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 Amendment
The amendment filed 7/07/2026 has been entered. Claims 56-75 are pending in the application. Claims 68-75 stand withdrawn as directed to a non-elected invention.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/07/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Examiner notes that intended use language in apparatus claims is not accorded patentable weight where the statement of intended use does not distinguish over the prior art apparatus (MPEP 2114.II). Examiner recognizes that the system of Yasumura is designed to facilitate a different type of measurement than that intended for use with the instant claimed system. However, at this time, it is not clear that such difference in intended function corresponds to a difference in required structure. The structural elements of Yasumura would, as currently understood, be capable of performing the intended function of the instant claimed system, and the structures taught by Yasumura are currently understood to satisfy the broadest reasonable interpretation of the instant claimed system structure.
Applicant argues that the system of Yasumura does not measure a gas dissolved in the fluid (i.e. in the fluid at its source) because it carries out a reaction using the reactor (3). However, this represents a difference in intended use; whether to power such a reactor or not is a process decision, and the system could be employed to carry out the instant claimed function by not powering the reactor without requiring any changes in structure. Similarly, applicant argues that the separator (6)/(21) is a stripping separator and thus is not an equilibrator, because of the way balance gas is employed. However, this too represents a difference in intended use which, as currently understood, does not correspond to a difference in structure. As best understood the broadest reasonable interpretation of an equilibrator is a vessel in which the gas and liquid may coexist to allow an equilibrium to form between the two; the vessel taught by Yasumura would be capable of being used in this way i.e. by ceasing the flow of balance gas without requiring any changes in structure. If the term equilibrator is intended to require additional structural elements beyond what is taught by Yasumura, such elements should be incorporated into the claim language in an appropriate manner. Finally, applicant argues that the pH adjustment employed by Yasumura is directed to a different purpose than that of the instant invention, but that too is a difference in intended use and does not currently require a difference in structure. Even if it were determined that the difference in function required a different type of reagent, "[i]nclusion of the material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims." In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963) (MPEP 2115).
Because, as currently understood, the difference in intended function between the instant claimed system and the system taught by Yasumura does not clearly require any changes in structure between the two systems, any argument that modifying Yasumura to arrive at the claimed invention would destroy the system of Yasumura and render it unsuitable for its intended purpose are not persuasive.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
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.
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 56, 57, 60, 64, and 67 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 Yasumura et al (JP H10-170494 A).
With respect to claim 56, Yasumura teaches an apparatus for measuring concentration of a gas such as a nitrogen compound in water [Abs] which features a connection to a source (8) of water for which measurement is desired, such as a factory (in which a tank as a source is implicit or, in the alternative, at minimum an obvious option) [0016-0017], and equilibrator (21) in the form of a gas-liquid separator tank [0024], a sensor device (7) for measuring the sample using e.g. chemiluminescent NOx meter or the like [0026], and a tank (2) (or, in an alternative interpretation, (3)) connected downstream of the source and upstream of the equilibrator, which can facilitate pH adjustment [0016].
Applicant amended to require that the claimed system is arranged to set equilibrium of the gas dissolved in the fluid (i.e. from the source) and, further, that the pH adjustment is intended to shift equilibrium to favor more gas compared to ions in the fluid. As discussed in the response to arguments above, these limitations represent an intended use of the claimed structures and are not currently understood to distinguish over the prior art structurally.
The claimed invention is therefore anticipated or at minimum rendered obvious by the device taught by Yasumura, given the broadest reasonable interpretation.
PNG
media_image1.png
529
699
media_image1.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 57, at least under the interpretation that unit (3) represents the claimed tank, the system includes means such as pump (12) for adding a pH adjusting agent. The specific purpose of the various units is drawn to the intended use of the claimed device and does not distinguish structurally.
With respect to claim 60, Yasumura teaches added gas to the fluid phase in the separator via a balanced gas supply [0024].
With respect to claim 64, the specific streams being added by particular pumps are drawn to the intended use of the claimed device; Yasumura teaches various feed lines which may be used to add treatment agents to the mixed fluid and/or gas phases, for which pumps are explicitly taught or at minimum would have been implicit or obvious to employ. See e.g. line 20 and pump 19, which is disclosed for use with reducing agent, or line 23 for adding balanced gas; inclusion of anti-foaming agent in any of these lines would represent an intended use of the claimed device.
With respect to claim 67, Yasumura teaches that the fluid added to the equilibrator is sourced from a source such as a factory, for which a tank is implicit or at minimum an obvious option.
Claims 58, 59, 61, and 62 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yasumura et al in view of Miller et al (WO 2019/183411 A1).
With respect to claims 58, 61, 62, and 65, Yasumura teaches as above but is silent to a specific gas transporter, such as a closed circuit including a pipeline and pump, to mix gas with liquid in the equilibrator; as above, Yasumura does generally teach adding a balanced gas supply to the equilibrator.
However, Miller teaches a gas-liquid equilibrator [Abs] in which a carrier gas is added to a liquid to facilitate mixing and transfer of a sample gas for measurement, and in which the carrier gas is fed via a pump [000108] and a suitable nozzle arrangement (pipeline) [00091] in specific directions to drive mixing and transfer.
It would have been obvious to include a similar set of structures in the system of Yasumura to gain the benefit of improving mixing of the balanced gas from the supply with the liquid sample, to facilitate transfer of the sample gasses as in Miller.
Regarding the arrangement being horizontally or vertically arranged, see MPEP 2144.04 IV.B; changes in shape of e.g. a tank (to constitute a vertical vs. a horizontal configuration) represent obvious changes for those of ordinary skill in the art.
With respect to claim 59, Yasumura teaches a pump (27) to control outflow of liquid from the equilibrator tank in a controlled manner. However, if this is not considered sufficient for a liquid lock, see Miller which teaches that liquid outflow from an equilibrator can be controlled via the action of pumps, valves, but also U-shaped liquid traps and the like [00087] to control the rate and also to prevent air from entering the chamber in an undesired manner. It would have been obvious to include similar flow path structure i.e. trap structures to the device of Yasumura for the same reason i.e. to control outflow while preventing air intrusion.
Claims 63 and 66 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yasumura et al in view of Liu (WO 2017/148114 A1).
Yasumura teaches as above but is silent to a closed loop gas path to and from the sensor device, e.g. a closed circuit equipped with valves. Regarding automatic calibration at given points in time, such a limitation is drawn to the intended use of the claimed device and does not distinguish structurally.
However, Liu teaches various embodiments of measurement systems e.g. ammonium ion measurement systems for fluid systems, and teaches a detection cell 213 which is connected to a gas-liquid equilibrator (an ammonia generating pool 212) via a circuit with valves e.g. 205 and which, in embodiments [Fig. 2], may be a closed loop. This allows gas from the sensor to be returned to the generating tank [pg. 41, Experimental Example 1].
See MPEP 2143 I.B; a simple substitution of one known gas sampling arrangement for another, known to be useful in systems for measuring gas contents of liquid streams, represents an obvious engineering choice for one of ordinary skill in the art. It would have been obvious to include a circuit and valves in the system of Yasumura because, as in Liu, these are useful for obtaining gas measurements in systems of the sort, or as a simple substitution for one of ordinary skill in the art.
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 BRADLEY R SPIES whose telephone number is (571)272-3469. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 8AM-4PM.
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, Vickie Kim can be reached at 571-272-0579. 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.
/BRADLEY R SPIES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1776
Prosecution Insights