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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 1-23 are is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Steinecker (U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2009/0150087), and further in view of Seitz et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2023/0243791; hereinafter referred to as Seitz).
With respect to claim 1, Steinecker discloses and illustrates a system for gas chromatography (see at least figure 3), comprising: an inlet configured to receive a sample by injection (342); a column comprising a stationary phase (304 ; see at least paragraph [0008]); a flow control system configured to regulate, based on a flow control parameter, flow of a mobile phase through the inlet and the column (see at least paragraph [0008]); and an injection monitoring system configured to perform a process (see at least paragraph [0022]). Steinecker fails to disclose a process comprising: obtaining flow control data representative of a measure of the flow control parameter over time during a time period encompassing an injection of the sample into the inlet; determining, based on the flow control data, that the injection was unsuccessful; and performing, based on the determination that the injection was unsuccessful, a mitigation operation. However, Seitz discloses a chromatography operational status analysis. In that analysis, Seitz discloses obtaining flow control data representative of a measure of the flow control parameter over time during a time period encompassing an injection of the sample into the inlet; determining, based on the flow control data, that the injection was unsuccessful; and performing, based on the determination that the injection was unsuccessful, a mitigation operation (see at least paragraph [0042] of Seitz). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time the invention was filed to utilize the analysis procedure of Seitz Steinecker since Steinecker discloses a desire to measure the pulse width of the injector in order to diagnose injector problems, the method of diagnosis in Seitz discloses both how to identify those problems and has procedures in place to mitigate them so that you have a system that is better able to function properly as intended.
With respect to claim 2, the system of claim 1, wherein the flow control system comprises: a pressure sensor that measures inlet pressure (see at least paragraph [0055] of Seitz); a valve that regulates flow of the mobile phase into the inlet (see at least the inlet check valve in paragraph [0042] of Seitz); and a flow controller that receives pressure signals output by the pressure sensor and outputs, based on the pressure signals, a pulse width modulated (PWM) valve drive signal to the valve (see at least paragraph [0029] of Steinecker).
With respect to claim 3, the system of claim 2, wherein the flow control parameter comprises the inlet pressure or the PWM valve drive signal (see at least paragraph [0029] of Steinecker).
With respect to claim 4, the system of claim 1, wherein: the flow control system comprises a flow sensor that measures flow rate of a mobile phase into the inlet; and the flow control parameter comprises the flow rate of the mobile phase (see at least paragraph [0021] of Steinecker.)
With respect to claim 5, the system of claim 1, wherein: the flow control data indicates a perturbation in the measure of the flow control parameter; and the determining that the injection was unsuccessful comprises determining that the perturbation does not behave as expected (see at least paragraph [0110] of Seitz).
With respect to claim 6, the system of claim 5, wherein: the determining that the perturbation does not behave as expected is based on one or more characterization metrics that characterize the perturbation; and the one or more characterization metrics comprises at least one of a maximum amplitude of the perturbation, an integrated change of the perturbation, or an absolute value of an integrated change of the perturbation (see at least paragraph [0110] of Seitz).
With respect to claim 7, Steinecker discloses and illustrates an injection monitoring system for a gas chromatography system (see at least figure 3), the injection monitoring system (see at least paragraph [0022]) comprising: one or more processors (310); and memory (312) storing executable instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause a computing device to perform a process. Steinecker fails to disclose a process comprising: obtaining flow control data from a flow control system included in the gas chromatography system and configured to regulate, based on a flow control parameter, flow of a fluid through an inlet of the gas chromatography system, wherein the flow control data is representative of a measure of the flow control parameter over time during a time period encompassing injection of a sample into the inlet; determining, based on the flow control data, that the injection was unsuccessful; and directing, based on the determination that the injection was unsuccessful, the gas chromatography system to perform a mitigation operation to mitigate the unsuccessful injection of the sample. However, Seitz discloses a chromatography operational status analysis. In that analysis, Seitz discloses obtaining flow control data representative of a measure of the flow control parameter over time during a time period encompassing an injection of the sample into the inlet; determining, based on the flow control data, that the injection was unsuccessful; and performing, based on the determination that the injection was unsuccessful, a mitigation operation (see at least paragraph [0042] of Seitz). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time the invention was filed to utilize the analysis procedure of Seitz Steinecker since Steinecker discloses a desire to measure the pulse width of the injector in order to diagnose injector problems, the method of diagnosis in Seitz discloses both how to identify those problems and has procedures in place to mitigate them so that you have a system that is better able to function properly as intended.
With respect to claim 8, the injection monitoring system of claim 7, wherein: the flow control system comprises a valve (634 in Steinecker); and the flow control parameter comprises a pulse width modulated (PWM) valve drive signal for the valve (see at least paragraph [0029] of Steinecker).
With respect to claim 9, the injection monitoring system of claim 8, wherein the determining that the injection was unsuccessful is based on at least one of a maximum change in the PWM valve drive signal during the time period, an integrated change of the PWM valve drive signal during the time period, or an absolute value of an integrated change of the PWM valve drive signal during the time period (see at least paragraph [0029] of Steinecker).
With respect to claim 10, the injection monitoring system of claim 7, wherein the flow control system comprises a pressure sensor that measures inlet pressure (see at least paragraph [0055] of Seitz); and the flow control parameter comprises a pressure signal output by the pressure sensor (see at least paragraph [0029] of Steinecker).
With respect to claim 11, the injection monitoring system of claim 10, wherein the determining that the injection was unsuccessful is based on at least one of a maximum change in inlet pressure during the time period, an integrated inlet pressure during the time period, or an absolute value of an integrated inlet pressure during the time period (see at least paragraph [0160] of Seitz).
With respect to claim 12, the injection monitoring system of claim 7, wherein: the flow control system comprises a flow sensor within the inlet (220 in Steinecker); and the flow control parameter comprises a flow rate signal output by the flow sensor (see at least paragraph [0029] of Steinecker).
With respect to claim 13, the injection monitoring system of claim 7, wherein the determining that the injection was unsuccessful comprises applying the flow control data to an injection classification model trained to classify, based on the flow control data, the injection as successful or unsuccessful (see at least paragraph [0024] of Seitz).
With respect to claim 14, the injection monitoring system of claim 7, wherein the determining that the injection was unsuccessful comprises: determining a theoretical vapor volume of the injection; estimating an actual vapor volume of the injection; and comparing the estimated actual vapor volume of the injection to the theoretical vapor volume of the injection (see at least paragraph [0025] of Steinecker).
With respect to claim 15, the injection monitoring system of claim 7, wherein the determining that the injection was unsuccessful comprises: obtaining reference flow control data representative of an expected measure of the flow control parameter over time during a time period encompassing injection of a sample; and determining that the flow control data varies from the reference flow control data (see at least paragraph [0055] of Seitz).
With respect to claim 16, the injection monitoring system of claim 7, wherein the mitigation operation comprises a diagnostic process comprising: performing an empty injection into the inlet while pressure within the inlet is at or above a threshold pressure level; and detecting, based on the empty injection, that the measure of the flow control parameter did not behave as expected in response to the empty injection (see at least paragraph [0160] of Seitz).
With respect to claim 17, the injection monitoring system of claim 7, wherein: the injected sample was drawn from a first vial (see at least paragraph [0160] of Seitz); and the mitigation operation comprises a diagnostic process comprising: performing an additional injection with an additional sample drawn from a second vial that is different from the first vial (see at least paragraph [0160] of Seitz) ; obtaining additional flow control data from the flow control system, wherein the additional flow control data is representative of a measure of the flow control parameter over time during a time period encompassing the additional injection (see at least paragraph [0160] of Seitz); and determining, based on the additional flow control data, whether the additional injection was successful or unsuccessful (see at least paragraph [0160] of Seitz).
With respect to claim 18, Steinecker discloses and illustrates a non-transitory computer-readable medium (312) storing instructions that, when executed, direct at least one processor (310) of a computing device for a gas chromatography system to perform a process. Steinecker fails to disclose a process comprising: obtaining flow control data from a flow control system configured to regulate, based on a flow control parameter, flow of a fluid through an inlet of a gas chromatography system, wherein the flow control data is representative of a measure of the flow control parameter over time during a time period encompassing injection of a sample into the inlet; determining, based on the flow control data, that the injection was unsuccessful; and directing, based on the determination that the injection was unsuccessful, the gas chromatography system to perform a mitigation operation to mitigate the unsuccessful injection of the sample. However, Seitz discloses a chromatography operational status analysis. In that analysis, Seitz discloses obtaining flow control data representative of a measure of the flow control parameter over time during a time period encompassing an injection of the sample into the inlet; determining, based on the flow control data, that the injection was unsuccessful; and performing, based on the determination that the injection was unsuccessful, a mitigation operation (see at least paragraph [0042] of Seitz). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time the invention was filed to utilize the analysis procedure of Seitz Steinecker since Steinecker discloses a desire to measure the pulse width of the injector in order to diagnose injector problems, the method of diagnosis in Seitz discloses both how to identify those problems and has procedures in place to mitigate them so that you have a system that is better able to function properly as intended.
With respect to claim 19, the computer-readable medium of claim 18, wherein the determining that the injection was unsuccessful comprises applying the flow control data to an injection classification model trained to classify, based on the flow control data, the injection as successful or unsuccessful (see at least paragraph [0024] of Seitz).
With respect to claim 20, the computer-readable medium of claim 18, wherein the determining that the injection as unsuccessful comprises: determining a theoretical vapor volume of the injection; estimating an actual vapor volume of the injection; and comparing the estimated actual vapor volume of the injection to the theoretical vapor volume of the injection (see at least paragraph [0025] of Steinecker).
With respect to claim 21, the computer-readable medium of claim 18, wherein the determining that the injection was unsuccessful comprises: obtaining reference flow control data representative of an expected measure of the flow control parameter over time during a time period encompassing a reference injection; and determining, based on a cross-correlation of the flow control data with the reference flow control data, that the flow control data varies from the reference flow control data (see at least paragraph [0055] of Seitz).
With respect to claim 22, the computer-readable medium of claim 18, wherein the flow control parameter comprises at least one of a pulse width modulated (PWM) valve drive signal for a valve of the flow control system (see at least paragraph [0029] of Steinecker), inlet pressure measured by a pressure sensor of the flow control system (see at least paragraph [0160] of Seitz), or a flow rate of a mobile phase measured by a flow sensor of the flow control system.
With respect to claim 23, the computer-readable medium of claim 18, wherein: the flow control data indicates a perturbation in the measure of the flow control parameter; and the determining that the injection was unsuccessful comprises determining that the perturbation does not behave as expected (see at least paragraph [0110] of Seitz).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RODNEY T FRANK whose telephone number is (571)272-2193. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-5:30pm.
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, Peter Macchiarolo can be reached at (571) 272-2375. 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.
RODNEY T. FRANK
Examiner
Art Unit 2855
January 6, 2026