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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
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) 1-3, 5, 7-9 and 11-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jones et al. US 2013/0081484 and Yamagishi US 2009/0221840.
Regarding claim 1, the preamble of the claim is directed to a standard gas chromatography method for analyzing ethylene carbonate using a single taper liner not packed with wool. The remaining limitations are generally known in the art and taught by Jones which discloses a gas chromatography analytical method based on an ethylene carbonate split injection technique, comprising:
injecting a sample to be analyzed into a gas chromatography analyzer,
vaporizing the injected sample (paragraph 0006, 0009) in a liner (paragraph 0009), wherein the liner can be a single taper liner not packed with wool such as that seen in fig. 2c and described in paragraph 0062,
introducing a part of the vaporized sample into a capillary column (paragraph 0001, 0007) with an inert gas (helium, paragraph 0071) flowing and allowing the sample to pass through the capillary column, and
detecting the sample having passed through the capillary column with a detector (paragraph 0008). Therefore, Jones differs from the claimed invention in that it does not explicitly teach the method as analyzing ethylene carbonate as claimed.
Yamagishi teaches a process for purifying ethylene carbonate for use in batteries in which a finished product is subjected to chromatographic analysis to determine its purity (paragraph 0042-0043). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have conducted the method of Jones to detect ethylene carbonate in order to monitor the presence of EC to ensure the correct production of batteries, and since the method of Jones could be used with any type of sample.
Regarding claim 2, the claim is directed to a standard gas chromatography method for analyzing ethylene carbonate using a single taper liner not packed with wool. The remaining limitations are generally known in the art and taught by Jones which discloses a gas chromatography analytical method based on an ethylene carbonate split injection technique, comprising:
injecting a sample to be analyzed into a gas chromatography analyzer,
vaporizing the injected sample (paragraph 0006, 0009) in a liner (paragraph 0009),
introducing a part of the vaporized sample into a capillary column (paragraph 0001, 0007) with an inert gas (helium, paragraph 0071) flowing and allowing the sample to pass through the capillary column, and
detecting the sample having passed through the capillary column with a detector (paragraph 0008). Therefore, Jones differs from the claimed invention in that it does not explicitly teach the method as analyzing ethylene carbonate as claimed.
Yamagishi teaches a process for purifying ethylene carbonate for use in batteries in which a finished product is subjected to chromatographic analysis to determine its purity (paragraph 0042-0043). The ethylene carbonate is molten (melted, abstract) so that it can flow. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have conducted the method of Jones to detect ethylene carbonate in order to monitor the presence of EC to ensure the correct production of batteries, and since the method of Jones could be used with any sample.
Regarding claim 3, the liner of Jones can be a single taper liner not packed with wool such as that seen in fig. 2c and described in paragraph 0062.
Regarding claim 5, Jones teaches the claimed invention with the exception of the purity of the ethylene carbonate to be analyzed is 99.5% by mass or more. Yamagishi teaches a process for purification of ethylene carbonate for use in batteries in which a purity of 99.8-99.84% by weight is used (paragraph 0006). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have used the ethylene carbonate of Yamagishi in the method of Jones to ensure the quality is sufficient for manufacturing of the batteries.
Regarding claim 7, the method of Jones collects the sample to be analyzed into a syringe for injection in a gas chromatograph (paragraph 0009) under a dry inert gas (helium, paragraph 0071).
Regarding claim 8, Jones discloses using a vial holding the sample before introduction into the gas chromatograph (paragraph 0009) which would be capped to prevent contamination or loss of the sample.
Regarding claim 9, the sampling of Jones takes place at a high temperature with a helium carrier (paragraph 0071) which would be dry as claimed.
Regarding claim 11, the method of Jones discloses operating the injection port temperature in the claimed range (paragraph 0069 discloses heating to 280 degrees C).
Regarding claim 12, the method of Jones discloses operating the detector in the claimed range (paragraph 0071 discloses heating to 300 degrees C).
Regarding claim 13, the inert gas of Jones is helium (paragraph 0071).
Regarding claim 14, jones discloses in paragraphs 0071-0072 a flow rate into the column of 1.5mL/min and a makeup gas flow of 60mL/min which would be within the claimed ratio as the makeup gas would be after the column.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jones and Yamagishi as applied to claim 1 and further in view of Dhan et al. US 2019/0207246.
Regarding claim 4, Jones and Yamagishi teach the claimed invention with the exception of the water content of the ethylene carbonate to be analyzed is 100 ppm or less. Dahn discloses a lithium-ion battery which is prepared with ethylene carbonate and a water content of 14ppm or less (paragraph 0221). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have relied upon the teachings of Dhan when analyzing ethylene carbonate for use in batteries by maintaining the same water content to ensure the analyzed sample would correspond to the actual battery.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jones and Yamagishi as applied to claim 1 and further in view of Reuter US 2011/0016951.
Regarding claim 6, Jones and Yamagishi teach the claimed invention but do not explicitly disclose the gas pressures as claimed. It was known at the time of filing to increase the carrier gas pressure during injection of a sample into a gas chromatography analyzer and to decrease it afterwards when no flow is necessary. Reuter teaches in paragraphs 0008-0009, for example, increasing the pressure of the carrier gas during injection and reducing it afterwards. Although the prior art does not specifically teach the increase as being 1.5 to 30 times a common operating pressure, there is no disclosed benefit to such a value and therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to any pressure increase to allow for the optimal flow, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results is obvious. KSR International Co. v Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jones and Yamagishi as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Okuyama US 2020/0268032.
Regarding claim 10, Jones and Yamagishi teach the claimed invention but do not explicitly disclose the liquid phase as claimed. Okuyama teaches a gas chromatograph which uses polyethylene glycol as a liquid phase (paragraph 0044). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art the time of filing to have combined the teachings of Okuyama with those of Jones and Yamagishi to provide a similar liquid phase since PEG was known to be commonly used in gas chromatography phases for separation.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Mark A. Shabman whose telephone number is (571)272-8589. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-4:30 EST.
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, Laura Martin can be reached at 571-272-2160. 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.
/MARK A SHABMAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855