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
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejection of claim 4 under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) have been fully considered. The rejection of claim 4 has been withdrawn in view of applicant’s amendment to the claims and arguments.
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding Tanaka, beginning page 9, the current rejection does not rely on Tanaka. Applicant’s arguments with respect to Davies, beginning page 11, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The rejection herein no longer relies on Davies as a storage container. The new limitations directed to a storage container with an open top surface are taught by Murata (tank 34) in the rejection herein. Therefore, applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
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.
Claim 1, 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maeda (US20110290042) in view of Murata et al. (US20170225976) further in view of Davies et al. (US9658144).
Claim 1: Maeda teaches a liquid sampling method in a flow monitoring system, wherein the flow monitoring system includes a sampling section having a needle (needle 9) for performing sampling of a liquid and a storage container (vials 15, Fig. 1), an analysis section (liquid chromatography column 2 [0007]) that performs analysis of the liquid sampled by the sampling section, an injection step of suctioning the liquid collected at the bottom of the storage container (the needle 9 is controlled by the controller 11 to sample the liquid sample from the vial 15 [0029]) from a distal end of the needle, and injecting a predetermined amount of the liquid as a sample into the analysis section through the injection port ([0029-0031] a preset amount of liquid sample is sucked up by the needle and that preset amount of sample is injected into the injection port 10).
Maeda fails to teach a storage step of storing a predetermined amount of the sample fluid in a storage container by dispensing the predetermined amount of the sample fluid to the storage container; a separation step of separating the sample fluid into the gas and liquid in the storage container with the open top surface by allowing only the liquid to collect at a bottom of the storage container and letting the gas escape above the liquid.
However, Murata teaches liquid treatment (title) in order to separate a two-phase fluid in a gas-liquid separation tank 34, Fig. 6, wherein it is known that the gas will naturally separate by the effect of gravity [0131, 0138]. The gas 3 is allowed to escape from the liquid 2 and exit through the open section 36 of the tank 34 (Fig. 6) while the liquid collects at the bottom of the tank.
Maeda in view of Murata is silent with respect to storing a predetermined amount of the sample fluid in a storage container by dispensing the predetermined amount of the sample fluid to the storage container.
However, Davies teaches an autosampler 14 and sample containers 16 containing a test solution 20. The quantity of test solution dispensed into the container 16 is selected to provide a head space 42 (col. 4, lines 14-17), therefore a predetermined amount.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use a predetermined amount of liquid dispensed into a gas-liquid separator, as taught by Davies, with the device of Maeda in view of Murata in order to not over-fill the separator.
Claim 5: Maeda in view of Murata further in view of Davies teaches the liquid sampling method according to claim 1. Maeda teaches wherein the analysis section includes a separation column (column 2) for separating, from each other, components contained in the sample injected through the injection port ([0024]), and a detector ([0024] the column 2 is a part of the chromatograph) for detecting each of the components separated from each other by the separation column.
Claim 6: Maeda in view of Murata further in view of Davies teaches the liquid sampling method according to claim 1. Maeda teaches wherein the sampling section further includes a syringe pump (pump 6) provided so as to be fluidly connected to the needle (needle 9, Fig. 1) and for perform suctioning and dispensing of a fluid through the needle ([0029-0031]), and a flow path switching section (switching valve 4), and in the storage step, the needle is caused to be in fluid communication with the fluid supply section via the flow path switching section (needle moving mechanism 16 and valve 4, See Fig. 1), and the liquid contained in the sample fluid is stored in the storage container as a sample (the vial(s) 15 contain the liquid sample).
Claim 7: Maeda in view of Murata further in view of Davies teaches the liquid sampling method according to claim 6, but fails to wherein the flow path switching section is configured to selectively connect the needle to either the sample supply section or the syringe pump, the flow path switching section fluidly connects the needle and the fluid supply section in the storage step, and the flow path switching section fluidly connects the needle and the syringe pump in the injection step.
However, Maeda teaches the use of switching valves 4, 5 in order to switch flow channels and fluid connections. The liquid chromatography process requires a sample which must be supplied, separated, and then sent to the chromatograph. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use a switching valve, as taught by Maeda, to connect the needle to either the sample supply section or the syringe pump in order to control the flow of fluid by directing (stopping or allowing) the flow between different pathways (flow channels) of the system using a switching valve (switching flow channels, Maeda, [0023]).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maeda in view of Murata further in view of Davies further in view of Caesar (US4316728).
Claim 2: Maeda in view of Murata further in view of Davies teaches the method of claim 1, but fails to explicitly teach wherein the sample fluid is left to stand for a predetermined time in the storage container in the separation step.
However, Caesar teaches gas-liquid separation wherein it is well known that gas-liquid mixtures will undergo natural separation (Col. 1, lines 20-35). Caesar teaches that such separation can occur over a long period of time, which is slow and uneconomical, so the rate of separation can be accelerated by changing the environmental pressure (vacuum). Therefore, time is a known result-effective variable when two-phase mixtures naturally separate and would have been obvious to optimize.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to let the two-phase sample of claim 1 sit for a predetermined amount of time in order to achieve a desired level of separation.
Claims 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maeda in view of Murata further in view of Davies further in view of Tomono et al. (US20200150099).
Claim 3: Maeda in view of Murata further in view of Davies teaches the liquid sampling method according to claim 1.
Maeda teaches wherein the sampling section further includes a syringe pump (measuring pump 10) provided so as to be fluidly connected to the needle (needle 9) and for perform suctioning and dispensing of a fluid through the needle ([0029-0031] the needle 9 is used to suction a sample form the vial 15 and dispenses the sample into the injection port 10), an injection port (injection port 10) configured to be able to fluidly connect the distal end of the needle and for injecting a sample from the needle into the analysis section ([0028-0031]), and a storage container (vial 15) that is a container of an open top surface to which the needle is accessible from above [0028-0031].
Maeda in view of Murata further in view of Davies fails to teach a flow vial having an inlet for causing a fluid to flow into an internal space and an outlet for causing the fluid to flow out from the internal space, and configured to be accessible to the internal space by the needle, the storage container for storing a liquid phase contained in a fluid dispensed from the distal end of the needle, and in the storage step, a liquid phase contained in the sample fluid is stored as a sample in the storage container by executing, at least one time, a storage operation of causing the needle to access the internal space of the flow vial, suctioning the sample fluid flowing through the flow vial from a distal end of the needle by the syringe pump, and dispensing, from the distal end of the needle into the storage container, the sample fluid suctioned.
However, Tomono teaches a flow vial 44 which cooperates with a needle 38 and a collection container 42, whereby the flow vial 44 has an inlet (inlet 16) for causing a fluid to flow into an internal space (space 48a) and an outlet (outlet 18) for causing the fluid to flow out from the internal space, and configured to be accessible to the internal space by the needle ([0037], Fig. 2), the storage container (collection container 42) for storing a liquid phase contained in a fluid dispensed from the distal end of the needle, and in the storage step, a liquid phase contained in the sample fluid is stored as a sample in the storage container by executing, at least one time, a storage operation of causing the needle to access the internal space of the flow vial, suctioning the sample fluid flowing through the flow vial from a distal end of the needle by the syringe pump, and dispensing, from the distal end of the needle into the storage container, the sample fluid suctioned ([0036-0042]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use the flow vial and collection container, as taught by Tomono, with the device of claim 1, in order to facilitate online analysis of the test solution (Tomono [0001]).
Claim 4: Maeda in view of Murata further in view of Davies further in view of Caesar teaches the method of claim 3, but fails to teach a storage count calculation step of calculating count of storage operation to be executed during the storage step in order to store, in the storage container, the sample of the predetermined amount or more based on a gas-liquid mixing rate and a capacity of the syringe pump, wherein the gas-liquid mixing rate is a ratio between the liquid and the gas contained in the sample fluid supplied to the internal space of the flow vial, wherein in the storage step, the storage operation is repeated for a flow path calculated in the storage count calculation step.
However, Maeda teaches a predetermined amount of liquid sample from a vial 15 and injecting the predetermined amount [0029]. Maeda teaches that a larger amount the sample can be collected in the needle 9 and the sample loop 7 than just what is collected in the tip of the needle 9 in Fig. 3B [0029]. Therefore, it is known in the art to collect a predetermined amount of sample in a needle and that it is not a fixed amount. The amount can be pre-set by an operator and subsequently operate automatically [0027-0028]. A person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the amount of sample required is predetermined, it is a critical factor in the process, and that it needs to be moved via syringe pump or the like wherein the needle capacity can be optimized to collect a sufficient sample amount (Maeda [0029]). If a syringe pump and/or storage container are not of adequate size to obtain a sufficient sample size in as few steps as possible (for efficiency), duplicating the steps and/or parts (storage containers) would produce no new or unexpected results. In order to automate a process, the steps must be pre-programmed and the sequence predetermined, thus repetition of steps would be controlled and counted. A two-phase fluid will have a volume dependent upon both gas and liquid which will change over time based on the amount of gas which separates, naturally or otherwise. The volume of the fluid corresponding with the separation phase would be known and result-effective in order to establish or correlate a predetermined amount of storage time. Therefore, based on considerations known in the art, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to inject a predetermined amount of sample into a storage container for separation in order to have a sufficient amount to obtain a predetermined amount of sample, as taught by Maeda.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 JEAN MORELLO whose telephone number is (313)446-6583. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-4.
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, Kristina Deherrera can be reached at 303-297-4237. 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.
/JEAN F MORELLO/Examiner, Art Unit 2855 9/19/26
/KRISTINA M DEHERRERA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2855
Prosecution Insights