).
Claim(s) 12, 13, 16, 18, 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Spartz and in view of Daito.
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 and inject each solute sample as droplets of liquid” (the liquid chromatography produces droplets of solute as shown in fig. 2 of JP 09127084 A); “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.
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).
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 18, Spartz discloses the instrument of claim 12, wherein the gas phase optical spectrometer is controlled to determine concentration by directly detecting a vaporized form of the solute from each trapped sample (col 10 last para to col 11 para 1).
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, 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Daito and in view of Spartz.
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.
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).
Regarding claim 16, Daito, teaches the instrument of claim 12, wherein the medium is soil (Fig. 1 element 38 is a soil).
Regarding claim 18, Daito discloses the instrument of claim 12, wherein the gas phase optical spectrometer is controlled to determine concentration by directly detecting a vaporized form of the solute from each trapped sample (para [0020]).
Claim 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Spartz and Daito, as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Amir OR Daito and Spartz, 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 and Daito as applied to claim(s) 12, and further in view of Erich OR Daito and Spartz 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 and Daito, 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 and Spartz, 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 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Spartz and Daito, as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Liu OR Daito and Spartz, as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Liu.
Regarding claim 19, Spartz, when modified by Daito, or Daito, when modified by Spartz, fails the instrument of claim 12, wherein the gas phase optical spectrometer is controlled to determine concentration by detecting a converted form of the solute resulting from acid/base addition or electrochemical conversion.
Liu, from the same field of endeavor as Spartz and Daito, teaches the instrument of claim 12, wherein the gas phase optical spectrometer is controlled to determine concentration by detecting a converted form of the solute resulting from acid/base addition or electrochemical conversion. (fig. 1, p. 3 col 1 para 2).
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 Liu to Spartz, when modified by Daito, or Daito, when modified by Spartz, to have the instrument of claim 12, wherein the gas phase optical spectrometer is controlled to determine concentration by detecting a converted form of the solute resulting from acid/base addition or electrochemical conversion in order to determine the emission rates of the N2O (Abstract lines 2-5) which can measure whether the soil is toxic to plants or not.
Claim 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Spartz and Daito, as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Erich OR Daito and Spartz, 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).
Claim(s) 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Spartz, as applied to claim 22, and in view of Liu OR Daito, Spartz, and further in view of Liu.
Regarding claim 23, Spartz or Daito, when modified by Spartz, does not teach the method of claim 22, further comprising: prior to injecting the solute sample, converting the solute to a more volatile form by acid/base addition or electrochemical conversion, wherein the using spectrometry comprises determining concentration of the more volatile form as a proxy for concentration of the solute.
Liu, from the same field of endeavor as Spartz and Daito, teaches the method of claim 22, further comprising: prior to injecting the solute sample, converting the solute to a more volatile form by acid/base addition or electrochemical conversion (fig. 1, p. 3 col 1 para 2), wherein the using spectrometry comprises determining concentration of the more volatile form as a proxy for concentration of the solute (the spectrometry is the GC in fig. 1, p. 2 col 2 para 5 lines 1-4; the proxy for concentration of the solute is from the chemical reaction in eqn. 3, p. 3 col 1 para 2).
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 Liu to Spartz or Daito, when modified by Spartz, to have teach the method of claim 22, further comprising: prior to injecting the solute sample, converting the solute to a more volatile form by acid/base addition or electrochemical conversion, wherein the using spectrometry comprises determining concentration of the more volatile form as a proxy for concentration of the solute in order to determine the emission rates of the N2O (Abstract lines 2-5) which can measure whether the soil is toxic to plants or not.
Claim(s) 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Daito and Spartz as applied to claim(s) 22 and further in view of Liu.
Regarding claim 24, Daito, when modified by Spartz, does not teach the method of claim 22, wherein the solute is hydroxylamine (NH2OH), the evaporation-induced volatilization produces a gas phase trapped sample trapped sample of a hydrogen halide (HX), and the spectrometry determines concentration of HX as a proxy for concentration of the NH2OH solute.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have “wherein the solute is hydroxylamine (NH2OH), the evaporation-induced volatilization produces a gas phase trapped sample trapped sample of a hydrogen halide (HX), and the spectrometry determines concentration of HX as a proxy for concentration of the NH2OH solute” to the fig. 9 device of Daito, when modified by Spartz (Spartz device will let the hydroxylamine evaporation-induced volatilization, which means the spectrometers of Daito and Spartz will measure the concentration of HX; see evidentiary reference: Cheisson, Thibault, et al. "Halide anion discrimination by a tripodal hydroxylamine ligand in gas and condensed phases." Physical Chemistry Chemical Physics 21.36 (2019): 19868-19878, Scheme 2, L is the hydroxylamine) in order to determine the emission rates of the N2O (Abstract lines 2-5) which can measure whether the soil is toxic to plants or not.
Conclusion
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, Tarifur Chowdhury can be reached at (571) 272-2287. 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
/Kara E. Geisel/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2877