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
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority (CN202011509012.9, filed on December 19, 2020) under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
¶[0001]: The phrase “incorporated by references” should be corrected to read “incorporated by reference”.
¶[0035]: The phrase “detail embodiments” should be corrected to read “detailed embodiments”.
¶[0046]: The phrase “the slide rail 2-3 are both electrically connected” should be corrected to read “the slide rail 2-1 are both electrically connected”, since 2-3 refers to the stainless steel needle.
¶[0060]: The phrase “internal implanted logical relationship” should be corrected to read “internal implemented logical relationship”, since “implant” is not the correct word for software/control logic.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 3 objected to because of the following informalities:
The phrase “an other end” should be corrected to read “another end”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “a sampling module.” The specification discloses that the sampling module includes a stainless steel needle, a slide rail, and a turntable, with the stainless steel needle connected to the power module through a first tube arranged on the slide rail, and the slide rail configured to drive the stainless steel needle to slide into the reactor to suck reaction solution (¶[0016]; ¶[0046]–¶[0047]). Therefore, the “sampling module” is interpreted as the sampling assembly including the stainless steel needle, slide rail, turntable, and first tube arrangement disclosed in the specification.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “a power module.” The specification discloses that the power module includes a power pump, where the power pump is a syringe pump or a plunger pump, and is connected to each of the pipe of the sampling module and the pipe of the monitoring analysis module (¶[0018]; ¶[0049]–¶[0050]). Therefore, the “power module” is interpreted as the power-pump assembly including the power pump and its pipe connections disclosed in the specification.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “a monitoring analysis module.” The specification discloses that the monitoring analysis module is a high performance liquid chromatograph, which generates a monitoring report according to the reaction solution and transmits the monitoring report to the upper computer (¶[0020]; ¶[0038]; ¶[0051]). Therefore, the “monitoring analysis module” is interpreted as the high performance liquid chromatograph assembly disclosed in the specification.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION. —The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “a new type reactor.” The phrase “new type” is a relative/subjective descriptor that does not, by itself, particularly point out the structure and scope of the claimed reactor, because it is unclear what baseline is used to determine “new” or what structural features make the reactor a “new type.” Accordingly, the term “new type” is a relative term and renders the scope of “a new type reactor” indefinite. Claims 2–8, which depend on Claim 1, are similarly rejected by virtue of dependency.
Claim 1 recites that the sampling module is connected to “a pipe of the power module” and that the power module is connected to “a pipe of the monitoring analysis module,” while also reciting that the sampling module, the power module, and the monitoring analysis module are electrically connected to the upper computer. Although the claim distinguishes fluid connections from electrical connections, it is unclear whether the modules are connected through pipes or to pipes as components. Accordingly, the connection language renders the scope of the claim unclear. Claims 2–8, which depend on Claim 1, are similarly rejected by virtue of dependency.
Claim 4 recites the limitation “the power pump is connected to each of a pipe of the sampling module and the pipe of the monitoring analysis module.” The claim does not make clear whether the power pump is connected through fluid lines associated with those modules or to pipes as discrete structural components of those modules. Accordingly, the connection language renders the scope of Claim 4 unclear.
Claim 6 recites the limitation “the cleaning module is connected to each of a pipe of the sampling module and the pipe of the power module.” The claim does not make clear whether the cleaning module is connected through fluid lines associated with those modules or to pipes as discrete structural components of those modules. Accordingly, the connection language renders the scope of Claim 6 unclear. Claims 7 and 8, which depend on Claim 1, are similarly rejected by virtue of dependency.
Claim 7 recites the limitation “the second liquid container, the power module and the monitoring analysis module are each connected to a pipe of the solenoid valve.” The claim does not make clear whether those components are connected through fluid lines controlled by the solenoid valve or to a pipe as a structural component of the solenoid valve. Accordingly, the connection language renders the scope of Claim 7 unclear. Claims 8, which depend on Claim 1, are similarly rejected by virtue of dependency.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 4, and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HEWITSON et al. (US20180149625A1, hereinafter HEWITSON).
Regarding Claim 1, HEWITSON discloses an automated sampling and reaction system including an external sampling valve, a microreactor in fluid communication with the external sampling valve, and an injection valve connected to the microreactor. The external sampling valve is configured to draw sample from a reactor (¶[0007]).
FIG. 1 illustrates a separation and detection system 1 including an automated sampling and reaction system 2 and a solvent delivery system 8. The automated sampling and reaction system 2 is in fluidic communication with a reactor flow stream and with the solvent delivery system 8, and the solvent composition stream is combined with sample and sent to a chromatographic column 6 or detector. The automated sampling and reaction system 2 is directly connected to a process line by tubing and can acquire samples from the reactor flow stream or process flow stream for chromatographic analysis (¶[0040]–¶[0042]).
The separation and detection system 1 further includes a data system 100 in signal communication with the automated sampling and reaction system 2 and the solvent delivery system 8. The data system 100 is programmed to control operation of the automated sampling and reaction system 2, including turning pumps on and off and rotating valves to automatically acquire and treat a process sample for introduction into the solvent composition stream. A host computing system 102 communicates with the data system 100 to provide parameters and profiles affecting system performance (¶[0047]).
It would have been obvious to program the data system to generate a monitoring report from the analysis results and transmit the monitoring report to the upper computer for analysis result generation, as this is a standard function of automated chromatographic monitoring systems for real-time process monitoring.
PNG
media_image1.png
420
643
media_image1.png
Greyscale
FIG. 1 of HEWITSON
FIG. 2A illustrates that the automated sampling and reaction system 2 includes an external sampling valve 22, a priming valve 24, a diluent valve 26, a reagent valve 28, an injection valve 30, a sample pump 32, a diluent pump 34, a reagent pump 36, a mixing tee 18, and a microreactor 12 (¶[0049]). The external sampling valve 22 includes a first sample loop 40 and fluidic ports 22-1 to 22-6, with tubing connecting fluidic port 22-2 to a reactor flow stream, fluidic port 22-3 to a collection reservoir 44, fluidic port 22-5 to fluidic port 24-1 of the priming valve 24, and fluidic port 22-6 to the mixing tee 18. In the idle configuration, sample flows through the external sampling valve 22 into the first sample loop 40 (¶[0053]).
PNG
media_image2.png
815
1136
media_image2.png
Greyscale
FIG. 2A of HEWITSON
Regarding Claim 4, HEWITSON makes obvious the automatic monitoring system of Claim 1. HEWITSON discloses an automated sampling and reaction system having a pumping system including a sample pump, a diluent pump, and a reagent pump, where the pumps draw and discharge sample, diluent, and/or reagent for introduction into the chromatographic analysis flow path (¶[0030]–¶[0032]; ¶[0049]). It would have been obvious to use the power pump as a syringe pump or a plunger pump, since selection of a known pump type for controlled laboratory fluid transfer is a routine design choice from a finite set of established pump options.
Regarding Claim 5, HEWITSON makes obvious the automatic monitoring system of Claim 1. HEWITSON discloses that the monitoring system includes a liquid chromatography system with a chromatographic column 6 for analysis of the sample (¶[0027]–¶[0029]; ¶[0040]).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HEWITSON as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of XIAO et al. (CN209076707U, hereinafter XIAO) and WU (CN207756136U).
Regarding Claim 2, HEWITSON makes obvious the automatic monitoring system of Claim 1. HEWITSON discloses that the automated sampling and reaction system 2 is in fluidic communication with a reactor flow stream and sends sample for chromatographic analysis to column 6 or a detector (¶[0040]–¶[0042]). The automated sampling and reaction system 2 includes a microreactor 12 (¶[0049]), where sample together with reagent and/or diluent is introduced to react and form a secondary sample for discharge to the liquid chromatography column or detector (¶[0030]–¶[0031]).
However, HEWITSON does not explicitly disclose the reactor having a bottle-type structure, including the bottle mouth and bottle body, the recited ports and their positional arrangement, and a layered bottle body with the cyclic liquid inlet/outlet communicated with their respective layers.
XIAO discloses a round-bottom flask with recirculating heating (¶[0002]). FIG. 1 illustrates a recirculating heated round-bottom flask including a neck section 1 and a double-layered bottle body formed by an inner flask 2 and an outer flask 3. A serpentine heating tube 4 is provided between the inner flask 2 and the outer flask 3, and the inlet 5 and outlet 6 of the serpentine heating tube 4 extend out of the outer flask 3 to connect with an external circulating heating liquid pipeline. The inlet 5 and outlet 6 have an included angle of 0° to 180° and are set at any angle from 0° to 90° with the horizontal direction (¶[0024]).
PNG
media_image3.png
907
642
media_image3.png
Greyscale
FIG. 1 of XIAO
During operation, the liquid circulation heating tank is connected to the inlet 5 and outlet 6 of the serpentine heating tube 4 through the liquid circulation pipe 10, and the circulation pump 9 circulates heating liquid through the serpentine heating tube 4 to heat the flask, maintain stable liquid temperature, and rapidly cool the flask when needed (¶[0026]). The recirculating heated round-bottom flask functions as a reactor vessel because it contains the material during reaction or extraction and uses circulating heating liquid to control temperature and rapidly cool the flask and the material inside to stop the reaction or extraction process.
Advantageously, the recirculating heated round-bottom flask disclosed by XIAO maintains controlled and stable temperature of the material in the flask, ensures experimental stability, improves reaction or extraction efficiency for temperature-stable substances, and avoids unwanted chemical changes for temperature-sensitive substances (¶[0017]). In view of HEWITSON’s automatic monitoring system, a person skilled in the art would have used the recirculating heated round-bottom flask as the reaction vessel to carry out the monitored process under controlled and stable temperature conditions with predictable results.
Regarding the limitation “a set angle is formed between the sample intake and the bottle mouth,” it would have been obvious to form the sample intake at a set angle relative to the bottle mouth as a routine positional arrangement selected to facilitate fluid introduction into the vessel, improve access to the opening, and accommodate surrounding components and tubing during operation, much like angled placement of a spout or side opening on a container is used for practical filling and handling.
Regarding the limitation “the cyclic liquid outlet and the cyclic liquid inlet are both communicated with the temperature cycle layer, and the cyclic liquid outlet and the cyclic liquid inlet are diagonally arranged,” XIAO discloses angular arrangement of the liquid inlet and liquid outlet of the serpentine heating tube. It would have been obvious to diagonally arrange the cyclic liquid inlet and outlet as a routine positional arrangement selected according to access, tubing layout, and operation.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the recirculating heated round-bottom flask, as disclosed by XIAO, as the reaction vessel in the automatic monitoring system by HEWITSON.
However, modified HEWITSON does not explicitly disclose the bottle body further comprising a vacuum layer from inside to outside.
WU discloses a reaction vessel for producing acrylic resin (¶[0002]). FIG. 1 illustrates a reactor body 1 having a feed inlet 11 at the top and a vacuum layer 12 provided outside the reactor body 1. The input end of the air heater 3 is connected to the inside of the vacuum layer 12 through a connecting pipe 31, a venting valve 121 is provided on the side of the reactor body 1 corresponding to the vacuum layer 12, and an exhaust pipe 13 is provided at the bottom of the vacuum layer 12 (¶[0024]).
PNG
media_image4.png
932
726
media_image4.png
Greyscale
FIG. 1 of WU
Advantageously, the reactor disclosed by WU is convenient to use, effectively mixes and reacts the raw materials, improves reaction efficiency, and allows easier temperature control, solving the problems of uneven heating and difficult temperature adjustment of traditional electric-heating reaction vessels (¶[0006]). In view of modified HEWITSON, a person skilled in the art would have incorporated a vacuum layer into the bottle body to improve temperature control and reduce uneven heating, with predictable results.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate a vacuum layer in the bottle body, as disclosed by WU, in the reaction vessel by modified HEWITSON.
Claims 3, 6, and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HEWITSON as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of CHEN et al. (CN204514694U, hereinafter CHEN) and CHENG (CN108267607A).
Regarding Claim 3, HEWITSON makes obvious the automatic monitoring system of Claim 1. HEWITSON discloses an automated sampling and reaction system 2 arranged to draw sample from a reactor or reactor flow stream and introduce the sample for chromatographic analysis (¶[0040]–¶[0042]). However, HEWITSON does not explicitly disclose that the sampling module comprises a stainless steel needle, a slide rail.
CHEN discloses a pipe-taking device with real-time monitoring function (¶[0002]). FIG. 1 illustrates that the drive mechanism for moving the stainless steel pipe 5 up and down includes a slide table 14 and a slide rail 13, where the track extension direction of the slide rail 13 is the same as the movement direction of the stainless steel pipe 5. The slide table 14 slides along the track direction of the slide rail 13, and the top end of the stainless steel pipe 5 is fixedly connected to the drive mechanism through the “T”-shaped connecting block 3 (¶[0030]). The tube-taking head 2 is fixed on the drive mechanism, with one end connected to the end of the stainless steel tube 5 and the other end connected to the suction pump 20 (¶[0034]).
PNG
media_image5.png
902
520
media_image5.png
Greyscale
FIG. 1 of CHEN
The tube-retrieving device includes a stainless steel tube, a controller, and a drive mechanism for moving the stainless steel tube up and down. The drive mechanism includes a motor, a “T”-shaped connecting block, a slide table, and a slide rail, and the “T”-shaped connecting block drives the slide table to slide along the slide rail, thereby moving the stainless steel tube. The controller receives signals from the photoelectric sensor and controls operation of the drive mechanism based on the signals (¶[0009]–¶[0012]).
Advantageously, the tube-taking device disclosed by CHEN provides guided, stable movement of the stainless steel sampling member, reduces operating resistance, and improves reliability during tube-taking (¶[0017]; ¶[0021]). In view of HEWITSON’s automated sampling and reaction system, a person skilled in the art would have incorporated the slide-rail-driven stainless steel sampling structure into the sampling portion of the system to provide guided and stable movement of the sampling member with reduced operating resistance and improved sampling reliability, with predictable results.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the slide-rail-driven stainless steel sampling structure, as disclosed by CHEN, into the sampling module of the automatic monitoring system by HEWITSON.
However, modified HEWITSON does not explicitly disclose that the slide rail is fixed on a turntable.
CHENG discloses an automated sample analysis and detection method (¶[0002]). FIG. 1 illustrates that the turntable has six reaction tube receiving holes and six workstations arranged around the turntable, including a starting position 12, a first liquid injection position, a second liquid injection position, a detection position, a cleaning position, and a reaction tube removal position 8. The six workstations are evenly arranged around the circumference of the turntable, with adjacent workstations 60° apart. The starting position is used by the robotic arm to place the reaction tube containing the sample liquid into the reaction tube receiving hole on the turntable, and the reaction tube removal position is used by the robotic arm to remove the reaction tube from the turntable (¶[0079]–¶[0084]). The detection device is equipped with a communication module for transmitting detection data and tag data to a host computer or other data platform (¶[0087]).
PNG
media_image6.png
731
858
media_image6.png
Greyscale
FIG. 1 of CHENG
The integrated stirring, injection and extraction device includes a support 50, a lifting needle seat 53, a lifting cylinder 55, a motor 54, and a needle 51. The needle holder has an injection tube 56 and a suction tube 57, where the needle is connected to a reagent container through the injection tube and to a waste liquid collection container through the suction tube, and the respective tube includes a pump. During operation, when the cylinder lowers the needle holder to the lowest position, the needle is inserted into the reaction tube, and when the drainage pump is started, the liquid in the reaction tube is displaced (¶[0107]–¶[0109]).
Advantageously, CHENG provides an automatic sample analysis and detection method that is easy to implement and has high detection efficiency, while reducing reliance on manual operations in biochemical detection systems (¶[0004]–¶[0005]; ¶[0008]). In view of modified HEWITSON’s slide-rail-driven sampling structure, a person skilled in the art would have fixed the slide rail on the turntable in CHENG’s automated sample-handling arrangement so that the sampling structure can be positioned with the turntable for automated handling of reaction tubes, improving automation and detection efficiency with predictable results.
Regarding the placement and configuration of the sampling module, in combination, HEWITSON provides the automated sampling context, CHEN provides the slide-rail-driven stainless steel sampling structure, and CHENG provides the turntable-based arrangement with needle-based liquid handling and host-computer-linked detection data. Based on these disclosures, a person skilled in the art would have been able to configure the slide-rail-driven stainless steel sampling structure on the turntable in an automated sampling system, including selection of the slide-rail position and angle as routine positional arrangements, so that the sampling member can be moved into position for sampling and operated in coordination with turntable-based handling and host-computer-linked analysis through routine design optimization of known automated sampling components.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the turntable-based sampling arrangement, as disclosed by CHENG, into the sampling module of the automatic monitoring system by modified HEWITSON.
Regarding Claim 6, modified HEWITSON makes obvious the automatic monitoring system of Claim 3. CHENG discloses that, for tested reaction tubes, liquid is extracted, cleaning solution is injected, the contents are stirred, and the liquid is extracted again, and this process may be repeated multiple times (¶[0110]–¶[0111]). It would have been obvious that the disclosed cleaning operation necessarily requires pump-driven fluid handling through the sampling path, and therefore the cleaning module would be connected to the sampling module and the power module so that cleaning solution can be introduced and withdrawn during cleaning.
Regarding Claim 7, modified HEWITSON makes obvious the cleaning module of Claim 6. CHENG discloses that the needle holder has an injection tube 56 and a suction tube 57, where the needle is connected to a reagent container through the injection tube and to a waste liquid collection container through the suction tube. The injection tube has a valve and a miniature injection pump, and the suction tube has a miniature suction pump (¶[0108]–¶[0109]).
Although modified HEWITSON does not explicitly disclose use of a solenoid valve, it would have been obvious to use the valve in the liquid-handling line as a solenoid valve, since solenoid valves are well-known for electrically actuated automatic control of fluid flow in automated liquid-handling systems, and selection of such a valve is a routine choice from a finite set of established automated flow-control valves.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HEWITSON in view of CHEN and CHENG as applied to Claim 7 above, and further in view of MA et al. (CN105890923A, hereinafter MA).
Regarding Claim 8, modified HEWITSON makes obvious the cleansing solution of Claim 7. CHENG discloses use of a cleaning solution during cleaning of the reaction tube system (¶[0109]–¶[0111]). However, modified HEWITSON does not explicitly disclose that the cleansing solution is an organic solvent.
MA discloses a sterile micro-liquid sampling device and method suitable for online detection systems of bioreactors such as microbial fermentation and cell culture (¶[0002]). In a pipeline cleaning and sterilization method, 75% ethanol solution is sequentially used as a pipeline cleaning liquid, and ethanol sterilization and cleaning is performed by drawing the 75% ethanol solution through the sampling system until discharged to the waste bottle, thereby cleaning the equipment flow path (¶[0018]; ¶[0023]).
The use of an organic solvent such as ethanol for cleaning and sterilizing liquid-handling lines, as disclosed by MA, is well known in the art because such solvents are routinely used to remove residue and reduce contamination in sampling and fluid-transfer paths. In view of modified HEWITSON’s cleaning arrangement using a cleaning solution, a person skilled in the art would have used an organic solvent such as ethanol as the cleansing solution to clean and sterilize the sampling flow path.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the organic-solvent cleansing solution, as disclosed by MA, into the cleaning arrangement of the automatic monitoring system by modified HEWITSON.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TAK L. CHIU whose telephone number is (703)756-1059. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:00am - 6:00pm (CST).
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, PREM C. SINGH can be reached at (571)272-6381. 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.
/TAK L. CHIU/Examiner, Art Unit 1777
/KRISHNAN S MENON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1777