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 .
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 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.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Invention I (Applicant explicitly identified only claims 1-6 as belonging to the elected Invention)
in the reply filed on 06/02/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that there is no serious search burden to further examine each of the other Inventions. More particularly, Applicant argued that Examiner only provided standard menu of generic factors joined by “or” and followed by generic parenthetical illustrations which do no explain why a prior-art search of the elected Group would fail to encompass the subject matter of the other Invention, nor identify any specific class/subclass, or electronic resource that would have to be searched for one Invention but not another Invention. To the best understanding of the Examiner, Applicant is referencing to only the bullet points of page 6, whereas the Examiner placed the applicable analysis that Applicant is requesting in exceeding detail on pages two through five and to which the bullet points reference. The Examiner is therefore unpersuaded by Applicant’s arguments that the Examiner’s analysis across multiple pages that explain the conclusion of the so-called “generic factors” was insufficient.
With further regards to search, Applicant argued that apparatus and method inventions classified within G01N33 should be searched together, and that examination of the different Inventions would therefore impose no serious additional burden. MPEP § 905.01 states in part (bold added for emphasis):
The CPC classification system arranges subject matter into hierarchical arrays.
(A) The highest array or level is the Section.
(B) Each section is subdivided into Classes.
(C) Each class is subdivided into one or more subclasses.
(D) Each subclass is broken down into Groups (main groups and subgroups).
The Examiner emphasizes that mere similarity in classification within a subclass is an insufficient designation and therefore broadening examination to examination of all inventions at the subclass level would be seriously burdensome—in this case there are approximately 1.75 million documents in G01N33. The Examiner further notes that in the Restriction/Election requirement between Invention I and Invention II that the Examiner met the distinction requirement with a two-way analysis (one-way analysis only required), further demonstrating the distinction between the Inventions and the lack-of/insubstantial overlap and therefore burden for searching for the mutually exclusive characteristics of each Invention. The Examiner is therefore unpersuaded by Applicant’s arguments to examine & search all Inventions at the subclass level, when classification is properly performed at the subgroup level.
With yet further regards to search, Applicant further argued that searching Inventions pertaining to B01L3/502 and also B01J12/00 would further impose no serious search & examination burden as a search directed to the elected Invention would necessarily traverse the art applicable to the others. The Examiner respectfully disagrees on similar grounds as put forth above, the Examiner further emphasizing that the Examiner showed in the thorough analysis across pages two through five of the requirement for Restriction/Election that these additional Inventions do not overlap in scope, have materially different design, mode of operation/function/effect, are not obvious variants (and Applicant has not clearly admitted such to be used in a prior art rejection), and have separate utility—all of which affect the scope of the search in the manner of searching for these mutually exclusive characteristics (e.g., text searching within classifications) and recognizably divergent subject matter (e.g., additional emphasis in image searching different classifications based on the claimed subject matter).
Further regarding the traversal, Applicant argued that adding a new claim required examination of all of the different Inventions as the new claim was intended to include aspects of different subcombinations into a single combination claim. MPEP 806.05(d) states in part “Where claims to two or more subcombinations are presented along with a claim to a combination that includes the particulars of at least two subcombinations, the presence of the claim to the second subcombination is evidence that the details of the first subcombination are not required for patentability (and vice versa). For example, if an application claims ABC/B/C wherein ABC is a combination claim and B and C are each subcombinations that are properly restrictable from each other, the presence of a claim to C provides evidence that the details of B are not required for the patentability of combination ABC.” The Examiner therefore respectfully concludes that the multiple subcombinations are evidence that the first (elected) subcombination is not required for patentability (and vice versa). Furthermore, Applicant has already elected Invention I directed to a subcombination (not a combination), where independent claim 1 is effectively a subcombination of newly added combination claim 21. Where applicant elects a subcombination, and claims thereto are subsequently found allowable, any claim(s) depending from or otherwise requiring all the limitations of the allowable subcombination will be examined for patentability in accordance with 37 CFR 1.104. See MPEP § 821.04(a). In the present case, a posteriori analysis (i.e., after taking the prior art into account) shows that newly added combination claim 21 is not yet ready to be examined for patentability in accordance with 37 CFR 1.104 and therefore will likewise remain withdrawn as non-elected along with the other claimed Inventions; in other words, the combination as claimed does not require the particulars/details of the subcombination as claimed for patentability. The Examiner further explicitly notes that the elected subcombination has utility by itself or in other combinations, including that the elected Invention has utility for a plurality of other kits and/or combinations including for fixed volume reaction chambers and open ended (i.e., non-hermetically sealed) reaction chambers (see also exemplary prior art of record); the Examiner further emphasizes that the reaction chamber is not a comprised element of elected Invention I, and that the energy source and gas meter could be utilized for other types of chambers, and that providing a reaction is merely an intended use. Finally, the burden of search established between the subcombinations applies to the burden of search between the elected subcombination and the newly presented combination. The Examiner will revisit examination for patentability in accordance with 37 CFR 1.104 when allowable subject matter is identified in the subcombination Invention (i.e., Subcombination Invention I—and in particular independent claim 1—will be treated as a linking claim for newly added Combination independent claim 21).
Claim(s) 7-21 is/are withdrawn
from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected Invention, where Applicant identified the claims belonging to elected Invention as only claims 1-6, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL*.
*The present Examiner is generally willing to consider (not a matter of right) a shift in election in an RCE (where additional search time is afforded to the Examiner) if previously presented in an after final proposed amendment and the present Examiner at that time determined a shift in election would be acceptably non-burdensome.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s)
(IDS) submitted on 05/23/2024 & 09/16/2025 is/are in compliance
with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement(s) is/are being considered by the Examiner.
Drawings
37 CFR 1.83(a) states (bold added for emphasis):
The drawing in a nonprovisional application must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. However, conventional features disclosed in the description and claims, where their detailed illustration is not essential for a proper understanding of the invention, should be illustrated in the drawing in the form of a graphical drawing symbol or a labeled representation ( e.g., a labeled rectangular box). In addition, tables that are included in the specification and sequences that are included in sequence listings should not be duplicated in the drawings.
37 CFR 1.84(n) states (bold added for emphasis):
Symbols. Graphical drawing symbols may be used for conventional elements when appropriate. The elements for which such symbols and labeled representations are used must be adequately identified in the specification. Known devices should be illustrated by symbols which have a universally recognized conventional meaning and are generally accepted in the art. Other symbols which are not universally recognized may be used, subject to approval by the Office, if they are not likely to be confused with existing conventional symbols, and if they are readily identifiable.
MPEP § 608.02(IX) states-in-part (bold added for emphasis):
37 CFR 1.84(n) indicates that graphic drawing symbols and other labeled representations may be used for conventional elements where appropriate, subject to approval by the Office. Also, suitable legends may be used, or may be required, in proper cases. The American National Standards Institute (ANSI) (www.ansi.org ) and the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) (www.iso.org ) are organizations whose numerous publications include some that pertain to graphical symbols; the symbols therein are considered to be generally acceptable in patent drawings. Although ANSI and ISO documents and other published sources may be used as guides during the selection of graphic symbols for patent drawings, the Office will not "approve" any published collection of symbols as a group because their use and clarity must be decided on a case-by-case basis. Overly specific symbols should be avoided. Symbols with unclear meanings should be labeled for clarification.
37 CFR 1.84(o) states (bold added for emphasis):
Legends. Suitable descriptive legends may be used subject to approval by the Office, or may be required by the examiner where necessary for understanding of the drawing. They should contain as few words as possible.
Unlabeled Non-Descriptive Representations:
The drawings are objected to because:
unlabeled non-descriptive representations are impermissible under 37 CFR 1.83(a); specific illustrated symbols do not yet have a universally recognized conventional meaning nor are those symbols generally accepted in the art in accordance with 37 CFR 1.84(n); and the Examiner has determined suitable descriptive legends comprising a (few) word(s) are required as necessary for understanding of the drawings in accordance with 37 CFR 1.84(o). Element(s)
10, 20, 40, 50,70, 72 of fig(s). 1
,
40, 50, 62, 60, 70, 72 of fig(s). 2
,
30 of fig(s). 3,
and 32, 40, 42, 50, 70 of fig(s). 6
need suitable legends in the form of descriptive text labels in accordance with each of MPEP § 608.02(IX) and MPEP § 608.02(b)(II)(¶ 6.22) (“should be provided with descriptive text labels”) and/or use conventionally acceptable or at least universally recognizable symbols—in addition to any reference characters already present. Empty or not labeled rectangular boxes and/or non-descriptive representations of features are not descriptive (i.e., symbols with unclear meanings), and therefore incomplete. The descriptive text labels should contain as few words as possible. See also 37 CFR 1.84(p) pertaining to standards for the text labels, and see exemplary publications by the American National Standards Institute and/or the International Organization for Standardization which include exemplary conventional/understandable graphical symbols which the Examiner will carefully consider on case-by-case basis as the Examiner Determines Completeness and Consistency of Drawings. Appropriate Correction is required.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claim(s) 6 is/are objected to because of the following informalities:
As to claim 6,
the Examiner objects to the use of the pronoun “it” in the claim, noting in particular that while the antecedent basis of the pronoun is present, the use of a pronoun can be ambiguous as to which element the pronoun is being substituted. In this case, the pronoun “it” is presumed to be substituted for the sample of gas. The Examiner suggests explicit recitations.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 3, and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Applicant cited Prohaska et al (US 20040142489 A1; hereafter “Prohaska”).
Regarding independent claim 1,
Prohaska teaches in fig. 4 a system (fig. 4, apparatus 100) for determining a concentration of a gas in one or more reaction chambers (fig. 4, container 112 comprising reactant chamber/s 116, 117) (Title “Method And Apparatus For Determining A Concentration Of A Component In An Unknown Mixture”; Abstract “method and apparatus for determining a concentration of a component in an unknown mixture. The method includes the steps of preparing a reactant having a specified pH level and a specified temperature and combining the unknown mixture with the reactant”; [0030] “determines the concentration of a component in a liquid or solid phase by transforming the component to a gaseous phase. Once in the gaseous phase, the component is detectable by a detection unit, such as an electrochemical gas sensor or other unit for detecting vapors”; reference claim 7 “combining the unknown mixture in a basic solution”; reference claim 8 “combining the unknown mixture in an acidic solution”; [0066] “In further embodiments, receptacle 110 includes more than one reactant chamber”), the system (fig. 4, apparatus 100) comprising:
an energy source (fig. 4, power heating element 136) configured to provide a reaction energy to the one or more reaction chambers (fig. 4, container 112 comprising reactant chamber/s 116, 117) (Abstract “Upon varying the pH level and temperature, the method will release volatiles from the selected component(s)”; [0022]; [0067]-[0068]; [0070]); and
a gas meter (fig. 4, sensor 140 with electronic circuit 142) capable of measuring a concentration of a gas in the one or more reaction chambers (fig. 4, container 112 comprising reactant chamber/s 116, 117) ([0069] “detection unit capable of detecting volatiles indicative of selected component 34, such as an electrochemical gas sensor or other unit for detecting vapors”; [0016] “calculating the concentration of the component(s) in the unknown mixture based on the detected volatiles, or indication”).
Regarding claim 3, which depends on claim 1,
Prohaska teaches further comprising a fixture (fig. 4, receiver 144 with receptacle 110) configured to hold at least one of the one or more reaction chambers (fig. 4, container 112 comprising reactant chamber/s 116, 117) ([0071] “receiver 144 for receiving any one of a plurality of receptacles 110, where receptacles 110 vary in size, geometry, or weight. Receiver 144 may be a platform for receiving and supporting any container 112 as well as heating element 136”).
Regarding claim 5, which depends on claim 1,
Prohaska teaches further comprising a connector device (fig. 4, headspace sampling interface 122) fluidly connected to the gas meter (fig. 4, sensor 140 with electronic circuit 142), the connector device (fig. 4, headspace sampling interface 122) configured to fluidly connect the gas meter (fig. 4, sensor 140 with electronic circuit 142) with an inner volume (inner volume of container 112) of the one or more reaction chambers (fig. 4, container 112 comprising reactant chamber/s 116, 117) ([0061] “Container 112 further includes a headspace sampling 122 interface for coupling a detection unit, such as a headspace sampling device, to container 112 for detecting the volatiles released from the converted selected component 34. Another detection unit may be a sensor, electrochemical gas sensor, or any unit capable of detecting volatile releases from the converted selected component 34”; [0063] “ports or connections”).
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed 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.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Applicant cited Prohaska.
Regarding claim 6, which depends on claim 1,
Prohaska reasonably teaches further comprising a computer (computer with storage device with computer portion of instrument measurement and control unit 142) that includes a non-transitory (at once envisaged as non-transitory; additional obviousness analysis provided) computer readable medium (computer storage and/or storage device) ([0043] “Reporting 38 the concentration is performed through all known or novel manners for reporting information, such as merely displaying the concentration on a monitor or LCD. Reporting 38 may also be storing or sending the concentration to a computer or other storage device”; [0070] “electronic circuit 142 performs what otherwise would be manually laborious, tedious, or time consuming operations and centralizes the operations in an electrical panel having controls for each of the above mentioned items”; [0036] “automatically”; [0068] “automatic”), the non-transitory computer readable medium (computer storage and/or storage device) comprising
computer readable instructions for
collecting and storing a gas concentration transmitted from the gas meter (fig. 4, sensor 140 with electronic circuit 142) for each reaction chamber (fig. 4, container 112 comprising reactant chamber/s 116, 117) tested ([0043] “storing or sending the concentration to a computer or other storage device”) and
providing an output (report and/or display) associating the gas concentration with a sample (fig. 4, sample in container 112 comprising sample chamber 118) contained in the reaction chamber (fig. 4, container 112 comprising reactant chamber/s 116, 117) from which it was collected (Abstract “sample introduction interface for permitting connection to a sample injector to introduce a sample into the sample chamber”; [0037] “Method 10 further includes calculating 30 the concentration of selected component 34 and reporting 38 the concentration. Calculating 30 the concentration is performed using correlation information, such as the following formula, to correlate the amount of indications 26, or volatiles, detected by the detection unit and the amount, or concentration, of selected component 34 originally in mixture 16”; [0043] “reporting” and “displaying”).
The Examiner acknowledges that Prohaska is unclear if fig. 4 instrument’s measurement and control unit 142 explicitly comprises the computer and storage device referenced in the specification, and Prohaska does not explicitly state that the computer & storage device comprise non-transitory readable medium.
However:
The Examiner takes Official Notice that (generically) a computer comprising a non-transitory computer readable medium with computer readable instructions is conventional in the art.
Furthermore, it has been held that broadly providing a mechanical or automatic means to replace manual activity which has accomplished the same result involves only routine skill in the art, see MPEP § 2144.04(III) and In re Venner, 262 F.2d 91, 95, 120 USPQ 193, 194 (CCPA 1958). In the present case it is the Examiner’s position that only ordinary skill is required to store computer readable instructions for automated control by a control unit—including to collect, store, and output data.
In view of the above, either one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed would at once envisaged that Prohaska reasonably teaches a computer comprising a non-transitory computer readable medium with computer readable instructions, or nevertheless, or in the alternative, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine a conventional non-transitory computer readable medium with computer readable instructions with Prohaska’s instrument’s measurement control unit for automation of Prohaska’s method so as to perform what otherwise would be manually laborious, tedious, or time consuming operations and centralize the operations in a computerized controller having controls for each of the above mentioned items.
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) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Applicant cited Prohaska in view of newly cited Ellis et al (US 20070131863 A1; hereafter “Ellis”).
Regarding claim 2, which depends on claim 1,
Prohaska teaches the gas meter (fig. 4, sensor 140 with electronic circuit 142) ([0069] “Headspace sampling device 140 is any detection unit capable of detecting volatiles indicative of selected component 34, such as an electrochemical gas sensor or other unit for detecting vapors”).
Prohaska is silent to wherein the gas meter is a hydrogen gas meter, oxygen gas meter, carbon monoxide gas meter, carbon dioxide gas meter or a chlorine gas meter.
Ellis teaches a gas meter that is a hydrogen gas meter, oxygen gas meter, carbon monoxide gas meter, carbon dioxide gas meter or a chlorine gas meter (Title “Multi-Gas Sensor”; Abstract; [0001] “Gas sensors capable of detecting the presence and/or concentration level of various gases are used in may applications, and the number of such applications is increasing as the ability to detect various gases increases and as the application of these sensors is shown to have an increasing role in how gases form, react, and affect the environment”; [0002] “gas sensors have been used to detect the presence of vapors” and “detect a plurality of different gases in a compact, portable sensor, although the invention is not so limited”; [0012] “multi-gas sensor that can be configured to detect a plurality of gases including vapors (e.g., hydrocarbon based vapors, carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, oxygen, acid vapors, phosphorous, ammonia, methanol, isopropyl alcohol, ether, etc.)”; [0016] “detect the presence and/or an approximate concentration of a particular gas”; [0027] “Sensor 400 is thus not limited to detecting carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, or hydrocarbon gases”; [0032] “processing circuitry 736, 738, 740, 742 may amplify signals 714, 730, 732, 734, convert those signals from analog form to digital form, and further convert the signals into a format suitable for display to a user of gas sensor 400. For example, the signals output 744, 746, 748, 750 by processing circuitry 736, 738, 740, 742 may be in a format suitable for display on any readout or display device. As another alternative, outputs 744, 746, 748, 750 may be stored in one or more electronic, magnetic, optical, or other storage devices. As still other alternatives, outputs 744, 746, 748, 750 may be transmitted to another device or entity. Of course, outputs 744, 746, 748, 750 may be further processed by electronics (not shown) at sensor 400. It should be apparent that output signal 744 indicates the presence of and/or concentration of oxygen in chamber 410, output signal 746 indicates the presence of and/or concentration of carbon monoxide in chamber 410, output signal 748 indicates the presence of and/or concentration of carbon dioxide in chamber 410, and output signal 750 indicates the presence of and/or concentration of hydrocarbons in chamber 410”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Ellis’ specific multi-gas sensor that detects concentration of vapor with Prohaska’ generic gas sensor for detecting vapors for the expected purpose of providing a particular device for so detecting concentration of vapor with the advantages as put forth by Ellis, the Examiner further emphasizing the convenience of multi gas concentration detection, compact design, ability to display, store, and/or transmit outputs to other devices (in this case, Prohaska’s device).
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Applicant cited Prohaska in view of newly cited Stella (US 20230333130 A1; hereafter “Stella”).
Regarding claim 4, which depends on claim 1,
Prohaska does not teach an auto-sampler configured to convey the one or more reaction chambers to a reaction site.
However:
It has been held that broadly providing a mechanical or automatic means to replace manual activity which has accomplished the same result involves only routine skill in the art, see MPEP § 2144.04(III) and In re Venner, 262 F.2d 91, 95, 120 USPQ 193, 194 (CCPA 1958). In the present case it is the Examiner’s position that only ordinary skill is required to automate for sampling, the Examiner taking Official Notice that auto-samplers are well known in the art, and therefore one of ordinary skill in the art would be able to select and/or design an auto-sampler for automating the manual activity without undue experimentation
Furthermore, and as supporting factual evidence of the aforementioned assertion, Stella teaches an auto-sampler (autosampler comprising autosampling portions of Sample Handling and Preservation Station 12 and Analyzer Station 14; see also figs. 2 & 3, especially Transport Unit 22 & 28 thereof) configured to convey the one or more reaction chambers (not shown in fig. 1; reaction vessel) to a reaction site (fig. 1, analyzer station 14) (Title “System And Method For Disposing Of A Reaction Vessel Of A Mass Spectrometry System”; Abstract “An analyzer and sample handling system suitable for retrieving and processing a sample housed within a suitably configured reaction vessel” and “autosampler”; [0005] “reaction vessel is then conveyed or transported to the analyzer station”; [0031] “The illustrated sample handling and preparation station 14 can also include a transport unit 22 that can include, according to one example, a transport element, such as a robotic arm (not shown), for manipulating the reaction vessel 40. For example, the robotic arm can retrieve a reaction vessel 40 from a storage location (if desired) and hold the reaction vessel when the sample 48 is dispensed or aliquoted therein. The transport arm can then be controlled by the controller 16 to move or transport the reaction vessel 40 to the analyzer station 14”; [0032] “optional transport unit 28. The analyzer unit 26 can be configured to analyze the sample 48 and the optional transport unit 28 can include a transport element, such as a robotic arm, for holding, moving and manipulating the reaction vessel 40, if desired”; [0055] “reaction vessel 40 is then conveyed or transported by the robotic arm to the analyzer station 14”).
In view of the above, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to automate Prohaka’s reaction chamber handling and sampling therefrom—as factually supported by Stella’s automated robotic conveying & sampling of reaction vessel—for the expected purpose of reducing manual activity, increasing throughput and efficiency of reactions and sampling thereof without having to make all elements in parallel (e.g., re-using components such as the gas sensor across a plurality of reaction vessels).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure. Applicant is invited to review PTO form 892 accompanying this Office Action listing Prior Art relevant to the instant invention cited by the Examiner.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to DAVID L SINGER whose telephone number is 303-297-4317. The Examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 am - 6:00pm CT, EXCEPT alternating Friday.
If attempts to reach the Examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner’s supervisor, John Breene can be reached on 571-272-4107. 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.
/DAVID L SINGER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855 21JUL2026
Prosecution Insights