DETAILED ACTION
Notice of AIA Status
The present application, filed on 10/02/2023, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-34 are pending.
Claims 1-4 and 8-14 are rejected.
Claims 5-7 and 15-16 are objected to.
Claims 17-34 are withdrawn.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-16, in the reply filed on 6/12/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 17-34 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Claim Objections
Claims 5-7 and 15-16 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1, 3-4 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Monrabal (US 5,222,390, cited in the Information Disclosure Statement filed 10/02/23).
With respect to claim 1, Monrabal teaches a laboratory system (apparatus 60, illustrated in Fig. 5) comprising:
at least one reactor (sample vessel 62a, illustrated in Fig. 5) (see column 4, which recites “apparatus 60 has a plurality of sample vessels 62, shown in FIG. 5 as 62a, 62b, 62c, 62d and 62e”),
a sample extraction device (which corresponds to filter 84a, line 86a, valve 2, illustrated in Fig. 5) for extracting a sample (see column 5, which recites “the samples of polymer are placed in each vessel 62a-e”) from the at least one reactor (vessel 62a) into a sampling space (IR detector 66, illustrated in Fig. 5) (the sampled aliquot with extracted sample is conveyed into and occupies a sampling space within IR detector 66 during sampling and measurement before being conveyed through line 90 into waste container 88),
a fluid supply system (pressurized nitrogen source 80, illustrated in Fig. 5) comprising a transportation fluid supply (main nitrogen, illustrated in Fig. 5),
at least one sample storage container (waste container 88, illustrated in Fig. 5) (under the broadest reasonable interpretation, a container capable of receiving and store the sample constitutes a sample storage container),
at least one fluid supply channel (line 78a, illustrated in Fig. 5) connecting the sample extraction device (filter 84a, line 86a, valve 2) to the fluid supply system (pressurized nitrogen source 80), and
at least one sample extraction channel (line 90, illustrated in Fig. 5) connecting the sample extraction device (filter 84a, line 86a, valve 2) to the sample storage container (waste container 88) (see column 4, which recites “Apparatus 60 also has waste container 88 in fluid communication with valve 1 through line 90”) (see also column 5, which recites “solution from each vessel 62a-62e is sampled intermittently through lines 86a-86e and valve 2 and the concentration thereof measured by IR detector 66. The concentration value is ascertained together with the temperature value at which the sample was taken. After measurement, the solution goes to waste container 88 through line 90”),
wherein the fluid supply system (pressurized nitrogen source 80, illustrated in Fig. 5) is arranged to push the sample (samples of polymer) from the sampling space (IR detector 6) through the sample extraction channel (line 90) to the at least one sample storage container (waste container 88) using transportation fluid (main nitrogen) of the transportation fluid supply (pressurized nitrogen source 80) (see column 6, which recites “sampling is carried out by applying nitrogen pressure (2 bars) to the individual vessels in connection with the proper positioning of the rotary valve (2)”).
With respect to claim 3, Monrabal teaches the laboratory system according to claim 1,
comprising multiple reactors (see Fig. 5, which illustrates a plurality of reactors including vessels 62a and vessel 62b) (see column 4, which recites “apparatus 60 has a plurality of sample vessels 62, shown in FIG. 5 as 62a, 62b, 62c, 62d and 62e”),
the sample extraction device (filters 84a-84e, lines 86a-86b, valve 2) cooperating with each (vessel 62a and vessel 62b) of the multiple reactors (vessel 62a and vessel 62b) via a downstream reactor selection system (valve 2 and one of lines 86a-86e , illustrated in Fig. 5) for extracting a sample (samples of polymer) from a selected reactor (vessel 62a) into the sampling space (IR detector 66),
wherein the at least one fluid supply channel (line 78a) connects the fluid supply system (pressurized nitrogen source 80) to the sample extraction device (filters 84a-84e, lines 86a-86e, valve 2), and
the at least one sample extraction channel (line 90) connects the sample extraction device (filter 84a-84e, line 86a-86e, valve 2) to the at least one sample storage container (waste container 88).
With respect to claim 4, Monrabal teaches the laboratory system according to claim 3, comprising N reactors (vessels 62a-62e, illustrated in Fig. 5) (see column 4, which recites “apparatus 60 has a plurality of sample vessels 62, shown in FIG. 5 as 62a, 62b, 62c, 62d and 62e”), wherein the downstream reactor selection system (valve 2, illustrated in Fig. 5) comprises a downstream N-way valve (valve 2 and one of lines 86a-86e, illustrated in Fig. 5) configured for bringing the sample extraction device (filters 84a-84e, lines 86a-86e, valve 2) in fluid communication with one (vessel 62a) of the N reactors (vessels 62a-62e).
With respect to claim 8, Monrabal teaches the laboratory system according to claim 1, wherein the at least one reactor (vessel 62a) is a thermal cycle reactor (see column 5, which recites “temperature control means 64 will adjust the temperature of vessels 62a-62e downwardly at a preselected rate”) (see also column 4, which recites “1 temperature cycle needed)”.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Monrabal in view of Funada (JP 2014-160055 A, mapped to English Translation).
With respect to claim 2, Monrabal teaches the laboratory system according to claim 1 comprising:
Monrabal doesn’t teach multiple sample storage containers,
a container selection system to associate the at least one sample extraction channel with one of the multiple sample storage containers.
In the analogous art of providing laboratory systems, Funada teaches multiple sample storage containers (plurality of sample storage containers 11 on the abstract) (see also page 3, which recites “a sample storage container 11 for storing a sample from which a component is extracted is stored in a container rack 12”),
a container selection system (see page 4, which recites “the outflow needle 15 is inserted into the outlet (upper) of the target sample storage container 11 (the leftmost sample storage container 11 in FIG. 1) by the outflow needle moving mechanism 16”) to associate the at least one sample extraction channel (one or more outlet channels of the flow path switching valve 25) with one (target sample storage container 11) of the multiple sample storage containers (plurality of sample storage containers 11).
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 laboratory system disclosed by Monrabal by incorporating the multiple sample storage containers and the container selecting system disclosed by Funada such the container selection system to associate the at least one sample extraction channel with one of the multiple sample storage containers with a reasonable expectation of success for the benefit of improving automated sample handling by selectively directing samples to selected sample storage containers, thereby increasing sample storage capacity.
Claims 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Monrabal in view of Shibuya (JP 2004-298768 A, mapped to English Translation).
With respect to claim 9, Monrabal teaches the laboratory system according to claim 1.
Monrabal doesn’t teach that the fluid supply system comprises a quench fluid supply.
In the analogous art of laboratory systems, Shibuya teaches a quench fluid supply (quench fluid supply pipe 24 on page 9, see Fig. 1) (see Fig. 1, see also page 8, which recites “using acetic acid as the quench fluid, an excessive rise in the temperature of the reaction gas could be prevented. Thus, it is considered that side reactions could be considerably suppressed”).
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 fluid supply of system disclosed by Monrabal by incorporating the quench fluid supply disclosed by Shibuya such that the fluid supply system comprises a quench fluid supply with a reasonable expectation of success for the benefit of considerably suppressing side reactions in the reactor by preventing excessive temperature rise within the reactor, thereby improving reaction control (see Fig. 1 of Shibuya, see also page 8, which recites “using acetic acid as the quench fluid, an excessive rise in the temperature of the reaction gas could be prevented. Thus, it is considered that side reactions could be considerably suppressed”).
With respect to claim 10, Monrabal in view of Shibuya teaches the laboratory system according to claim 9, wherein the fluid supply system (pressurized nitrogen source 80 of Monrabal) is arranged to push quench fluid from the quench fluid supply (quench supply pipe 24 of Shibuya) through the fluid supply channel (line 78a of Monrabal), the sampling space (IR detector 66 of Monrabal) and/or the sample extraction channel (line 90 of Monrabal) using transportation fluid (nitrogen) of the transportation fluid supply (Main Nitrogen of Monrabal).
Claims 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Monrabal in view of Anderer (US20150316455).
With respect to claim 11, Monrabal teaches the laboratory system according to claim 1.
Monrabal doesn’t teach that the fluid supply system comprises a dilution fluid supply.
In the analogous of laboratory systems, Anderer teaches a dilution fluid supply (see [0007], which recites “a dilution fluid supply device (particularly a dilution fluid reservoir having a conveying or pumping unit for conveying or pumping dilution fluid) configured for supplying a dilution fluid at a (particularly predefined) first quantity per time (particularly at a first flow rate, i.e. fluid volume per time or fluid mass per time”).
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 fluid supply disclosed by Monrabal by incorporating the dilution fluid supply device disclosed by Anderer such that the fluid supply system comprises a dilution fluid supply with a reasonable expectation of success for the benefit of effectively preparing the sample with a concentration within operating ranges of downstream analysis systems and of improving measurement reliability (see [0055] of Anderer, which recites “FIG. 3 illustrates a liquid chromatography system as an example for an analysis system for analyzing a diluted fluidic sample”).
With respect to claim 12, Monrabal in view of Anderer teaches laboratory system according to claim 11, wherein the fluid supply system (pressurized nitrogen source 80 of Monrabal) is arranged to push dilution fluid (dilution fluid) from the dilution fluid supply (dilution fluid supply device of Anderer) through the fluid supply channel (line 78a of Monrabal), the sampling space (IR detector 66 of Monrabal) and/or the sample extraction channel (line 90 of Monrabal) using transportation fluid (nitrogen) of the transportation fluid supply (Main Nitrogen of Monrabal).
Claims 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Monrabal in view of Taguchi (US4101275A).
With respect to claim 13, Monrabal teaches the laboratory system according to claim 1.
Monrabal doesn’t teach that the fluid supply system comprises a rinsing fluid supply.
In the analogous art of laboratory systems, Taguchi (US4101275A)
teaches a rinsing fluid supply (electromagnetic cock 11 in column 3, which recites “the electromagnetic cock 11 is used to supply pure water for rinsing the sample solution remaining in the sample vessel”).
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 fluid supply of system disclosed by Monrabal by incorporating the rinsing fluid supply disclosed by Taguchi such that the fluid supply system comprises a rinsing fluid supply with a reasonable expectation of success for the benefit of removing residual sample material from the sampling space, supply channel or sample extraction channel thereby reducing contamination and improving accuracy of subsequent runs.
With respect to claim 14, Monrabal in view of Taguchi teaches the laboratory system according to claim 13, wherein the fluid supply system (pressurized nitrogen source 80 of Monrabal) is arranged to push rinsing fluid (pure water) from the rising fluid supply (electromagnetic cock of Tagichi) through the fluid supply channel (line 78a of Monrabal), the sampling space (IR detector 66 of Monrabal) and/or the sample extraction channel (line 90 of Monrabal) using transportation fluid (nitrogen) of the transportation fluid supply (Main Nitrogen of Monrabal).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-7 and 15-16 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
With respect to claims 5-7, Monrabal, whether considered individually or in combination with the cited secondary prior art references, fails to teach or suggest
each sample extraction device having a sampling space and each sample extraction device cooperating with one of the multiple reactors for extracting a sample from the at least one reactor into the respective sampling space,
wherein the at least one fluid supply channel connects the fluid supply system to each sample extraction device, and
wherein the at least one sample extraction channel connects each sample extraction device to the at least one sample storage container.
With respect to claims 15-16, Monrabal, whether considered individually or in combination with the cited prior art secondary references, fails to teach or suggest
a sample extraction device comprising:
a sample channel configured to extend into a reactor volume of the reactor, the sample channel comprising a sample channel entrance configured to be arranged below a liquid level of a reaction liquid in the reactor volume of the reactor,
a sampling valve arranged in the sample channel and comprising the sampling space, wherein the sampling valve is movable between a sampling position and a transportation position,
a secondary fluid channel configured to extend into a reactor volume of the reactor, the secondary fluid channel comprising a secondary fluid channel entrance,
wherein, in the sampling position of the sampling valve, the sampling space is in fluid communication with the sample channel and wherein, in the transportation position of the sampling valve, the sampling space is in fluid communication with the at least one fluid supply channel and the at least one sample extraction channel.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN BORTOLI whose telephone number is (571)270-3179. The examiner can normally be reached 9 AM till 6 PM EST Monday through Thursday.
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.
/JONATHAN BORTOLI/Examiner, Art Unit 1797
Prosecution Insights