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 .
Claims 21-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
As to claim 21, analysis of a “chemical element” (line 10) of a “chemical compound” (line 4), either by itself, or in combination with remaining claim limitations is new.
As to claim 33, determining of a concentration of “the chemical element” (line 2 from last) of the “chemical compound” (line 4), either by itself, or in combination with remaining claim limitations is new.
Claims 21-40 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.
As to claim 21, the alternatives are uncertain; use of the term - - either - - in conjunction with “or” might aide the difficulty. Are the possibilities (1) acid and compound, and (2) acid and chemical element; or in the alternative, are the possibilities (1) acid and compound, and (2) only chemical element? Maybe “least” (line 3) could have been - - least either - - ? Maybe “and one” (line 4) could have read to - - and either - - ?
As to claim 33, the alternatives are uncertain; use of the term - - either - - in conjunction with “or” might aide the difficulty. Are the possibilities (1) acid and compound, and (2) acid and chemical element; or in the alternative, are the possibilities (1) acid and compound, and (2) only chemical element? Maybe “least” (line 3) to - - least either - - ? Maybe “and one” (line 4) to - - and either - - ?
Claims 21-40 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over corresponding claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,710,640. Undersigned notes that “the sample” (body of claim 1) relates to “a sample” (preamble), and thus detemination of “components of the sample” (body of claim 1) relates to “elements” of the preamble. Otherwise, the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 21-40 are merely broader than corresponding claims 1-20 of the patent.
Claims 33-40 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over respective corresponding claims 13-20 of U.S. Patent No. 10,373,838. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 33-40 of the application are merely broader than corresponding claims 13-20 of the patent.
Claim(s) 21,26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Naomi et al 5,783,740.
Naomi teaches (Figure 2 a system for determining chemical element concentrations of a sample, the system comprising:
a sampling system configured to collect the sample, the sample including at least chemical element, sampling system including a valve 413 having a holding loop 412 coupled thereto, the valve configured to selectively control flow of the sample through the holding loop; and
an analysis system coupled to the valve via a transfer line 520, the analysis system including:
an analysis device 710 configured to determine a concentration of the chemical element of the sample, and
a sample pump (any pump that displaced from introduction unit 2 into valve 413) configured to introduce the sample from the holding loop into the transfer line for analysis by the analysis device.
Naomi’s specification does not provide for the units of output.
As to claim 21, either Naomi’s “enabling high accurate analysis” (lines 15-18, col. 2) or “quantitative analysis” (line 7, col 1) is concentration because Naomi recognizes the value of measurements by way of “concentration”, or one of ordinary skill would recognize that concentration will provide for accurate/quantitative results.
As to claim 26, Naomi employs carrier pump 405 in figure 2.
Claim(s) 22,24,25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Naomi ‘740.
Naomi does not show a heating system in Figure 3.
As to claims 22,24,25, Naomi teaches (last paragraph, col. 2) preheating samples to more than 100 degrees before analysis, suggestive of employing the same in the system of Figure 2. Also, heating a sample is suggestive of employing insulation downstream of the heater to preserve the heating necessary to allow for proper decomposition (lines 5-15, col. 3) before ultimate analysis.
Claim(s) 33 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Naomi et al 5,783,740.
Naomi ‘740 teaches (Figure 2) a method for determining chemical element concentrations of a sample, the method comprising: receiving the sample with a sampling system, the sample including chemical element (nitrogen introducing the sample into a holding loop 412 of the sampling system via operation of a pump (any pump that displaces from introduction unit 2 into valve 413), the holding loop in fluid communication with a valve 413, the valve configured to selectively control flow of the sample through the holding loop; introducing at least one of a carrier fluid 406 , a diluent fluid, or a standard fluid to the sample at the sample system; transferring the sample from the sampling system through a transfer line via operation of a second pump 601; and determining a concentration (enabling high accurate analysis per lines 15-18, col. 2; quantitative analysis per line 7, col. 1) of [[a]]the chemical element in the sample via an analysis device.
Naomi’s specification does not provide for the units of output.
As to claim 33, either Naomi’s “enabling high accurate analysis” (lines 15-18, col. 2) or “quantitative analysis” (line 7, col 1) is concentration because Naomi recognizes the value of measurements by way of “concentration”, or one of ordinary skill would recognize that concentration will provide for accurate/quantitative results.
Claim(s) 34,35,38 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Naomi ‘740.
Naomi does not show a heating system in Figure 3.
As to claims 34,35 Naomi teaches (last paragraph, col. 2) preheating samples to more than 100 degrees before analysis, suggestive of employing the same in the system of Figure 2. Also, heating a sample is suggestive of employing insulation downstream of the heater to preserve the heating necessary to allow for proper decomposition (lines 5-15, col. 3) before ultimate analysis.
As to claim 38, sample in the DISCHARGE line for unit 710 is waste, suggestive of zero requirement of maintaining a heated line.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 ROBERT R RAEVIS whose telephone number is (571)272-2204. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon to Fri from 8am to 4pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Kristina DeHerrera, can be reached at telephone number 303-297-4237. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center to authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to the USPTO patent electronic filing system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
Examiner interviews are available via a variety of formats. See MPEP § 713.01. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/InterviewPractice.
/ROBERT R RAEVIS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855
Prosecution Insights