DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
Application 18/267,547 filed on 06/15/2023 is a 371 of PCT/CA2021/051819 12/16/2021
which claims benefit of 63/126,139 filed on 12/16/2020.
Current Status
This office action is a first office action, non-final rejection based on the merits. The application, 18/267,547, has preliminary amendments filed on 06/15/2023 wherein claims 56-79 are pending and have been considered below. Claims 1-55 have been canceled.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it does not commence on a separate sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.52(b)(4) and 1.72(b). A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
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.
Claims 56-61, 65-67, 70-72 and 77 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wells, et al., U.S. Pat. No. 5,009,099.
Regarding independent claim 56 Wells teaches:
“A method for chromatographically analyzing a test sample” (Wells, fig. 1a, col 3 line 38-55.)
“the method comprising: obtaining a sample chromatogram of the test sample with a chromatography system” (Wells, fig. 1a, col 3 line 39-55: Wells teaches a sample is “introduced into the system by means of an injection port 2” (col 3 line 40-44) and “enters a plasma” where “it is broken down into atoms and molecular fragments which are excited and emit light at wavelengths characteristic of the species in the plasma” (col 3 line 48-50) after this the “Light which is so emitted is detected by optical sensing means 7 and a signal from the detecting means is sent to a recording means 8” (col 3 line 51-55) disclosing “obtaining a sample chromatogram of the test sample.”)
“the chromatography system comprising a detector having an adjustable response factor; and adjusting, while obtaining the sample chromatogram, the response factor of the detector based on a compensation signal for compensating expected chromatographic artefacts to obtain an artefact-compensated sample chromatogram” (Wells, fig 4A, fig 4B, col 4 line 66 – col 5 line 36, col 6 line 28-49: Wells teaches “When the carbon response goes above this threshold, the signal from the detector of interest is adjusted in accordance with the calibration curve stored in memory to compensate for background changes due to the carbon response” (col 5 line 7-11) disclosing a “detector” with “an adjustable response factor,” “a compensation signal,” and where the “background changes due to the carbon response” discloses “expected chromatographic artefacts.” Moreover, the compensating (adjusting) “can be accomplished either in real time as the measurements are made or after storing the raw data from the sensors in system memory” (col 5 line 34-36) disclosing the adjusting is done “while obtaining the sample chromatogram.” Additionally, “Fig 4(a) chromatogram shows the uncompensated detector response while the FIG. 4(b) chromatogram shows same data after background correction in accordance with the present invention” (col 6 line 31-35) disclosing an “artefact-compensated sample chromatogram.”
Regarding claim 57 Wells teaches:
“determining the compensation signal” (Wells, col 5 line 20-36: Wells teaches “At each point in time when the carbon response exceeds the threshold, a calculation is performed from the data in memory comprising the calibration curve and the calculated amount is subtracted from the signal at the detector of interest to compensate for the carbon contribution to the signal” (col 5 line 28-33) where “calculated amount” discloses “the compensation signal.”)
Regarding claim 58 Wells teaches:
“wherein said determining the compensation signal is based at least partly on calibration data, the calibration data comprising artefact information about the expected chromatographic artefacts” (Wells, col 4 line 66-col 5 line 19: Wells teaches “the system is programmed so that no adjustment is made to the signal at the detector of interest until the carbon response reaches a threshold value” (col 5 line 1-4) and “When the carbon response goes above this threshold, the signal from the detector of interest is adjusted in accordance with the calibration curve stored in memory to compensate for background changes due to the carbon response” (col 5 line 7-11) where “background changes due to the carbon response” disclose “chromatographic artefacts.” Moreover, “the threshold will be selected to correspond to the point on the calibration curve where the response at the selected detector is measurable different than zero” (col 5 line 4-7) disclosing “the calibration data comprising artefact information about the expected chromatographic artefacts.”)
Regarding claim 59 Wells teaches:
“comprising obtaining the calibration data from a control sample chromatographically representative of the test sample” (Wells, col 4 line 51-65: Wells teaches “the general response curve of FIG. 3 is used as a calibration curve for the purpose of removing the background response as a function of the carbon response” (col 4 line 51-54) and “it is necessary to acquire and store data which relates the response to any given detector of interest to the carbon response” (col 4 line 59-62).)
Regarding claim 60 Wells teaches:
“wherein said determining the compensation signal is based on calibration data obtained from a control sample and a scaling factor representative of a deviation between the calibration data and sample data measured during said obtaining the sample chromatogram” (Wells, col 5, line 20-36: Wells teaches “the threshold value being determined from the calibration curve stored in memory” disclosing the “compensation signal is based on calibration data obtained from a control sample.” Moreover, “At each point in time when the carbon response exceeds the threshold, a calculation is performed from the data in memory comprising the calibration curve and the calculated amount is subtracted from the signal at the detector of interest to compensate for the carbon contribution to the signal. This can be accomplished either in real time as the measurements are made or after storing the raw data from the sensors in system memory” (col 5 line 28-36) where “the calculated amount is subtracted from the signal at the detector of interest to compensate for the carbon contribution to the signal” representing a “scaling factor” as “the calculated amount (from the “calibration data”) is subtracted from the signal at the detector of interest (“sample data”) which is “accomplished” “in real time.”)
Regarding claim 61 Wells teaches:
“the expected chromatographic artefacts are real-time expected chromatographic defects, the response factor of the detector being adjusted in real-time or near real-time” (Wells, fig 3, col 4 line 27-65, col 5 line 20-36: Wells teaches “FIG. 3 shows plots of the response at the sulfur wavelength as a function of the response at the carbon wavelength” (col 4 line 40-42), where “the exact shape and magnitude of the response is, to the first order, entirely dependent on the amount of nitrogen contamination of the helium carrier gas” (col 4 line 46-50). Additionally, “In the present invention it is assumed, to the first order, that any organic molecule which enters the plasma consists entirely of carbon” (col 4 line 36-40) and “the general response curve of FIG. 3 is used as a calibration curve for the purpose of removing the background response as a function of the carbon response (col 4 line 51-54) where “removing the background response as a function of the carbon response” discloses the “chromatographic artefacts” are “expected” and the “removing” of “the background response” discloses a “response factor of the detector” (see claim 56 above) which “can be accomplished either in real time as the measurements are made or after storing the raw data from the sensors in system memory” (col 5 line 34-36) disclosing “the response factor of the detector being adjusted in real-time or near real-time.”)
Regarding claim 65 Wells teaches:
“wherein said determining the compensation signal is performed entirely during said obtaining the sample chromatogram and said adjusting the response factor of the detector” (Wells, col 5 line 20-36: Wells teaches “When the carbon response goes above this threshold, the signal from the detector of interest is adjusted in accordance with the calibration curve stored in memory to compensate for background changes due to the carbon response” (col 5 line 7-11) where the compensating (adjusting) “can be accomplished either in real time as the measurements are made or after storing the raw data from the sensors in system memory” (col 5 line 34-36).)
Regarding claim 66 Wells teaches:
“comprising circulating the test sample in a plasma chamber of the detector” (Wells, fig 1, col 3 line 56-col 4 line 8: Wells teaches “when an iodine containing compound is swept into the plasma generator 6” (col 3 line 68-col 4 line 5) where the “iodine containing compound” discloses a “test sample”
Regarding claim 67 Wells teaches:
“generating a plasma from the test sample” (Wells, fig 1, col 3 line 38-55: Wells teaches a sample carried by a carrier gas into a plasma generator where as “it enters the plasma (generator) the sample is broken down into atoms and molecular fragments . .” (col 3 line 48-51) disclosing a “plasma” generated “from the test sample.”)
Regarding claim 70 Wells teaches:
“measuring an optical emission of the plasma, the optical emission being representative of the test sample” (Wells, fig 1, col 2 line 64-col 3 line 14, col 3 line 56-col 4 line 8: Wells teaches “a plasma emission detector used for the analysis of organic compounds (test sample)” (col 2 line 654-67) where the “light 9 of various wavelengths emitted from the plasma is separated by a diffraction grating 10 or similar means and is dispersed at angles which correspond to particular wavelengths” (col 3 line 58-62) and then recorded by a photodiode which is “connected to the input of recording means 8 so that the instantaneous signal from the detector can be measured and recorded” (col 4 line 5-8).).
Regarding claim 71 Wells teaches:
“the optical emission is a spectral line representative of an analyte present in the test sample” (Wells, fig 1 col 3 line 56-col 4 line 8: Wells teaches light emitted from the plasma is dispersed and “detectors may be positioned at angles corresponding to the wavelengths of the principal emission line of carbon, iodine and sulfur” (col 3 line 65-67) where “carbon, iodine and sulfur” disclose a “test sample.”)
Regarding claim 72 Wells teaches:
“obtaining a reference signal, obtaining an emission signal, and subtracting the reference signal from the emission signal” (Wells, col 5 line 20-36: Wells teaches “a calculation is performed from the data in memory comprising the calibration curve and the calculated amount (reference signal) is subtracted from the signal at the detector of interest (emission signal) to compensate for the carbon contribution to the signal” (col 4 line 28-33).)
Regarding independent claim 77 Wells teaches:
“A chromatography system for chromatographically analyzing a test sample” (Wells, fig. 1a, col 3 line 38-55.)
“the system comprising: a detector having an adjustable response factor, the detector being configured for obtaining a sample chromatogram of the test sample” (Wells, fig. 1a, fig 4A, fig 4B, col 3 line 39-55, col 4 line 66 – col 5 line 36, col 6 line 28-49: Wells teaches “When the carbon response goes above this threshold, the signal from the detector of interest is adjusted in accordance with the calibration curve stored in memory to compensate for background changes due to the carbon response” (col 5 line 7-11) disclosing a “detector” with “an adjustable response factor.” Additionally, Wells teaches a sample is “introduced into the system by means of an injection port 2” (col 3 line 40-44) and “enters a plasma” where “it is broken down into atoms and molecular fragments which are excited and emit light at wavelengths characteristic of the species in the plasma” (col 3 line 48-50) after this the “Light which is so emitted is detected by optical sensing means 7 and a signal from the detecting means is sent to a recording means 8” disclosing “obtaining a sample chromatogram of the test sample.”)
“a control and processing unit coupled to the detector” (Well teaches “microprocessor integrated circuits” (col 5 line 15-19), a “system computer” (col 5 line 62-65), and “computer memory” (col 3 line 51-55).)
“adjusting, while the sample chromatogram is obtained by the detector, the response factor of the detector based on a compensation signal for compensating expected chromatographic artefacts to obtain an artefact-compensated sample chromatogram” (Wells, fig 4A, fig 4B, col 4 line 66 – col 5 line 36, col 6 line 28-49: Wells teaches “When the carbon response goes above this threshold, the signal from the detector of interest is adjusted in accordance with the calibration curve stored in memory to compensate for background changes due to the carbon response” (col 5 line 7-11) disclosing a “adjusting the response factor of the detector,” “a compensation signal,” and where the “background changes due to the carbon response” discloses “expected chromatographic artefacts.” Moreover, the compensating (adjusting) “can be accomplished either in real time as the measurements are made or after storing the raw data from the sensors in system memory” (col 5 line 34-36) disclosing the adjusting is done “while obtaining the sample chromatogram.” Additionally, “Fig 4(a) chromatogram shows the uncompensated detector response while the FIG. 4(b) chromatogram shows same data after background correction in accordance with the present invention” (col 6 line 31-35) disclosing an “artefact-compensated sample chromatogram.”
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.
Claims 62, 64, and 73-76 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wells et al., hereinafter Wells, U.S. Pat. No 5,009,099 in view of Yves Gamache et al., hereinafter Yves Gamache, WO 2019/095053 A1.
Regarding claim 62 Wells teaches: the method of claim 56
Wells does not teach:
“the compensation signal comprises a peak tailing compensation signal component.” Yves Gamache teaches:
“the compensation signal comprises a peak tailing compensation signal component” (Yves Gamache, page 12 line 18-page 13 line 4: Yves Gamache teaches “acquiring the analyte signal in differential mode to correct for baseline artifacts” (page 13 step a) and “preprocessing the analyte signal after the acquiring step to remove unwanted features” (page 12 step b) where “preprocessing the analyte signal includes linearizing the analyte signal” (page 5 line 21-22) where a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that linearizing is a mathematical function to cause the peak to have a more symmetric appearance as many factors can affect peak shape, including peak tailing, such as “chemical reaction into the detector, operating pressure, and many others” (Yves Gamache, page 3 line 1-5).)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system for analyzing the output of a gas chromatograph using plasma emission detectors as taught by Wells as modified by including compensating for peak tailing when analyzing peaks as when peaks are asymmetric, calculating their area is difficult. By compensating for peak tailing the peak’s theoretical area can be determined leading to improved quantitative accuracy.
Regarding claim 64 Wells teaches: the method of claim 56.
Wells does not teach:
“the compensation signal comprises a base line drift compensation signal component.”
Yves Gamache teaches:
“the compensation signal comprises a base line drift compensation signal component” (Yves Gamache, page 20 line 11-page 21 line 15: Yves Gamache teaches “acquiring the analyte signal in differential mode to correct for baseline artifacts: (page 13, step a) where “baseline artifacts” include “base line drift” which is “generally reduced or at least mitigated by the differential mode operation” (page 20 line 25-page 21 line 2).)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system for analyzing the output of a gas chromatograph using plasma emission detectors as taught by Wells by including taking base line drift into account when compensating the signal as taught by Yves Gamache in order to minimize errors in quantitative analysis and provide a redress analyte signal with improved signal to noise ratio (Yves Gamache, page 6, line3-5).
Regarding claim 73 Wells teaches: the method of claim 56.
Wells does not teach:
“pre-processing the artefact-compensated chromatogram”
Yves Gamache teaches:
“pre-processing the artefact-compensated chromatogram” (Yves Gamache, page 13 line 15-28, page 33-34: Yves Gamache teaches “Acquiring the detector signal in differential mode” (page 33 step 1), where “the detector is operable in differential mode for correcting the analyte signal for baseline artifacts” (page 13 line 27-28), where the detector signal discloses the “artefact-compensated chromatogram.” Moreover, “performing a time-domain ensemble averaging, or other similar techniques to improve the signal-to-noise ratio of the signal” (page 34 step 2) discloses “pre-processing the artefact-compensated chromatogram” as the “signal” is the “detector signal.”
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system for analyzing the output of a gas chromatograph using plasma emission detectors as taught by Wells by including pre-processing the artefact-compensated chromatogram as taught by Yves Gamache as pre-processing signals reduces noise in order to minimize errors in quantitative analysis and provide a redress analyte signal with improved signal to noise ratio (Yves Gamache, page 6, line3-5).
Regarding claim 74 Wells as modified does not teach:
“said pre-processing the artefact-compensated chromatogram comprises at least one of: filtering, adjusting, and correcting one or more peaks of the artefact-compensated chromatogram.”
Yves Gamache teaches:
“said pre-processing the artefact-compensated chromatogram comprises at least one of: filtering, adjusting, and correcting one or more peaks of the artefact-compensated chromatogram” (Yves Gamache, fig 11, page 13 line 15-28, page 33-34: Yves Gamache teaches “Acquiring the detector signal in differential mode” (page 33 step 1), where “the detector is operable in differential mode for correcting the analyte signal for baseline artifacts” (page 13 line 27-28), where the detector signal discloses the “artefact-compensated chromatogram.” Moreover, “performing a time-domain ensemble averaging, or other similar techniques to improve the signal-to-noise ratio of the signal” (page 34 step 2) discloses “pre-processing the artefact-compensated chromatogram” as the “signal” is the “detector signal.” Moreover, “a time domain ensemble averaging” discloses “at least one of : filtering, adjusting, and correcting one or more peaks of the artefact-compensated chromatogram” (see fig 11).)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system for analyzing the output of a gas chromatograph using plasma emission detectors as taught by Wells as modified by including pre-processing the artefact-compensated chromatogram as taught by Yves Gamache as pre-processing signals reduces noise in order to minimize errors in quantitative analysis and provide a redress analyte signal with improved signal to noise ratio (Yves Gamache, page 6, line3-5).
Regarding claim 75 Wells teaches: the method of claim 56.
Wells does not teach:
“processing the artefact-compensated chromatogram to determine at least one property of the test sample.”
Yves Gamache teaches:
“processing the artefact-compensated chromatogram to determine at least one property of the test sample” (Yves Gamache, page 3 line 25-page 4 line 7: Yves Gamache teaches “integrating the analyte signal after preprocessing to obtain a redressed analyte signal in the time domain, the redressed analyte signal having a substantially Gaussian shape; and processing the analyte signal to obtain the analyte concentration level” (page 3 line 27-page 4 line 8) where the “redressed analyte signal” is a pure signal associated with the analyte concentration disclosing an “artefact-compensated chromatogram” and “analyte concentration level” discloses a “property of the test sample.”)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system for analyzing the output of a gas chromatograph using plasma emission detectors as taught by Wells by including using the artefact-compensated chromatogram to determine a property of a test sample as disclosed by Yves Gamache as the area under each peak is directly proportional to the concentration of that component and Yves Gamache addresses symmetry (see claim 62) and baseline stability (see claim 64) providing peaks where integration is straightforward and accurate.
Regarding claim 76 Wells as modified does not teach:
“said processing the artefact-compensated chromatogram comprises performing at least one mathematical operation on the artefact-compensated chromatogram or at least one peak thereof.”
Yves Gamache teaches:
“said processing the artefact-compensated chromatogram comprises performing at least one mathematical operation on the artefact-compensated chromatogram or at least one peak thereof” (Yves Gamache, fig. 15, page 35 step 10: Yves Gamache teaches “Executing a moving average function or other filtering method on the remodeled peak” (page 35 step 10) where the “remodeled peak” is derived from the detector signal in a differential mode” (page 33 step 1) which is an “artefact-compensated chromatogram” (see claim 73 above) and a “moving average function” discloses “at least one mathematical operation.”)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system for analyzing the output of a gas chromatograph using plasma emission detectors as taught by Wells by including mathematical operations as mathematical operations decrease errors and improve quantification of analytes.
Claim 63 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wells as modified by Yves Gamache as applied to claim 62 above, and further in view of Marco Beghi, “Optimization of the Ion Extraction from an Inductively Coupled Plasma (ICP) by IBSimu modeling” downloaded from https://www.politesi.polimi.it/bitstream/10589/81162/3/thesis.pdf.
Regarding claim 63:
While Wells as modified by Yves Gamache teaches compensating for peak tailing, Wells as modified by Yves Gamache does not teach compensating for peak tailing is based on a mirror function. Beghi teaches using the well know mirror function to create a symmetrical plot (page 43 last paragraph – page 46 1st paragraph) disclosing the detected signal has been corrected. Therefore the combination of Wells as modified by Yves Gamache with Beghi teaches the limitation “the peak tailing compensation signal component is determined based on a mirror function.”
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system for analyzing the output of a gas chromatograph using plasma emission detectors as taught by Wells as modified by including using a mirror function to compensate for peak tailing as taught by Beghi as a mirror function is easy to use to develop symmetric peaks. When peaks are asymmetric, calculating their area is difficult. By creating a symmetric mirror image the peak’s theoretical area can be determined leading to improved quantitative accuracy.
Claims 68-69 and 78-79 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wells et al., hereinafter Wells, U.S. Pat. No 5,009,099 in view of Gamache, U.S. Pub. No. US 2018/0038800 A1.
Regarding claim 68 Wells as modified teaches: the method of claim 67
While Wells teaches generating a “plasma from a test sample” (see claim 67) Wells does not teach the plasma is generated by applying a “plasma generating field across the plasma chamber.”
Gamache teaches “a plasma-generating mechanism configured to apply a plasma-generating field across the plasma chamber intersecting the gas flow path so as to generate a plasma from said gas sample” (¶ 0009) therefore the combination of Wells and Gamache teach the limitation “generating the plasma in the test sample comprises applying a plasma generating field across the plasma chamber to generate the plasma from the test sample.”
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system for analyzing the output of a gas chromatograph using plasma emission detectors as taught by Wells by including explicitly stating the method for creating a plasma as disclosed by Gamache in order to provide a system where “Controlling and managing the electrical field between the localizing electrodes may provide an improved control of the stability and position of the plasma” (Gamache, ¶ 0121).
Regarding claim 69 Wells as modified does not teach:
“adjusting the response factor of the detector comprises adjusting the plasma generating field.”
Gamache teaches:
“adjusting the response factor of the detector comprises adjusting the plasma generating field” (Gamache, fig 1, ¶ 0036: Gamache teaches “a frequency of the plasma-generating mechanism is adjusted to maintain said optical emissions constant” (¶ 0036) disclosing that “adjusting the plasma generating field” adjusts the “response factor of the detector” in order to “maintain said optical emissions constant.”
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system for analyzing the output of a gas chromatograph using plasma emission detectors as taught by Wells by including adjusting the plasma generating field which adjusts the response of the detector thereby maintaining constant emissions in order to provide a system where “Controlling and managing the electrical field between the localizing electrodes may provide an improved control of the stability and position of the plasma” (Gamache, ¶ 0121).
Regarding claim 78 Wells teaches: the chromatography system of claim 77.
“the detector is a plasma-based detector” (Wells teaches a “plasma emission detector” (abstract).)
“the plasma-based detector comprising: a plasma chamber configured for receiving the test sample” (Wells, fig 1, col 3 line 56-col 4 line 8: Wells teaches “when an iodine containing compound is swept into the plasma generator 6” (col 3 line 68-col 4 line 5) where the “iodine containing compound” discloses a “test sample.”)
“an optical detection module configured for detecting optical emissions emitted from the plasma and producing a detection signal, the sample chromatogram being generated from the detection signal” (Wells, fig 1, col 2 line 64-col 3 line 14, col 3 line 56-col 4 line 8: Wells teaches “a plasma emission detector used for the analysis of organic compounds” (col 2 line 654-67) where the “light 9 of various wavelengths emitted from the plasma is separated by a diffraction grating 10 or similar means and is dispersed at angles which correspond to particular wavelengths” (col 3 line 58-62) and then recorded by a photodiode which is “connected to the input of recording means 8 so that the instantaneous signal from the detector can be measured and recorded” (col 4 line 5-8) where the “recording of the detector signal, which may contain a large number of peaks, is call a chromatogram” (col 1, line 24-26).)
While Wells teaches generating a “plasma from a test sample” (see claim 67) Wells does not teach the plasma is generated by applying a “plasma generating field across the plasma chamber.”
Gamache teaches “a plasma-generating mechanism configured to apply a plasma-generating field across the plasma chamber intersecting the gas flow path so as to generate a plasma from said gas sample” (¶ 0009) therefore the combination of Wells and Gamache teach the limitation “generating the plasma in the test sample comprises applying a plasma generating field across the plasma chamber to generate the plasma from the test sample.”
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system for analyzing the output of a gas chromatograph using plasma emission detectors as taught by Wells by including explicitly stating the method for creating a plasma as disclosed by Gamache in order to provide a system where “Controlling and managing the electrical field between the localizing electrodes may provide an improved control of the stability and position of the plasma” (Gamache, ¶ 0121).
Regarding independent claim 79 Wells teaches:
“A method for chromatographically analyzing a test sample” (Wells, fig. 1a, col 3 line 38-55.)
“the method comprising: generating a plasma from the test sample in a plasma cell of a chromatography system, using a plasma generator of the chromatography system” (Wells, fig 1, col 3 line 38-55: Fig 1 depicts a “chromatography system” that includes a “plasma generator” (fig 1 element 6). Wells teaches a sample carried by a carrier gas into a plasma generator where as “it enters the plasma (generator) the sample is broken down into atoms and molecular fragments . .” (col 3 line 48-51) disclosing a “plasma” generated “from the test sample.”)
“generating a compensation signal, based on the operating conditions of the plasma” (Wells, col 5 line 20-36: Wells teaches “At each point in time when the carbon response exceeds the threshold, a calculation is performed from the data in memory comprising the calibration curve and the calculated amount is subtracted from the signal at the detector of interest to compensate for the carbon contribution to the signal” (col 5 line 28-33) where “calculated amount” discloses “the compensation signal.” Moreover, “most elements typically found in organic compounds have nearly the same ionization potential (i.e., between 10 and 12 electron volts (ev)) in comparison to helium (21.5 ev) (col 6 line 8-15) disclosing “operating conditions.”)
“the compensation signal being sent towards a detector having an adjustable response factor, the compensation signal causing an adjustment of the response factor of the detector for compensating expected chromatographic artefacts” (Wells, fig 4A, fig 4B, col 4 line 66 – col 5 line 36, col 6 line 28-49: Wells teaches “When the carbon response goes above this threshold, the signal from the detector of interest is adjusted in accordance with the calibration curve stored in memory to compensate for background changes due to the carbon response” (col 5 line 7-11) disclosing a “detector” with “an adjustable response factor,” “a compensation signal” which is “sent toward the detector,” and where the “background changes due to the carbon response” discloses “expected chromatographic artefacts.”
“obtaining a sample chromatogram of the test sample with the detector, during the adjustment of the response factor of the detector, to obtain an artefact-compensated sample chromatogram” (Wells, fig 4A, fig 4B, col 4 line 66 – col 5 line 36, col 6 line 28-49:, Wells teaches the compensating (adjusting) “can be accomplished either in real time as the measurements are made or after storing the raw data from the sensors in system memory” (col 5 line 34-36) disclosing the adjusting is done while “obtaining the sample chromatogram.” Additionally, “Fig 4(a) chromatogram shows the uncompensated detector response while the FIG. 4(b) chromatogram shows same data after background correction in accordance with the present invention” (col 6 line 31-35) disclosing an “artefact-compensated sample chromatogram.”
Wells does not teach:
“determining operating conditions of the plasma, said determining the operating conditions comprising: determining an operating frequency of the plasma generator; and/or determining an operating current and/or an operating voltage of the plasma generator”
Gamache teaches:
“determining operating conditions of the plasma, said determining the operating conditions comprising: determining an operating frequency of the plasma generator; and/or determining an operating current and/or an operating voltage of the plasma generator” (Gamache, ¶ 0111: Gamache teaches “the peak voltage and frequency of the alternating current generated by the alternating current generator 25 is preferable selected in view of the nature of the discharge gas and operating conditions in the plasma chamber 22, in order to favor breakdown of the discharge gas and generation of a plasma suitable for target applications” (¶ 0111) disclosing “determining an operating current and/or an operating voltage of the plasma generator” as the “operating conditions” would “favor breakdown of the discharge gas and generation of a plasma suitable for target applications.”)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system for analyzing the output of a gas chromatograph using plasma emission detectors as taught by Wells by including determining operating conditions for the plasma as disclosed by Gamache in order to provide a system where “Controlling and managing the electrical field between the localizing electrodes may provide an improved control of the stability and position of the plasma” (Gamache, ¶ 0121).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Yves Gamache, WO 2016/141463 A1, teaches a plasma based detector using optical spectroscopic for analyzing constituents of gas samples.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Denise R Karavias whose telephone number is (469)295-9152. The examiner can normally be reached 7:00 - 3:00 M-F.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Arleen M. Vazquez can be reached at 571-272-2619. 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.
/DENISE R KARAVIAS/Examiner, Art Unit 2857
/ARLEEN M VAZQUEZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights