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 .
Claim Interpretation
Claims 1-4 recite “a start operation reception unit”, “a device activation processing unit”, “a blank measurement execution unit”, “a condition input reception unit’, and “reference information display control unit”. In US patent practice the MPEP recognizes “units” and “devices” recited in apparatus type claims as potentially invoking a 35 USC 112 (f) interpretation and requires disclosed structure or an algorithm clearly associated with the entire claimed function. As disclosed in applicant’s US 2024/0385158, a control unit 30 employs an algorithm (software) to perform the operations of the total organic carbon analyzer. The control unit 30 includes, as functional blocks, a start operation reception unit 31, a device activation processing unit 32, a blank measurement execution unit 33, a sample measurement execution unit 34, and a start operation condition storage unit 35. The functions of these units will be described later together with the overall operation of the total organic carbon analyzer 1. Thus, the units 31-35 have been interpreted by the examiner not as structural elements but as steps in an algorithm using the control unit (computer) “configured to” perform the claimed steps. For clarity, instead of claiming units 31-35 as unit applicant should recite them as steps performed by the “control unit” in the next response.
In the patentability analysis of apparatus claims 1-4, aspects or limitations the examiner interprets as functional/process/intended use language and/or elements that are not positively recited as part the claimed apparatus have been generally italicized whereas aspects interpreted as positively recited structural components are normally bolded. The bold font and italics are shown when the structure and function are initially introduced though not necessarily repeated, particularly in dependent claims. The examiner applies this formatting for both the examiner and applicant’s convenience. However, absent the referenced typestyles, the patentability analysis will still be clear regarding which limitations the examiner interprets as structural versus functional/process/intended use and/or not positively recited structure(s). Also, note that it has been held that recitations in which an element is "adapted to/for", “configured to/for”, “positionable”, “moveable/immovable”, etc., only requires the ability to so perform (i.e., functional/process/intended use). Again, functional/process/intended use recitation(s) and/or element(s) not positively recited as part of the apparatus do not constitute a limitation in any patentable sense with respect to the prior art. Please note these recitations have not been ignored by the examiner. All the recitation(s) in applicant’s claims 1-4 have been considered by the examiner and afforded the appropriate amount of patentable weight. For example, claim 4 is direct to a process and does not further limit the apparatus claim 1. However, in the interest of compact prosecution, the examiner had mapped these program steps as performed by the implied control unit.
In certain instances, during prosecution, the examiner’s current interpretation(s) regarding the patentable weight of these limitations might change based on the facts of the case. The examiner's patentability analysis below provides one or more interpretations and claim mappings of the claimed structures and steps although other interpretations may be possible. In the patentability analysis, the Office applies the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) consistent with the specification and specific limitations from the specification have not been read into the claims.
See MPEP at least §2111.02, 2173.01 I 2114, and 2173.05(g).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites “activation processing” and “after a predetermined time lapse from the start of the startup process…”. The “startup process” lacks antecedent basis and apparently means “activation processing”. Clarification is required.
Claim 3 recites “a reference information display control unit configured to allow a user to input one or both of the predetermined times and numbers of time of the water measurement operations”. However, claim 3 does not require that the reference information display control unit display any information. Thus, it is unclear if claim 3 requires a second input unit, a display control unit that also receives input, or the intended display of the reference information to assist the user.
Claim 4 recites “the inorganic acid solution”. This lacks antecedent basis. No inorganic acid supply /solution has been provided. Nor how it would structurally relate to the other components (combustion unit, liquid supply unit, pure water, etc.) This confusing and indefinite. Also, claim 4 recites “the blank measurement execution unit inorganic acid solution using measurement of supplying…” That phrase is indefinite and does not clearly identify the claimed operation. It could be reasonably interpreted as; measuring the inorganic acid solution itself, performing a measurement using the acid solution, or supplying acid to the combustion unit and measuring the resulting carbon-dioxide response. The scope of the claim is indefinite.
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.
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.
Claim 1, as best understood, is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2001318089 (already of record, hereinafter ‘089) in view of Bungo (US 6,408,684).
Regarding claim 1, ‘089 teaches a total organic carbon analyzer including
a combustion unit 5 configured to combust a liquid sample in a presence of a heated oxidation catalyst,
a liquid supply unit (reads on syringe 2) configured to switch between a measurement target liquid sample and pure water to supply to the combustion unit, and
a carbon dioxide amount measurement unit (reads on analysis part 8) configured to measure the amount of carbon dioxide generated in the combustion unit,
a control unit configured to
receive a predetermined start operation by a user;
execute activation processing of activating the combustion unit and the carbon dioxide amount measurement unit when the start operation reception unit receives a start operation; and
start a pure water measurement operation of supplying the pure water from the liquid supply unit to the combustion unit and measuring the amount of carbon dioxide in the carbon dioxide amount measurement unit, and
repeatedly executing the pure water measurement operation until measured values of the amount of carbon dioxide in a latest predetermined multiple rounds fall within a predetermined range.
Specifically, JP '089 teaches a control unit with an automatic blank-check program. After a blank-check command, the controller draws dilution water into the syringe, supplies the water to the combustion tube, combusts the water in the presence of the oxidation catalyst, and measures the generated carbon dioxide with the detector. The controller first determines whether the peak-area value is at or below a preset value and then determines whether the difference from the preceding result is within 10 percent. If either condition is not met, the controller repeats the pure-water measurement. When both conditions are met, a counter is incremented, and the measurement continues until that acceptable state has persisted ten times, see '089 Fig. 3 (see para [0013] et seq.), which teaches that the ten most recent acceptable results are a "latest predetermined multiple rounds" falling within a "predetermined range" because each result must satisfy the specified ceiling and the specified permitted variation from the preceding result. Thus, '089 teaches the claimed combustion unit, switchable liquid supply, carbon-dioxide measurement, user-command reception, and control that repeatedly executes a pure-water measurement until the latest predetermined multiple results fall within the predetermined acceptable range. JP '089 initiates its automatic blank routine when a blank-check key is pressed and explains that the routine is useful at first use or after a period of nonuse. '089 does not expressly require automatic commencement of that routine upon completion of power-on stabilization of the analyzer and detector.
In the related art of automatic analyzers, Bungo teaches an analytical instrument which, after power is switched on and the detector and light source are activated, a stabilization-judging unit (part of the controller) repeatedly measures detector drift and noise. When those values fall below their respective standards, the unit automatically transmits a start signal that causes the analytical apparatus to begin its programmed analytical operation. Bungo identifies reducing operator waiting and avoiding premature analysis as purposes of this control (see Bungo, abstract; col.1, ln 56- col. 2, ln 14; col. 5, ln 1-67; and Figs. 8-10).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to use the power-on stabilization determination and automatic start signal as taught in Bungo to initiate '089 blank-check program as the first analytical program after activation. Both references address analytical instruments, detector baseline stability, determining when reliable measurements may begin, and reducing dependence on an operator's judgment. The modification provides a predictable motivation to prevent the blank routine from beginning while the combustion and detection system remains unstable and eliminates a separate user command. Further, this modification of '089 does not alter the blank algorithm and the known event that starts with that algorithm. Thus, the combined system receives a user start operation, activates the analyzer and detector, determines that the stabilization condition has been satisfied, automatically starts the pure-water blank operation, and repeats that operation until the latest predetermined multiple measured values satisfy ‘089 two part range test.
Claims 2 and 3, as best understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ‘089 in view of Bungo, as applied to claim 1 above, in further view of JP 2015-096811 (already of record- hereinafter ‘811).
Regarding claim 2, modified ‘089 does not explicitly disclose the control unit configured to upon a user input one or both of the predetermined time and the number of times of the pure water measurement operation. In the related art of carbon measuring apparatus of a liquid, ‘811 teaches a controller 48, input unit 76, display unit, a heated oxidation-catalyst reaction tube, a carbon-dioxide detector, controller 48, input unit 76, display unit 82, waiting-time storage 70, and measurement-start unit 72. ‘811 teaches a user may manually enter a desired waiting time through input unit 76; the entered value is stored and replaces a previously stored value. JP '811 also permits automatic determination of baseline stabilization and automatic initiation of measurement (see '811, claims 1-3) and descriptions of Figs. 3-6, including input unit 76, waiting-time storage 70, and entry of a desired waiting time. Claim 2 requires an input of "one or both" of the predetermined time and the number of pure-water
measurement operations. ‘811 teaches a user entry of the predetermined waiting
time therefore satisfies the alterative limitation. That is, ‘811 does not need to also disclose user entry of the repetition count. It would have been obvious to provide ‘811 operator-adjustable waiting-time input in the combined system of '089 and Bungo analyzer so that the stabilization delay could be adapted to detector response, combustion temperature, sample history, and desired accuracy. Bungo additionally teaches that standard values and measurement intervals may be user-set.
Regarding claim 3, '811 teaches that controller 48 controls display unit 82, displays a mode-switch control permitting selection of manual or automatic setting, displays measurement readiness, and accepts a user's setting through input unit 76. It also derives and updates a waiting time from earlier measurement results for use in later measurements including display unit 82, manual/automatic mode selection, user input, stored values, and updating a later waiting time from a preceding measurement (see ‘811, discussion of Figs. 3-8). To the extent display unit name is correctly interpreted ‘811 teaches a display of stored prior or measurement-derived reference information, it would have been obvious to display ‘811 already stored default, previously entered, or previously updated waiting time adjacent to the input control. Presenting information already stored and used by the controller would predictably assist the operator in selecting or revising the value and reduce input error.
Claim 4, as best understood, is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over '089 in view of Bungo, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of JP 2,692,276 (hereinafter '276") and Yahata (US 2012/0039750, hereinafter "Yahata").
The combination of ‘086 and Bungo do not explicitly the process steps of claim 4. However, in the related art of total organic carbon analyzers, ‘276 teaches a carrier-gas supply, an oxidation-catalyst total carbon combustion section, an inorganic-carbon reaction section, a dehumidifier, a carbon-dioxide detector, a controller, a driven syringe, and a multiport valve that generates substantially carbon-free water internally, routes that water through the total-carbon and/or inorganic-carbon sections, measures resulting peak areas, repeats the operation, and confirms that the results have stabilized at a sufficiently low value to establish a blank (see ‘276, Fig. 1; and description corresponding passages).
'276 also connects an inorganic-acid solution reservoir to a valve port. Under manual or controller command, the syringe injects inorganic acid into the total-carbon combustion section and/or inorganic carbon section to regenerate or activate the catalyst or reagent. The regeneration is performed automatically without stopping the carrier-gas flow, and the analytical flow path continues through the dehumidifier and carbon-dioxide detector (see '276, acid-circuit discussion and application example and corresponding passages). Yahata is directed specifically to a total organic carbon meter having a system-blank function. Yahata teaches a multiport valve and syringe selectively connected to separate channels for sample water, pure water, acid, and an oxidative-decomposition unit. The acid channel supplies acid for acidifying sample water or pure water collected in the syringe. Yahata identifies hydrochloric acid as a suitable inorganic acid and teaches adjusting sample water or pure water to pH 4 or less. See Yahata, Fig. 1 and the descriptions of channels 110, 112, 114, and 116, valve 104, syringe 106, and oxidative-decomposition unit 118. For system-blank measurement, Yahata draws pure water through channel 112 into syringe 106, switches valve 104 to acid channel 114, draws acid into the syringe, aerates the acidified pure water to remove inorganic carbon, switches the valve to channel 116, passes the treated water through oxidative-decomposition unit 118, and retains the measured signal as the system blank. Yahata also describes repeated pure-water processing as conventional in obtaining a stable system blank. While the references do not expressly state the precise order in which a separate inorganic-acid measurement is completed and is then followed by separate pure-water measurements whose latest multiple values establish the blank. It would have been obvious to add ‘276 controller-operated inorganic-acid reservoir and regeneration operation to the combination of the '089 and Bungo analyzer and to perform the acid operation before ‘089 final pure-water blank measurements, since ‘089 teaches programmed blank measurements using dilution water or dilute hydrochloric acid and '276 teaches that acid restores the catalyst or reagent and that the measurement circuit is thereafter checked using carbon-free water. Yahata also discloses the conventional relationship among acid selection, pure-water selection, a common switched TOC path, and system-blank determination.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant claimed invention to include had an operational condition or regenerate the analytical path first and then establish the system blank: acid treatment changes the state of the flow path, combustion region, and catalyst by dissolving retained material or restoring activity, whereas the system blank characterizes the residual background of that analytical system. Determining the blank after conditioning predictably provides a baseline representative of the condition in which later sample measurements will be performed. Implementation would have required routine control of known selectable fluid paths. The controller would select the acid reservoir, conduct the regeneration or conditioning run, switch the valve to the pure-water source, and execute '089 repeated pure-water routine until the latest ten acceptable results satisfies the preset ceiling and variation limits. '276 and Yahata provide a reasonable expectation that acid, pure water, the switched analytical path, and blank determination will operate compatibly. ‘276 teaches during controller-operated acid injection, the carrier-gas and analytical path remain connected through the existing carbon-dioxide detector. Acquiring the detector output during that acid run would have been an obvious use of the detector for its established monitoring function, providing an objective record of the response while conditioning occurs. claim 4 does not require that the acid-run value be used in a new calculation or satisfy a particular criterion. After the acid measurement, the controller would proceed to the pure-water verification routine. This is a predictable arrangement of known operations according to their established functions. See KSR lnt'I Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416-18 (2007).The combined teachings therefore provide: (1) switching among the measurement-target sample, pure water, and inorganic-acid solution; (2) supplying inorganic acid to the combustion unit and measuring the detector response; and (3) performing that acid measurement before the repeated pure-water measurements used to establish the blank.
Citations to art
In the above citations to documents in the art, an effort has been made to specifically cite representative passages, however rejections are in reference to the entirety of each document relied upon. Other passages, not specifically cited, may apply as well.
Pertinent Prior Art
The following prior art is hereby made of record. Although the prior art is relied upon, the examiner considers the listed prior art relevant to the applicant’s invention and may be relied upon in a future prior art rejection or as general background information related to applicant’s field of endeavor.
Toyama et al., (US 2026/0219289) teach automatic analyzers that executes automatic blank calibration to ensure device performance when automatic blank calibration is implemented, and measures change over time in a mixture liquid obtained by mixing a specimen and a reagent. The automatic analyzer has a reaction vessel capable of accommodating the specimen and the reagent, an analysis unit that measures the mixture liquid accommodated in the reaction vessel, and a control unit, wherein the control unit executes analysis preparation operations including a reaction chamber temperature detection operation for performing temperature control of the reaction vessel, and other operations, and confirms that the condition of the automatic analyzer is stable, before executing the automatic blank calibration; and
Inoue et al. (US 2014/0004003) teach a first flow rate adjustment mechanism (18), and a second flow rate adjustment mechanism (28) are controlled by a flow rate control unit (62) so that a carrier gas flows through a first supply path (56) and a second supply flow rate (57) at a predetermined flow rate. The flow rate control unit (62) includes cell flow rate control means (66) for controlling the first flow rate adjustment mechanism (56) and the second flow rate adjustment mechanism (57) so that the flow rate of the carrier gas introduced into a sample cell (44) in a sparging state, which is a state where the carrier gas is supplied from the first supply path (56) into a syringe pump (4), and the flow rate of the carrier gas introduced into the sample cell (44) in a normal state.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to P. Kathryn Wright whose telephone number is (571)272-2374. The examiner can normally be reached between 9:30am-7pm EST.
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.
E-mail communication Authorization
Per updated USPTO Internet usage policies, Applicant and/or applicant’s representative is encouraged to authorize the USPTO examiner to discuss any subject matter concerning the above application via Internet e-mail communications. See MPEP 502.03. To approve such communications, Applicant must provide written authorization for e-mail communication by submitting the following statement via EFS Web (using PTO/SB/439) or Central Fax (571-273-8300):
Recognizing that Internet communications are not secure, I hereby authorize the USPTO to communicate with the undersigned and practitioners in accordance with 37 CFR 1.33 and 37 CFR 1.34 concerning any subject matter of this application by video conferencing, instant messaging, or electronic mail. I understand that a copy of these communications will be made of record in the application file.
Written authorizations submitted to the Examiner via e-mail are NOT proper. Written authorizations must be submitted via EFS-Web (using PTO/SB/439) or Central Fax (571-273-8300). A paper copy of e-mail correspondence will be placed in the patent application when appropriate. E-mails from the USPTO are for the sole use of the intended recipient and may contain information subject to the confidentiality requirement set forth in 35 USC § 122. See also MPEP 502.03.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Charles Capozzi can be reached on 571-270-3638. 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.
/P. Kathryn Wright/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1798
Prosecution Insights