CTNF 18/676,899 CTNF 92961 Diluting a Gas Sample DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 08/27/2024 is being considered by the examiner. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to 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. 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 1-4, 13 and 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sun (CN 115931478; “Sun”), in view of Ludwick (US 20110088490; “Ludwick”), in further view of Deane (US 20050072298; “Deane”) . Regarding claim 1, Sun discloses, in figure 1, a hand-portable gas sampling and dilution system ((10) see Sun’s translation, TITLE, “field sampling method”) comprising: a hand-portable case (see Sun’s translation, p. 4, ¶ 4, “shell”), and a dilution system (10), the dilution system (10) configured to mix a dilution gas (see Sun’s translation, p. 5, ¶ 1, “compressed air”) with a sample gas (see Sun’s translation, p. 5, ¶ 1, “hydrogen sulfide gas”) to form a diluted sample (see Sun’s translation, p. 5, ¶ 1, “diluted sample gas”). Sun fails to disclose details of a hand-portable case. Ludwick teaches, in figures 1-3, a hand-portable gas sampling system (10) comprising: a hand-portable case (12), the hand-portable case (12) comprising: a first side (13); a second side (15) hingedly (¶ 0031, Ludwick’s case portions are hinged together) coupled to the first side (13); a carry handle (16); and an intake manifold, valves and sample tube system (26, 30, 34) positioned in the hand-portable case (12) and coupled an inner surface (22) of the first side (13). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Ludwick’s scheme of housing a gas sampler in a carrying case to teach Sun to configure the sampling probe rod shell as a carrying case to organize and ruggedize the assembly. Doing so provides for efficient deployment of the equipment, while protecting it from harsh conditions. Sun and Ludwick fail to disclose a carry handle having a first portion and a second portion, the first portion coupled to the first side of the hand-portable case and the second portion coupled to the second side of the hand-portable case, the first portion and the second portion mating when the first side and second side are closed together; and a retractable handle coupled to the first side proximal the carry handle; a pair of wheels couple to the hand-portable case opposite the carry handle and the retractable handle. Deane teaches, in figure 18A, a retractable handle (1808) coupled to a mobility cart (1800); a pair of wheels (1804) couple to the mobility cart (1800) opposite the retractable handle (1808). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Deane’s scheme of providing wheels and a retractable handle to an oxygen concentrator assembly into Sun and Ludwick’s shell since it is well known to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. Doing so provides a reliable way of automatically of increasing mobility of the assembly. Sun, Ludwick and Deane fail to disclose a carry handle having a first portion and a second portion, the first portion coupled to the first side of the hand-portable case and the second portion coupled to the second side of the hand-portable case, the first portion and the second portion mating when the first side and second side are closed together. However, Applicant has not disclosed that first and second portions of the handle and the attachment thereof is critical or produces unexpected results. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to design a carrying handle to have a first portion coupled to a first side of a case and a second portion coupled to a second side of a case, the first and second mating when the case is closed. Do so assures the case remains closed when carrying by the handle. Regarding claim 2, Sun, Ludwick and Deane, discloses in Sun’s figure 1, the dilution system ((10) see Sun’s translation, TITLE, “field sampling method”) comprises a diluted sample outlet (see Sun’s translation, p. 4, ¶ 7, “sample gas output”) configured to couple to a gas analyzer (Sun (11)). Regarding claim 3, Sun, Ludwick and Deane, discloses in Sun’s figure 1, the dilution system ((10) see Sun’s translation, TITLE, “field sampling method”) comprises a sample gas inlet (see Sun’s translation, p. 3, ¶ 2, “standard gas inlet”) configured to receive the sample gas (see Sun’s translation, p. 3, ¶ 2, “hydrogen sulphide gas”). Regarding claim 4, Sun, Ludwick and Deane, discloses in Sun’s figure 1, the dilution system ((10) see Sun’s translation, TITLE, “field sampling method”) comprises a dilution gas inlet (see Sun’s translation, p. 3, ¶ 2, “diluted gas inlet”) configured to receive to the dilution gas (see Sun’s translation, p. 3, ¶ 2, “compressed air”). Regarding claim 13, Sun, Ludwick and Deane disclose, in Ludwick’s figure 3, the hand-portable case (Ludwick (12)) comprises an internal boundary (Ludwick (22)). Sun, Ludwick and Deane fail to disclose an internal metal boundary. However, Applicant has not disclosed the internal boundary being metal is critical or produces unexpected results. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to manufacture Sun, Ludwick and Deane’s plate out of metal as a matter of design choice. Doing so increases durability. Regarding claim 15, Sun, Ludwick and Deane fail to disclose a pair of anti-vibration legs positioned on the first side. However, Applicant has not disclosed a pair of anti-vibration legs on the first side is critical or produces unexpected results. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to manufacture Sun, Ludwick and Deane’s system to include a pair of anti-vibration legs positioned on the first side as a matter of design choice. Doing so increases stability of the system. Regarding claim 16, Sun, Ludwick and Deane fail to disclose a humidity filter coupled upstream from the diluted sample outlet. However, Applicant has not disclosed a humidity filter coupled upstream from the diluted sample outlet is critical or produces unexpected results. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to manufacture Sun, Ludwick and Deane’s system to include a humidity filter coupled upstream from the diluted sample outlet as a matter of design choice. Doing so protects water sensitize equipment downstream of the diluted sample outlet. Regarding claim 17, Sun, Ludwick and Deane fail to disclose a U-shaped tube coupled upstream from the humidity filter, the U-shaped tube configured to trap reduce a humidity of the diluted sample. However, Applicant has not disclosed a U-shaped tube coupled upstream from the humidity filter to trap reduce a humidity of the diluted sample is critical or produces unexpected results. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to manufacture Sun, Ludwick and Deane’s system to include P-trap as a matter of design choice. Doing so protects water sensitize equipment downstream of the diluted sample outlet . Allowable Subject Matter 12-151-07 AIA 07-97 12-51-07 Claim s 18-20 are allowed. 13-03-01 The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter. Regarding claim 18, although combined Sun, Ludwick and Deane disclose a dilution gas system with a carrying case having top and bottom portions that close together forming a closed volume including a main system plate within, and a sampling probe system configured to dilute high concentration hydrogen sulfide sample gas with air to form diluted sample gas, the system includes a sample inlet, a dilution gas inlet, a diluted sample outlet, and a venturi pump; combined Sun, Ludwick and Deane do not disclose a clamshell case defining a vacuum sealable volume and a vacuum pump that evacuates a substance from the sample probe system and/or clamshell case. Furthermore, no other prior art can be found to motivate or teach applicant’s system including a man-portable clamshell case having a first portion and a second portion, the first portion and the second portion configured to seal together to define a vacuum sealable volume and a vacuum pump configured to evacuate a substance from one or both of the gas dilution assembly and the man-portable clamshell case , in combination with the remaining limitations of the claim. Dependent claim 19 is allowed for at least the same reasons as above. Regarding claim 20, although combined Sun, Ludwick and Deane disclose a dilution gas system with a carrying case that closes forming a closed volume, the case including a carry handle, retractable handle and wheels, and a sampling probe system configured to dilute high concentration hydrogen sulfide sample gas with air to form diluted sample gas, the system includes a portable hydrogen sulfide taster, valves, and a venturi pump; combined Sun, Ludwick and Deane do not disclose a vacuum sealable hard case. Applicant states in the disclosure, the vacuum sealable volume allows removal of leaked contaminants or sample gases that are toxic, improving personnel safety. Furthermore, no other prior art can be found to motivate or teach applicant’s system including a vacuum-sealable hard case , in combination with the remaining limitations of the claim. 12-151-08 AIA 07-43 12-51-08 Claim s 5-12 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Regarding claim 5, the examiner notes a search has not revealed prior art teaching or suggesting to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Sun, Ludwick and Deane, as combined in the rejection of claims 1-4, to include the dilution system comprises: a first dual-stage gas regulator coupled to the sample gas inlet, the first dual-stage gas regulator configured to control a flow of the sample gas and provide the controlled flow of the sample gas to the diluted sample outlet; and a second dual-stage gas regulator coupled to the dilution gas inlet, the second dual-stage gas regulator configured to control a flow of the dilution gas and provide the controlled flow of the dilution gas to the diluted sample outlet. Combined Sun, Ludwick and Deane move sample through the dilution system via a venturi pump. Venturi pumps are known to be incapable of producing high enough pressure to require two stage regulation. Further, Sun teaches away from two stage regulation since Sun seeks to lower the cost of sample gas dilution and the addition of said regulator would increase cost. Examiner concludes prior existence of the combination, or a suggestion to combine all cited references, is improbable. Dependent claims 6-12 would likewise be allowable for at least the same reasons as above. Regarding claim 14, the examiner notes a search has not revealed prior art teaching or suggesting to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Sun, Ludwick and Deane, as combined in the rejection of claims 1-2 and 16, to include the hand-portable case is configured to be vacuum sealable. Examiner concludes prior existence of the combination, or a suggestion to combine all cited references, is improbable. Conclusion 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Arno (US 20050257828) discloses in-situ gas blending and dilution. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TIMOTHY P GRAVES whose telephone number is (469)295-9072. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 a.m. - 5 p.m.. 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, Peter Macchiarolo can be reached at 571-272-2375. 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. /TIMOTHY P GRAVES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855 Application/Control Number: 18/676,899 Page 2 Art Unit: 2855 Application/Control Number: 18/676,899 Page 3 Art Unit: 2855 Application/Control Number: 18/676,899 Page 4 Art Unit: 2855 Application/Control Number: 18/676,899 Page 5 Art Unit: 2855 Application/Control Number: 18/676,899 Page 6 Art Unit: 2855 Application/Control Number: 18/676,899 Page 7 Art Unit: 2855 Application/Control Number: 18/676,899 Page 8 Art Unit: 2855 Application/Control Number: 18/676,899 Page 9 Art Unit: 2855 Application/Control Number: 18/676,899 Page 10 Art Unit: 2855
Prosecution Insights