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 .
Response to Arguments
Claim objection regarding TOC abbreviation is resolved, and thus, objections to claim 1-1-2 and 4-10 are withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments remarks pg. 4-8 and claim amendments filed 08/11/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the applicant remarks, it’s stated that “Morita's stated objective is to avoid that loss by using a carbon dioxide gas permeable material to remove inorganic carbon while preventing loss of purgeable organic carbon components. Thus, Morita would not have motivated a person of ordinary skill to replace its membrane-based inorganic carbon removal approach with the claimed direct gas-purge reservoir vessel. To the contrary, Morita discourages simple sparging because it can remove volatile organic carbon species from the sample.” However, the secondary art of Conway et al., teaches that the measurement of non-purgeable organic carbons is essentially equal to the total organic carbon concentration, as many samples contain few, if any purgeable organic compounds (see Conway et al., [0006]). Without amendments added to the claims to specify the TOC analyzer of the application to be required to be lossless, one in ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to use sparging the sample liquid with CO2-free gases and a computer/controller system that manages the fluid and gas flow within the system along with measuring the total carbon content via a detector (as taught by Conway et al.), for the benefit of being able to determine the total carbon content of organic carbons, as sparging samples oxidizes remaining non-purgeable organic carbons in the sample, where the concentration of non-purgeable organic carbons is considered to be essentially equal to the total organic carbon concentration (see Conway et al., [0006]).
Additionally, the moved claim element of claim 3 into independent claim 1 “wherein the reservoir vessel comprises at least two sample removal lines, wherein the sample removal lines are arranged at different heights” does not resolve the issues above, nor does it define over the art, as claim 3 was previous rejected by the same combination of Morita et al. and Conway et al. Therefore, the 103 rejections for claims 1-2 and 4-10 are maintained.
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.
Claims 1-4, 6, and 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morita et al. (US PAT 5567388 A), in view of Conway et al. (US PG-Pub 20100159602 A1, as cited in the IDS).
Regarding claim 1, Morita et al. teaches an apparatus for measuring total organic carbon (TOC) which is contained in sample water. It comprises overflow sample containers 4a and 4b are supplied with sample solutions from bottom portions thereof through switching valves 6a and 6b. Hydrochloric acid is added to the sample container 4a, while an NaOH solution is added to the sample container 4b. The acidified sample solution and the alkalified sample solution thus prepared in the sample containers 4a and 4b, respectively, are guided to an inorganic carbon removing part 12 by a sample injector 9 (see Morita et al., Fig. 2, col.1/lines 10-12, col.3/lines 17-28). The acidified sample solution is guided into the inner tube 14 of the inorganic carbon removing part 12 by the sample injector 9, where the acidified sample solution flowing out from an outlet of the inner tube 14 is guided to a combustion tube 20 through a sliding sample filler hole 18. The combustion tube 20 is filled up with an oxidation catalyst 22 and enclosed by a heating furnace 24 to vaporize the acidified sample solution and convert total carbon components into carbon dioxide by oxidation. A sample gas generated in the combustion tube 20 is guided to a CO2 detecting part 28 through a dehumidifying/dedusting part 26, to be subjected to measurement of carbon dioxide. The apparatus further includes a data processing/control part 30, and a display/output part 32 (see Morita et al., Fig 2., col.3/lines 48-67). While not used in the apparatus, Morita teaches acid sparging treatment, comprising the steps of acidifying sample water by adding inorganic acid thereto, sparging the acidified sample water with a gas containing no carbonic acid gas for removing inorganic carbon, and thereafter converting carbon (i.e., total organic carbon), which is exclusively left in the sample water, into carbonic acid gas and detecting the same, thereby measuring the content of total organic carbon (see Morita et al., col.1/lines 27-43). Additionally, Morita et al. teaches that the inorganic carbon removing parts are defined by a double tube structure formed distinct from one another by an inner tube and an outer tube. An acidified sample solution is guided into the inner tube and an alkalified sample solution is guided into the outer tube, and inorganic carbon contained in the acidified sample solution is outwardly moved toward the alkalified sample solution to be removed. Height difference can be observed in Fig. 2 (see Morita et al., Fig. 2, Abstract).
Morita et al. fails to teach at least one inlet for introducing CO2-free gas into the sample in the reservoir vessel, and a data processing unit which is designed at least to control the inflow and outflow of the sample from and into the reservoir vessel or the high-temperature furnace, and to determine the carbon content of the sample.
However, in the analogous art of carbon measurements in aqueous samples using oxidation at elevated temperatures and pressures, Conway et al. teaches apparatus and methods for measuring the concentration of organic and inorganic carbon in aqueous samples. It uses sparging with CO2-free gas to remove CO-2 originating from sample containing inorganic carbon sources for measurement of carbon content. The apparatus thus uses a mixing/sparging apparatus to perform the sparging action (see Conway, [0006], [0053]). The carbon measurement instrument further comprises an CO2 detector and an electrical/computer automated control system, which comprises electrical connections and operational software adapted to operate fluid valves and other system control elements (i.e., a flow control system) according to a predetermined sequence and/or timing or, alternatively, in accordance with feedback received from various system monitors (see Conway et al. [0098]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the total organic carbon measurement apparatus of Morita et al. to incorporate sparging the sample liquid with CO2-free gases and a computer/controller system that manages the fluid and gas flow within the system along with measuring the total carbon content via a detector (as taught by Conway et al.), for the benefit of being able to determine the total carbon content of organic carbons, as sparging samples oxidizes remaining non-purgeable organic carbons in the sample, where the concentration of non-purgeable organic carbons is considered to be essentially equal to the total organic carbon concentration (see Conway et al., [0006]).
Regarding claim 2, Morita et al. fails to teach wherein the stirrer is configured as a magnetic stirrer.
However, Conway et al. teaches a mixing device that both mixes and sparges the solution/suspension. The mixing apparatus consists of a solenoid and a magnetic stirrer (stirring bar) that is coated with an inert polymer to prevent corrosion (see Conway et al., [0053]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the stirring element of Morita et al. to incorporate the stirrer being magnetic (as taught by Conway et al.), for the benefit of being able to improve the efficiency of sparging by agitating from sample vigorously, reducing the time needed to have a complete removal of inorganic carbon (see Conway et al., [0053]).
Regarding claim 4, the examiner is using broadest reasonable interpretation of a capillary to be a form of tubing mostly comprising permeable material or a region for permeation.
Morita et al. fails to teach wherein the inlet for introducing CO2-free gas into the reservoir vessel is designed as a capillary.
However, Conway et al. teaches that the mixing/sparging chamber is connected to a coil of tubing, where a porous gas disperser is located between the sparge gas inlet and the fluid mixing region (see Conway et al., [0098], [0129]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the inlet for CO2-free gas of Morita et al. to incorporate the tubing containing a porous gas disperser region as a capillary (as taught by Conway et al.), for the benefit of being able to determine the total carbon content of organic carbons, as sparging samples oxidizes remaining non-purgeable organic carbons in the sample, where the concentration of non-purgeable organic carbons is considered to be essentially equal to the total organic carbon concentration (see Conway et al., [0006]).
Regarding claim 6, Morita et al. fails to teach wherein the inlet for introducing CO2-free gas is arranged close to the bottom.
However, Conway et al. teaches that the mixer/sparger element comprising a top section that includes a liquid inlet and a sparge gas outlet, a bottom section that includes an inlet port for sparge gas and a liquid outlet, and a middle section containing a magnetic stirrer component (see Conway et al., [0081]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the inlet for CO2-free gas of Morita et al. to incorporate placing it along the bottom of the sample vessel (as taught by Conway et al.), for the benefit of improving the efficiency of sparging in removing inorganic carbon from the sample for carbon measurement (see Conway et al., [0053]).
Regarding claim 8, the examiner is broadly interpreting the claim, especially a "rotary part", to refer to any element on or within the reservoir vessel to be capable of rotation.
While Morita et al. does not teach the reservoir vessel is designed as a hollow cylinder, in particular as a rotary part made of a plastics material, Conway et al. teaches the apparatus for rapidly and accurately measuring carbon, comprising a mixer/sparger element 18, which comprises a hollow chamber element 44a in the shape of a cylinder, which contains a magnetic stirrer 46 controlled by current waveform pulsing from an annular solenoid coil 44b. The stirrer 46 rapidly moves up and down inside the chamber 44a and spins the protrusions found at the ends of the stirrer to agitate the sample mixture. The stirrer 46 is additionally coated with an inert polymer (see Conway et al., Fig. 3 [0053], [0288]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the sample container of Morita et al. to incorporate the cylindrical hollow chamber containing a polymer coated stirring element (as taught by Conway et al.), for the benefit of being able to agitate the sample solution effectively, especially when handling acidified sample solutions as the polymer coating can make it corrosion resistant (see Conway et al., [0053]).
Regarding claim 9, Morita et al. fails to teach wherein the TOC analyzer comprises an inlet for a carrier gas, wherein the inlet leads to a high-temperature furnace, wherein the carrier gas serves to transport the carbon dioxide gas formed in the high-temperature furnace during oxidation of the sample to the analysis unit.
However, Conway et al. teaches following vaporization of the water sample from heating and the organic material oxidized to CO-2 upon contact with a catalyst, a carrier gas in the catalytic reactor comprising oxygen transports the CO2 out of the reactor into a non-dispersive infrared detector for measurement (see Conway et al., [0021]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the total organic carbon measurement apparatus of Morita et al. to incorporate an inlet for carrier gas that carries out the CO2 towards a detector (as taught by Conway et al.), for the benefit of allowing controlled transfer of released reactor products (i.e., CO2) to the detector for analysis (see Conway et al., [0078]).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Morita et al. and Conway et al. teaches the exact limitations of claim 10. Specifically, Morita et al. teaches the TOC analyzer according to claim 1, comprising a filter between the high-temperature furnace and the analysis unit for filtering acid gases, dust and/or aerosols (see Morita et al., Fig. 3, col.3/lines 30-67), disclosing an inner tube 14 that carries the acidified sample solution, which comprises a carbonic acid gas permeable material. The inner tube leads the acidified sample solution into a combustion tube 20 for oxidation/vaporization. The resulting sample gas generated from the combustion tube 20 is guided to a CO2 detecting part 28 through a dehumidifying/dedusting part 26 to be subjected to measurement of carbon dioxide.).
Claims 5 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Morita et al. and Conway et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Müller et al. (US PG-Pub 20170313816 A1).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Morita et al. and Conway et al fails to teach wherein the reservoir vessel comprises at least two inlets for introducing CO2-free gas.
However, in the analogous art of moisture-curing polyether carbonate containing alkoxysilyl groups, Müller et al. teaches supplying carbon dioxide into a reaction vessel continuously or discontinuously required for polyether carbonate. The carbon dioxide is introduced into the reaction mixture in the reactor via sparging, where a sparging ring is used, comprising two or more annular arrangements of sparging nozzles along this ring, preferably arranged at the base of the reactor and/or on the side walls of the reactor (see Müller et al., [0085]-[0086], [0092]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the sparging inlet of the combination of Morita et al. and Conway et al. to incorporate a sparging ring comprising two or more nozzles for sparging and releasing carbon dioxide into the sample (as taught by Müller et al.), for the benefit of an even distribution of carbon dioxide into the sample while stirring to achieve a further improved efficiency of removing inorganic carbon.
Regarding claim 7, Morita et al. fails to teach wherein the inlet for introducing CO2-free gas protrudes into the reservoir vessel such that the distance from all walls and other inlets is equal.
However, Müller et al. teaches supplying carbon dioxide into a reaction vessel continuously or discontinuously required for polyether carbonate. The carbon dioxide is introduced into the reaction mixture in the reactor via sparging, where a sparging ring is used, comprising two or more annular arrangements of sparging nozzles along this ring, preferably arranged at the base of the reactor and/or on the side walls of the reactor (see Müller et al., [0085]-[0086], [0092]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the sparging inlet of the combination of Morita et al. and Conway et al. to incorporate a sparging ring comprising two or more nozzles for sparging and releasing carbon dioxide, where the nozzles are positioned an equal distance away from each other when in a ring configuration as well as the walls if positioned along the base of the vessel (as taught by Müller et al.), for the benefit of an even distribution of carbon dioxide into the sample while stirring to achieve improved efficiency of removing inorganic carbon.
Conclusion
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 Tracy C Colena whose telephone number is (571)272-1625. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thus 8:00am-5:00pm.
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.
/TRACY CHING-TIAN COLENA/Examiner, Art Unit 1797
/JENNIFER WECKER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1797
