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 .
Status of Claims
The claim set submitted on 17 FEBRUARY 2026 is acknowledged and considered. In the claim set, Claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 7 and 8 are ‘Currently Amended’; Claims 3 and 5 are ‘Previously Presented’; Claims 9 is ‘New’.
Current pending claims are Claims 1-9 and are considered on the merits below.
Response to Amendment/Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see REMARKS, filed 17 FEBRUARY 2026, with respect to the claim objections have been fully considered and are persuasive. The claim objections have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-8 have been considered but are moot . Applicant has amended the claims to further define invention. In response to the Applicant's amendments, the grounds of rejection for Claims 1-8 are modified compared to the previous action due to the amendments but rely on the same prior art.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over YOKOGAWA, EP 3 889 593 A1, submitted on the Information Disclosure Statement on 28 NOVEMBER 2023; Foreign Patent Documents Cite No. 1.
Applicant’s invention is directed towards a device, a reaction analysis system.
Regarding Claim 1, the reference YOKOGAWA discloses a reaction analysis system , Figure 14, reactor 10, [0032, 0033], comprising:
a mixer that mixes reactants to obtain a reaction fluid, Figure 1, mixer 13 mixes fluids from pumps 11 and 12, [0032];
a first flow path, connected to the mixer, through which the reaction fluid obtained in the mixer , Figure 1, reaction flow path 14, [0032];
temperature sensors that measure a temperature distribution of the reaction fluid along the first flow path, Figure 1, [0035-0037, 0056]; and
one or more processors that specify a reaction state of the reaction fluid based on a reaction parameter, wherein the reaction parameter is obtained from the measured temperature distribution and indicates the reaction state of the reaction fluid, Figure 1 and 14, [0032, 0099, 0100], analysis device 20 includes CPU 23 (processor), [0032, 0099, 0100].
The YOKOGAWA reference discloses the claimed invention, but is silent in regards to a second flow path different from the first flow path and also connected to the mixer.
As seen from Figure 1, YOKOGAWA teaches the first flow path through which the reaction fluid is obtained in the mixer. Although YOKOGAWA does not teach the second flow path, it is merely a design choice and the mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced, In reHarza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960).
In a different embodiment disclosed is a second flow path through which the reaction fluid flows and that has higher heat exchange efficiency than the first flow path, Figure 14, any other one of path between pump 11 and tube 113 or 113A-D, [0134, 0135, 0163], Examiner’s Note: the heat exchange efficiency is not a structural feature and based on what flows through the flow paths or what is around the flow paths can dictate the temperature difference between the fluid and external environment, which can dictate the heat exchange efficiency. In addition, in the embodiment shown in Figure 11, a heating device is placed along a reaction flow path , which would modify and provide a higher heat exchange efficiency than the first flow path, [0148, 0149].
It would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of YOKOGAWA to have a second flow path different from the first flow path and also connected to the mixer that has a higher heat exchange efficiency than the first flow path so that it can suppress any side reactions and produce desired chemical reaction, abstract.
Additional Disclosures Included are: Claim 2: wherein the reaction analysis system according to claim 1, further comprising: a heater or cooler that adjusts a temperature of each of the first flow path and the second flow path, Figure 1 and/or 7, parameter adjuster 234 or temperature regulator 15, [0009, 0044, 0106, 0148, 0149]. ; Claim 3: wherein the reaction analysis system according to claim 1, further comprising: a fluid tank that includes a temperature control fluid in which one or both of the first flow path and the second flow path immerse, Figure 1 and/or 7; and a pump that feeds the temperature control fluid into the fluid tank, [0044-0046]. ; Claim 4: wherein the reaction analysis system according to claim 1, wherein the temperature sensors further measure a temperature distribution of the reaction fluid along the second flow path, Figure 1, [0044-0046], measurer 16.; Claim 5: wherein the reaction analysis system according to claim 1, further comprising: a valve that switches connection with a discharge port of the mixer between the first flow path and the second flow path, Figure 1 and 14, valves 114a-c, switches connection between mixer 13 and any one of flow paths as seen in Figure 14, [0165-0169].; Claim 6: wherein the reaction analysis system according to claim 1, further comprising: a third flow path through which the reaction fluid flows and that has a higher heat exchange efficiency than the second flow path, Figure 14, any other one of path between pump 11 and tube 113 or 113A-D, [0134, 0135, 0163], Examiner’s Note: the heat exchange efficiency is not a structural feature and based on what flows through the flow paths or what is around the flow paths can dictate the temperature difference between the fluid and external environment, which can dictate the heat exchange efficiency; and a valve that switches connection with a discharge port of the mixer among the first flow path, the second flow path, and the third flow path, Figure 1 and 14, valves 114a-c, switches connection between mixer 13 and any one of flow paths as seen in Figure 14, [0165-0169]; wherein the temperature sensors further measure a temperature distribution of the reaction fluid along each of the second flow path and the third flow path, Figure 1 and/or 7, parameter adjuster 234 or temperature regulator 15, [0009, 0044-0046, 0106], and one or more processors further specify a reaction state of the reaction fluid in each of the second flow path and the third flow path based on a reaction parameter obtained from the measured temperature distribution along a corresponding one of the second flow path and the third flow path, [0070-0081, 0107], reaction parameters at least, such as ΔH is a reaction molar enthalpy (kJ/mol), ΔG‡ is activation free energy (kJ/mol) and Ea is activation energy (kJ/mol) are determined.; and Claim 9: wherein the reaction analysis system according to claim 1, further comprising: a fluid tank that accommodates a temperature control fluid, wherein the first flow path and the second flow path are immersed in the temperature control fluid in the fluid tank, Figure 14, dotted line of reactor 10, [0168-170].
Applicant’s invention is directed towards a device.
Regarding Claim 7, the reference YOKOGAWA discloses a reaction analysis device comprising:
a controller, [0032, 0099, 0100, 0103, 0107], Figure 7, that:
acquires a measured value of a temperature distribution of a reaction fluid along a first flow path through which the reaction fluid flows, Figure 1 and 14, [0136-0141], wherein the first flow is connected to a mixer and the reaction fluid is obtained by mixing reactants in a mixer, Figure 1, [0016, 0032-0038], mixer 13 obtains fluids from pumps/ports and flow along reaction tube 14 (reaction flow path);
specifies a reaction state of the reaction fluid based on a reaction parameter that is obtained from the measured value and that indicates the reaction state of the reaction fluid, [0070-0081, 0107], reaction parameters at least, such as ΔH is a reaction molar enthalpy (kJ/mol), ΔG‡ is activation free energy (kJ/mol) and Ea is activation energy (kJ/mol) are determined; and
controls a valve to switch connection with a discharge port of the mixer from the first flow path to a second flow path, wherein heat exchange efficiency of the second flow path is higher than heat exchange efficiency of the first flow path, [0032, 0099, 0100, 0103, 0106, 0168], all valves are connected to device 20 controlled by controller, Figure 7, Examiner’s Note: the heat exchange efficiency is not a structural feature and based on what flows through the flow paths or what is around the flow paths can dictate the temperature difference between the fluid and external environment, which can dictate the heat exchange efficiency.
The YOKOGAWA reference discloses the claimed invention, but is silent in regards to a second flow path different from the first flow path and also connected to the mixer.
As seen from Figure 1, YOKOGAWA teaches the first flow path through which the reaction fluid is obtained in the mixer. Although YOKOGAWA does not teach the second flow path, it is merely a design choice and the mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced, In reHarza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960).
In a different embodiment disclosed is a second flow path through which the reaction fluid flows and that has higher heat exchange efficiency than the first flow path, Figure 14, any other one of path between pump 11 and tube 113 or 113A-D, [0134, 0135, 0163], Examiner’s Note: the heat exchange efficiency is not a structural feature and based on what flows through the flow paths or what is around the flow paths can dictate the temperature difference between the fluid and external environment, which can dictate the heat exchange efficiency. In addition, in the embodiment shown in Figure 11, a heating device is placed along a reaction flow path , which would modify and provide a higher heat exchange efficiency than the first flow path, [0148, 0149].
It would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of YOKOGAWA to have a second flow path different from the first flow path and also connected to the mixer that has a higher heat exchange efficiency than the first flow path so that it can suppress any side reactions and produce desired chemical reaction, abstract.
Applicant’s invention is directed towards a method.
Regarding Claim 8, the reference YOKOGAWA discloses a reaction analysis method, [0001, 0021-0024, 0039-0050], Claim 17, carried out by a controller in a reaction analysis device, [0032, 0103, 0106], comprising:
acquiring a measured value of a temperature distribution of a reaction fluid along a first flow path through which the reaction fluid flows, wherein the first flow is connected to a mixer and reaction fluid is obtained by mixing reactants in the mixer, Figure 1, [0032-0034, 0158], Figure 3, [0059-0092], actual measured value T and different positions;
specifying a reaction state of the reaction fluid based on a reaction parameter that is obtained from the measured value and that indicates the reaction state of the reaction fluid, [0070-0081, 0107], reaction parameters at least, such as ΔH is a reaction molar enthalpy (kJ/mol), ΔG‡ is activation free energy (kJ/mol) and Ea is activation energy (kJ/mol) are determined; and
controlling a valve to switch connection with a discharge port of the mixer from the first flow path to a second flow path, wherein heat exchange efficiency of the second flow path is higher than heat exchange efficiency of the first flow path, Figure 1 and 14, valves 114a-c, switches connection between mixer 13 and any one of flow paths as seen in Figure 14, [0024, 0165-0169], amount of heat generated is calculated as a parameter and parameters ΔH and ΔG‡ are determined, Examiner’s Note: the heat exchange efficiency is not a structural feature and based on what flows through the flow paths or what is around the flow paths can dictate the temperature difference between the fluid and external environment, which can dictate the heat exchange efficiency.
The YOKOGAWA reference discloses the claimed invention, but is silent in regards to a second flow path physically different from the first flow path and also connected to the mixer.
As seen from Figure 1, YOKOGAWA teaches the first flow path through which the reaction fluid is obtained in the mixer. Although YOKOGAWA does not teach the second flow path, it is merely a design choice and the mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced, In reHarza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960).
In a different embodiment disclosed is a second flow path through which the reaction fluid flows and that has higher heat exchange efficiency than the first flow path, Figure 14, any other one of path between pump 11 and tube 113 or 113A-D, [0134, 0135, 0163], Examiner’s Note: the heat exchange efficiency is not a structural feature and based on what flows through the flow paths or what is around the flow paths can dictate the temperature difference between the fluid and external environment, which can dictate the heat exchange efficiency. In addition, in the embodiment shown in Figure 11, a heating device is placed along a reaction flow path , which would modify and provide a higher heat exchange efficiency than the first flow path, [0148, 0149].
It would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of YOKOGAWA to have a second flow path different from the first flow path and also connected to the mixer that has a higher heat exchange efficiency than the first flow path so that it can suppress any side reactions and produce desired chemical reaction, abstract.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTINE T MUI whose telephone number is (571)270-3243. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 5:30 -15:30 EST.
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, LYLE ALEXANDER can be reached at (571) 272-1254. 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.
CTM
/CHRISTINE T MUI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1797
Prosecution Insights