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
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Response to Amendment
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The rejection of claims 19, 28 and 30 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph is withdrawn in view of the amendments thereto.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
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 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.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-8, 13 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over US 3620844 to Ewald Wicke.
Regarding Claim 1, Ewald Wicke discloses a deuterium gas generator system (Figs. 5-6 and 9-10, continuous system of the separation of a hydrogen-deuterium mixture; Col. 4, line 8 – Col. 6, line 15, Col. 7, lines 18-48), the deuterium gas generator system comprising: an electrolysis cell (Figs. 5-6 and 9-10, hydrogen is removed from the tube either electrolytically, palladium-silver-alloy tubes, which are in contact with the electrolyte consisting of alkaline aqueous solutions; Col. 4, line 8 – Col. 6, line 15, Col. 7, lines 18-48), and a palladium alloy purifier membrane having a surface area of not more than 10 square centimeters (Figs. 3-6 and 9-10, palladium-silver-alloy tubes of 90 mm length with 3 mm diameter and wall thickness of 0.1 mm and/or palladium-silver alloy (75:25) foil 2 on end of an open-ended tube of 8 mm diameter (0.5 sq. cm)); Col. 3, line 34 – Col. 6, line 15, Col. 7, lines 18-48).
Regarding Claim 3, Ewald Wicke discloses the palladium alloy purifier membrane has a surface area of not more than 5 square centimeters (Figs. 3-6 and 9-10, palladium-silver-alloy tubes of 90 mm length with 3 mm diameter and wall thickness of 0.1 mm and/or palladium-silver alloy (75:25) foil 2 on end of an open-ended tube of 8 mm diameter (0.5 sq. cm)); Col. 3, line 34 – Col. 6, line 15, Col. 7, lines 18-48).
Regarding Claim 4, Ewald Wicke discloses the palladium alloy purifier membrane is a single linear tube of palladium alloy or a palladium silver purifier membrane (Figs. 3-6 and 9-10, palladium-silver-alloy tubes of 90 mm length with 3 mm diameter and wall thickness of 0.1 mm and/or palladium-silver alloy (75:25) foil 2 on end of an open-ended tube of 8 mm diameter (0.5 sq. cm)); Col. 3, line 34 – Col. 6, line 15, Col. 7, lines 18-48).
Regarding Claim 5, Ewald Wicke discloses the palladium alloy purifier membrane is integrated in the electrolysis cell (Figs. 5-6 and 9-10, hydrogen is removed from the tube either electrolytically, palladium-silver-alloy tubes, which are in contact with the electrolyte consisting of alkaline aqueous solutions; Col. 4, line 8 – Col. 6, line 15, Col. 7, lines 18-48).
Regarding Claim 6, Ewald Wicke discloses the palladium alloy purifier membrane is separate from the electrolysis cell (Figs. 5-6 and 9-10, systems of FIG. 5 in known cascading and countercurrent arrangements so that a plurality of individual separators may be combined to multiply the effectiveness of the operation; Col. 4, line 8 – Col. 6, line 15, Col. 7, lines 18-48). See also MPEP 2144.04V. MAKING PORTABLE, INTEGRAL, SEPARABLE, ADJUSTABLE, OR CONTINUOUS - C. Making Separable - In re Dulberg, 289 F.2d 522, 523, 129 USPQ 348, 349 (CCPA 1961) (The claimed structure, a lipstick holder with a removable cap, was fully met by the prior art except that in the prior art the cap is “press fitted” and therefore not manually removable. The court held that “if it were considered desirable for any reason to obtain access to the end of [the prior art’s] holder to which the cap is applied, it would be obvious to make the cap removable for that purpose.”).
Regarding Claim 7, Ewald Wicke discloses the electrolysis cell has an active deuterium producing surface area of no more than 5 square centimeters and/or a deuterium generation current of no more than 7 amperes (Figs. 3-7 and 9-10, palladium-silver-alloy tubes of 90 mm length with 3 mm diameter and wall thickness of 0.1 mm and/or palladium-silver alloy (75:25) foil 2 on end of an open-ended tube of 8 mm diameter (0.5 sq. cm)); Col. 3, line 34 – Col. 6, line 15, Col. 7, lines 18-48; Note also, Fig. 7 discloses various lower current values).
Regarding Claim 8, Ewald Wicke discloses the production rate of deuterium gas is no more than 100 standard cubic centimeters per minute (Figs. 5-7 and 9-10, Compared with the diagram FIG. 7 the described apparatus produces high-purified hydrogen in the quantity of 0.105 1./min, i.e., 105 cc/min; Col. 4, line 8 – Col. 6, line 15, Col. 7, lines 18-48; Note reducing the current as in Fig. 7 will clearly reduce the production rate. Also note in Fig. 5, the output of D2 and H2 are the same).
Regarding Claim 13, Ewald Wicke discloses the system is integrated into a module within a chromatograph chassis assembly (Figs. 5-6 and 9-10, For instance, in a gas-chromatographic batch system with a palladium black column the separation factor is 1.5 at 60.degree. C., 1.8 at 20.degree. C., 2.1 at O.degree. C., 2.8 at -40.degree. C., and 4.25 at -78.degree. C; Col. 4, line 8 – Col. 6, line 15, Col. 7, lines 18-48).
Regarding Claim 15, Ewald Wicke discloses a gas chromatography system comprising a deuterium generator system as defined in claim 1 (Figs. 5-6 and 9-10, For instance, in a gas-chromatographic batch system with a palladium black column the separation factor is 1.5 at 60.degree. C., 1.8 at 20.degree. C., 2.1 at O.degree. C., 2.8 at -40.degree. C., and 4.25 at -78.degree. C; Col. 4, line 8 – Col. 6, line 15, Col. 7, lines 18-48).
Claim(s) 2, 10 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ewald Wicke in view of US 20150330953 to McCauley (corresponding to US 9632064 disclosed by Applicant as prior art disclosed at ¶ [0007] if the instant application).
Regarding Claim 2, Ewald Wicke discloses the deuterium gas generator system of claim 1, and further discloses the system is for a gas chromatograph (Figs. 5-6 and 9-10, For instance, in a gas-chromatographic batch system with a palladium black column the separation factor is 1.5 at 60.degree. C., 1.8 at 20.degree. C., 2.1 at O.degree. C., 2.8 at -40.degree. C., and 4.25 at -78.degree. C; Col. 4, line 8 – Col. 6, line 15, Col. 7, lines 18-48). However, Ewald Wicke does not disclose a gas chromatograph having a carrier gas-decoupled injection port. McCauley discloses a gas chromatograph having a carrier gas-decoupled injection port (Figs. 3-4, injection port 72 with carrier, purge and split/splitless configurations; ¶¶ [0029]-[0033]; Note, applicant’s disclosure states that McCauley discloses “Such an implementation involving a first gas type used to act as carrier gas and a second gas type used to provide split and purge flows will be referred to herein as a carrier gas-decoupled injection port”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the application to modify the invention of Ewald Wicke by providing a gas chromatograph having a carrier gas-decoupled injection port as in McCauley in order to provide for increased safety.
Regarding Claim 10, Ewald Wicke discloses the deuterium gas generator system of claim 1, but does not disclose a forepressure regulator. McCauley discloses a forepressure regulator (Figs. 3-4, Electronic Pressure Control (EPC) unit 2; ¶¶ [0007]-[0010], [0026]-[0028]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the application to modify the invention of Ewald Wicke by providing a forepressure regulator as in McCauley in order to provide for increased safety and accuracy.
Regarding Claim 16, Ewald Wicke discloses the deuterium gas generator system of claim 15. However, Ewald Wicke do not disclose a carrier gas-decoupled injection port. McCauley discloses a carrier gas-decoupled injection port (Figs. 3-4, injection port 72 with carrier, purge and split/splitless configurations; ¶¶ [0029]-[0033]; Note, applicant’s disclosure states that McCauley discloses “Such an implementation involving a first gas type used to act as carrier gas and a second gas type used to provide split and purge flows will be referred to herein as a carrier gas-decoupled injection port”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the application to modify the invention of Ewald Wicke by providing a carrier gas-decoupled injection port as in McCauley in order to provide for increased safety.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lu in view of Zaikin and further in view of US 20120262178 to Dourdeville and US 20120187284 to Geyer.
Regarding Claim 9, Ewald Wicke discloses the deuterium gas generator system of claim 1, and further discloses the electrolysis cell uses heavy water (Fig. 10, heavy water input 41; Col. 5, line 46 – Col. 6, line 15). However, Ewald Wicke are silent regarding a heavy water circulation loop comprising a piezoelectric pump. Dourdeville discloses a heavy water circulation loop comprising a pump (Fig. 1, deuterated aqueous flow (ie. D.sub.2O) with deuterated-organic pump "B" and/or loop pump 515 “deuterium oxide flow is provided by a syringe-based infusion pump”; ¶¶ [0055]-[0063], [0071]) and Geyer discloses the pump is a piezo pump (Figs. 1-4, syringe pump 4 comprising a piezo pump; ¶ [0057]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the application to modify the invention of Ewald Wicke by providing a heavy water circulation loop comprising a piezoelectric pump as in Dourdeville in order to provide a more precise flow of heavy water, and using a piezo pump as in Geyer as a well-known alternative to or type of syringe pump. See, e.g., "substitution of art-recognized equivalents" as discussed in MPEP 2144.06II "An express suggestion to substitute one equivalent component or process for another is not necessary to render such substitution obvious. In re Fout, 675 F.2d 297, 213 USPQ 532 (CCPA 1982)."
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ewald Wicke and further in view of US 20020060288 to Hughey.
Regarding Claim 11, Ewald Wicke discloses the deuterium gas generator system of claim 1, but is silent regarding a polymer ionomer drier for removing heavy water vapor from the deuterium gas. Hughey discloses a polymer ionomer drier for removing heavy water vapor from the deuterium gas (Nafion can be used even to remove water (D2O) from a hydrogen gas (D2) stream; ¶¶ [0051], [0069]-[0071]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the application to modify the invention of Ewald Wicke by providing a polymer ionomer drier for removing heavy water vapor from the deuterium gas as in Hughey in order to provide for greater accuracy.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ewald Wicke and further in view of US 20160310898 to Denton.
Regarding Claim 12, Ewald Wicke discloses the deuterium gas generator system of claim 1, but is silent regarding the electrolysis cell is a polymer electrolyte membrane. Denton discloses the electrolysis cell is a polymer electrolyte membrane ¶¶ [0144], [0154], [0163]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the application to modify the invention of Ewald Wicke by providing the electrolysis cell is a polymer electrolyte membrane as in Denton in order to provide for greater control of preferentially transfer one of the hydrogen isotopes from the anode side to the cathode side of the cell.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ewald Wicke and further in view of US 20070029476 to Senko.
Regarding Claim 14, Ewald Wicke discloses the deuterium gas generator system of claim 1, but is silent regarding the system is used in combination with an ion trap or a collision cell. Senko discloses the system is used in combination with an ion trap or a collision cell (Figs. 1-4, quadrupole structure 400 forming ion trap; ¶¶ [0031]-[0039]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the application to modify the invention of Ewald Wicke by providing the system is used in combination with an ion trap or a collision cell as in Senko in order to provide for greater efficiency.
Claim(s) 17- is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over V.G. Zaikin, A.I. Mikaya, Reaction gas chromatography—mass spectrometry: VI. Use of deuterium as the carrier and reagent gas in reaction gas chromatography—mass spectrometry, Journal of Chromatography A, Volume 301, 1984, Pages 77-91, ISSN 0021-9673 (“Zaikin”) in view of Ewald Wicke.
Regarding Claim 17, Zaikin discloses a method of gas chromatography, the method comprising: using deuterium gas as a carrier gas in a gas chromatography system (Title & Summary). However, Zaikin does not disclose using a deuterium gas generator system including an electrolysis cell and a palladium alloy purifier membrane having a surface area of not more than 10 square centimeters, and providing the deuterium using the deuterium gas generator system. Ewald Wicke discloses using a deuterium gas generator system including an electrolysis cell and a palladium alloy purifier membrane having a surface area of not more than 10 square centimeters, and providing the deuterium using the deuterium gas generator system (See rejection of Claim 1 above). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the application to modify the invention of Zaikin by providing using a deuterium gas generator system including an electrolysis cell and a palladium alloy purifier membrane having a surface area of not more than 10 square centimeters, and providing the deuterium using the deuterium gas generator system as in Ewald Wicke in order to provide for greater efficiency as a well-known alternative source for deuterium. See, e.g., "substitution of art-recognized equivalents" as discussed in MPEP 2144.06II "An express suggestion to substitute one equivalent component or process for another is not necessary to render such substitution obvious. In re Fout, 675 F.2d 297, 213 USPQ 532 (CCPA 1982).".
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zaikin in view of Ewald Wicke and further in view of Senko.
Regarding Claim 18, Zaikin in view of Ewald Wicke discloses method of claim 17, but is silent regarding using a high-vacuum in the gas chromatography system. Senko discloses using a high-vacuum in the gas chromatography system (Damping gas such as Helium (He) or Hydrogen (H.sub.2), at pressures near 1.times.10.sup.-3 Torr is utilized to help reduce the kinetic energy of the injected ions and therefore increase the trapping and storage efficiencies of the linear ion trap; ¶ [0033]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the application to modify the invention of Zaikin in view of Ewald Wicke by providing the system is used in combination with an ion trap or a collision cell as in Senko in order to provide for greater efficiency.
Claim(s) 19, 21 and 28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zaikin in view of Ewald Wicke and further in view of McCauley.
Regarding Claim 19, Zaikin in view of Ewald Wicke discloses the method of claim 17, and Zaikin further discloses providing deuterium gas (Title, Summary and Materials), but is silent regarding providing a cylinder of compressed gas. McCauley discloses providing a cylinder of compressed gas (¶ [0030], Note although McCauley does not require the use of gas cylinders, they are still known in the prior art). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the application to modify the invention of Zaikin in view of Ewald Wicke by providing a cylinder of compressed gas as in McCauley in order to provide a well-known implementation of providing a gas source. See, e.g., "substitution of art-recognized equivalents" as discussed in MPEP 2144.06II "An express suggestion to substitute one equivalent component or process for another is not necessary to render such substitution obvious. In re Fout, 675 F.2d 297, 213 USPQ 532 (CCPA 1982)."
Regarding Claim 21, McCauley discloses including a gas-decoupled injection port in the chromatography system (Figs. 3-4, injection port 72 with carrier, purge and split/splitless configurations; ¶¶ [0029]-[0033]).
Regarding Claim 28, Zaikin in view of Ewald Wicke discloses providing the deuterium gas via a deuterium gas generator system (See rejection of Claim 17 above) and McCauley discloses providing gas via a cylinder of compressed gas.
Claim(s) 22-26 and 29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zaikin in view of Ewald Wicke and McCauley and further in view of Senko.
Regarding Claim 22, Zaikin in view of Ewald Wicke and McCauley discloses the method of claim 19, but is silent regarding including an ion trap or a collision cell. Senko discloses including an ion trap or a collision cell (Figs. 1-4, quadrupole structure 400 forming ion trap; ¶¶ [0031]-[0039]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the application to modify the invention of Zaikin in view of Ewald Wicke and McCauley by providing including an ion trap or a collision cell as in Senko in order to provide for greater efficiency.
Regarding Claim 23, Zaikin in view of Ewald Wicke and McCauley discloses the method of claim 19, and Zaikin discloses using deuterium gas (Title, Summary and Materials). However, Zaikin in view of Ewald Wicke and McCauley are silent regarding a collision cell or an ion trap. Senko discloses including an ion trap or a collision cell (Figs. 1-4, quadrupole structure 400 forming ion trap; ¶¶ [0031]-[0039]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the application to modify the invention of Zaikin in view of Ewald Wicke and McCauley by providing including an ion trap or a collision cell as in Senko in order to provide for greater efficiency.
Regarding Claim 24, Zaikin in view of Ewald Wicke and McCauley discloses the method of claim 19, but are silent regarding using the collision cell or ion trap in combination with a chromatography system. Senko discloses using the collision cell or ion trap in combination with a chromatography system (Figs. 1-4, quadrupole structure 400 forming ion trap; ¶¶ [0031]-[0039]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the application to modify the invention of Lu in view of Zaikin in view of Ewald Wicke and McCauley by providing using the collision cell or ion trap in combination with a chromatography system as in Senko in order to provide for greater efficiency.
Regarding Claim 25, Zaikin discloses the chromatography system is a gas chromatography system (Title and Summary).
Regarding Claim 26, Zaikin discloses utilizing deuterium as a carrier gas (Title and Summary).
Regarding Claim 29, McCauley discloses including a gas-decoupled injection port in the chromatography system (Figs. 3-4, injection port 72 with carrier, purge and split/splitless configurations; ¶¶ [0029]-[0033]).
Claim(s) 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zaikin in view of Ewald Wicke, McCauley and Senko and further in view of Geyer.
Regarding Claim 27, Zaikin in view of Ewald Wicke, McCauley and Senko discloses the method of claim 24, but are silent regarding the chromatography system is a liquid chromatography system. Geyer discloses the chromatography system is a liquid chromatography system (Figs. 1-4, 1 HPLC pump Chromatographic 1 with Separation column separation system 2; ¶¶ [0056]-[0066], [0073]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the application to modify the invention of Zaikin in view of Ewald Wicke, McCauley and Senko by providing the chromatography system is a liquid chromatography system as in Geyer in order to provide for a well-known alternative to gas chromatography depending on the type of analyte. See, e.g., "substitution of art-recognized equivalents" as discussed in MPEP 2144.06II "An express suggestion to substitute one equivalent component or process for another is not necessary to render such substitution obvious. In re Fout, 675 F.2d 297, 213 USPQ 532 (CCPA 1982)."
Claim(s) 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McCauley in view of Ewald Wicke.
Regarding Claim 30, McCauley discloses a carrier gas-decoupled injection port, the carrier gas-decoupled injection port (Figs. 3-4, injection port 72 with carrier, purge and split/splitless configurations; ¶¶ [0029]-[0033]) comprising: a carrier gas-decoupled inlet (Figs. 3-4, injection port 72 with carrier, purge and split/splitless configurations; ¶¶ [0029]-[0033]) and a cylinder of compressed gas (¶ [0030]); wherein the carrier qas-decoupled inlet is configured to receive gas from a gas source. Although McCauley discloses a cylinder of compressed Hydrogen, McCauley does not explicitly disclose the hydrogen source is of deuterium. Ewald Wicke discloses the hydrogen source is a deuterium gas generator system or the cylinder of compressed deuterium; and the deuterium gas generator system includes an electrolysis cell and a palladium alloy purifier membrane having a surface area of not more than 10 square centimeters (See rejection of Claim 1 above). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the application to modify the invention of McCauley by providing the hydrogen source is a deuterium gas generator system or the cylinder of compressed deuterium; and the deuterium gas generator system includes an electrolysis cell and a palladium alloy purifier membrane having a surface area of not more than 10 square centimeters as in Ewald Wicke in order to provide a well-known implementation of providing a gas source. See, e.g., "substitution of art-recognized equivalents" as discussed in MPEP 2144.06II "An express suggestion to substitute one equivalent component or process for another is not necessary to render such substitution obvious. In re Fout, 675 F.2d 297, 213 USPQ 532 (CCPA 1982)."
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 6-14, filed 10/15/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-19 and 21-30 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Ewald Wicke.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID J BOLDUC whose telephone number is (571)270-1602. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 10am-6pm.
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, Walter Lindsay, Jr. can be reached at (571) 272-1672. 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.
/DAVID J BOLDUC/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2852