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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of claims 1-3, 6-15 in the reply filed on 5/19/26 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Claims 4-5, 16-18 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected groups II and III, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 5/19/26.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because the unlabeled rectangular boxes in Fig. 3 should be provided with descriptive text labels. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 1 and 8-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Walters (US4499930) in view of Zhang et al. (CN102998152, translation provided).
Claim 1: Walter teaches providing a container (vial 4) comprising a body with an opening (open first end 10), a cap (closure 6) designed to cover the opening (see Figs. 1-2), the cap (closure 6) providing a suitable seat for a pierceable septum, and a pierceable septum (septum 18, resiliently pierceable col. 2, lines 63-65), creating a vacuum inside the container through the pierceable septum (col. 4, lines 3-11: The apparatus is utilized by first evacuating the vial to a pressure of less than about 10 torr, preferably between about 0.01 and about 1 torr, such as about 0.1 torr. The vial is easily evacuated by inserting a syringe needle through the rubber septum and into the vial and connecting the syringe needle to a vacuum pump, drawing a vacuum in the vial, and then removing the syringe needle while still drawing the vacuum.), said pierceable septum configured to maintain a substantially airtight seal before and after a piercing operation (the septum can be pierced up to 50 times), injecting a sample into the container by means of the pierceable septum (col. 4, lines 13-17: At the survey site, a sufficient amount of soil gas sample is injected with a syringe needle through the septum and into the vial to provide a positive pressure of between about 800 and about 4,000 torrs of soil gas.
Walters fails to teach a plurality of containers.
However, the duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new or unexpected result is produced.
Walters fails to teach attaching at least one of said plurality of containers to a sampling device; and filling said at least one container with a sampling gas provided by the sampling device by means of the pierceable septum.
However, Zhang teaches a device 100 which provides a gas sample to a sealed sample bottle 5 through the rubber plug 51, Fig. 1.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to attach one container to the device of Zhang in order to obtain a lighter hydrocarbon sample usable for chromatogram or chromatography-mass spectroscopy quantitative test and lighter hydrocarbons isotope analysis (Zhang item 5) pg. 5).
Claim 8: Walters in view of Zhang teaches the method of claim 1. Walters teaches wherein the pierceable septum (Septum 18) is suitably constructed so as to reversibly deform when pierced (the septum is resiliently pierceable such that it can be used dozens of times with a small diameter piercing device without replacement (end col. 2-top col. 3).
Claim 9: Walters in view of Zhang teaches the method of claim 1. Walters teaches wherein the pierceable septum has a thickness (thickness of 3.5mm) suitable for manual use (the sample is injected into the vial at the survey site and then transported back to the laboratory (col. 1, lines 39-41).
Claim 10: Walters in view of Zhang teaches the method of claim 9. Walter teaches wherein the wherein the pierceable septum has a thickness between 2 mm and 4 mm (thickness 3.5mm; col. 2, lines 63-end).
Claim 11: Walters in view of Zhang teaches the method of claim 10. Walters teaches wherein said thickness is substantially equal to 3mm (thickness 3.5mm; col. 2, lines 63-end).
Claim 12: Walters in view of Zhang teaches the method of claim 1. Walters teaches wherein the septum has a diameter suitable for the thickness of the same, said suitable diameter is related to a pressure difference between the interior and exterior pressure on the container (the diameter is 10mm, end col. 2) which is suitable for the pressure difference when the vial is evacuated to less than 10 torr (col. 4, lines 3-6).
Claim 13: Walters in view of Zhang teaches the method of claim 12. Walters in view of Zhang fails to teach the septum has a diameter between 15 mm and 25 mm.
However, Walters teaches that the septum is suitable for a pressure differential when the vial is evacuated to less than 10 torr (col. 4, lines 3-6). Further, Walters teaches that the vial dimensions affects the preferred septum diameter (col. 2, lines 50-55): Preferably, the inside diameter neck having a diameter of less than the septum of preferably 25 mm or less, such as 8 mm, so that the unsupported portion of the septum is relatively small. Therefore, if the preferred neck diameter is 8mm and the preferred septum diameter is 10mm (a different of 2mm) which is based on a suitable tubular member having a 5/8 inch outside diameter and a wall thickness of 0.035 inches (col. 2, lines 39-41).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use a septum having a larger diameter to accommodate a larger vial with a reasonable expectation of success.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use a septum of 15-25 mm in order to accommodate a larger diameter vial.
Claim 14: Walters in view of Zhang teaches the method of claim 13. Walters teaches wherein the septum has a diameter substantially equal to 20 mm.
However, Walters teaches that the septum is suitable for a pressure differential when the vial is evacuated to less than 10 torr (col. 4, lines 3-6). Further, Walters teaches that the vial dimensions affects the preferred septum diameter (col. 2, lines 50-55): Preferably, the inside diameter neck having a diameter of less than the septum of preferably 25 mm or less, such as 8 mm, so that the unsupported portion of the septum is relatively small. Therefore, if the preferred neck diameter is 8mm and the preferred septum diameter is 10mm (a different of 2mm) which is based on a suitable tubular member having a 5/8 inch outside diameter and a wall thickness of 0.035 inches (col. 2, lines 39-41).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use a septum having a larger diameter to accommodate a larger vial with a reasonable expectation of success.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use a septum of 20 mm in order to accommodate a larger diameter vial.
Claim 15: Walters in view of Zhang teaches the method according to claim 1. Walters teaches wherein the vacuum created inside the plurality of containers has a pressure equal to 0.04 millibar or less (0.04 millibar = 0.03 torr; The apparatus is utilized by first evacuating the vial to a pressure of less than about 10 torr, preferably between about 0.01 and about 1 torr, such as about 0.1 torr.)
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Walters in view of Zhang further in view of Calleri (US20160177711).
Claim 2: Walters in view of Zhang teaches the method according to claim 1, but fails to teach completing an analysis upon the sampling gas, said analysis being at least one of compositional and carbon isotope analysis (deltaC13).
However, Calleri teaches obtaining a gaseous sample from pyrolysis of a rock sample in order to perform isotope analysis (analyzer 17) to determine an isotope ratio (composition).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to perform a isotope composition analysis as taught by Calleri on the sample of claim 1 in order to better exploit the geothermal and oil resources where the sample is taken from (Calleri [0005]).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Walters in view of Zhang further in view of Calleri further in view of Ammar et al. (US10942098)
Claim 3: Walters in view of Zhang teaches the method according to claim 1, but fails to teach wherein the sampling gas belongs to a family of drilling mud gasses.
However, Calleri teaches obtaining a gaseous sample from pyrolysis of a rock sample in order to perform isotope analysis (analyzer 17) to determine an isotope ratio (composition).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to perform a isotope composition analysis as taught by Calleri on the sample of claim 1 in order to better exploit the geothermal and oil resources where the sample is taken from (Calleri [0005]).
Walters in view of Zhang further in view of Calleri fails to explicitly teach wherein the sampling gas belongs to a family of drilling mud gasses.
However, Ammar teaches obtaining rock fragments, extracting samples via heat, and an analyzing the samples (Fig. 4) wherein the removed contaminants are also analyzed in order to monitor the mud composition (col. 6, lines 51-59).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use the teaching of Ammar with the method of Walters in view of Zhang further in view of Calleri in order to obtain information on the drilling fluid and thus the formation (Ammar, Col. 6, lines 56-57).
Claims 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Walters in view of Zhang further in view of Gamble (US6106783).
Claim 6: Walters in view of Zhang teaches the method according to claim 1, but fails to teach wherein the pierceable septum is comprised of butyl rubber and polytetrafluoroethylene.
However, Gamble teaches a septum 408 (Fig. 5A) including a resealable portion 409 made of butyl rubber and a barrier portion 503 made of PTFE, col. 4, lines 18-38).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use a pierceable septum as taught by Gamble with the method of claim 1 in order to provide a resealable functionality as well as a chemically resistant barrier (Gamble, Col. 4, lines 18-38).
Claim 7: Walters in view of Zhang further in view of Gamble teaches the method of claim 6. Walters in view of Zhang fails to teach wherein the butyl rubber and polytetrafluoroethylene are arranged in layers, and wherein the polytetrafluoroethylene layer is arranged to be in contact with the internal space defined by the container.
However, Gamble teaches the resealable portion 409 made of butyl rubber layered above the barrier portion 503 made of PTFE such that the PTFE is arranged to be in contact with the internal space of the vial 113, Fig. 5A (col. 4, lines 18-38).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use the septum as taught by Gamble with the method of claim 6 in order to provide a chemically resistant barrier (Gamble Col. 4, lines 18-38).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JEAN MORELLO whose telephone number is (313)446-6583. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-4.
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, Kristina Deherrera can be reached at 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 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.
/JEAN F MORELLO/Examiner, Art Unit 2855 6/11/26
/KRISTINA M DEHERRERA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2855
Prosecution Insights