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. Election/Restrictions Applicant’s election without traverse of group II, claims 56-67 in the reply filed on 2/24/2026 is acknowledged. Claims 68-75 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 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]. The claimed invention is therefore anticipated or at minimum rendered obvious by the device taught by Yasumura , given the broadest reasonable interpretation. 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 6 5 , 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 Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT BRADLEY R SPIES whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-3469 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Jennifer Dieterle can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)270-7872 . 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 1777