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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
Acknowledgment is made of Applicant’s Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) form PTO 1449.These IDS has been considered.
Election/Restrictions
Claims 13-17, previously withdrawn from consideration as a result of a previous restriction requirement, have been rejoined and are now allowed as being dependent upon allowable independent claim or as including the common allowable subject matter as the elected, claimed invention. Pursuant to the procedures set forth in MPEP § 821.04, the restriction requirement is hereby withdrawn as to any claim that requires all the limitations of an allowable claim. Because all claims previously withdrawn from consideration under 37 CFR 1.142 have been rejoined, the restriction requirement as set forth in the Office action mailed on 01/05/2026 is hereby withdrawn. In view of the withdrawal of the restriction requirement as to the rejoined inventions, applicant(s) are advised that if any claim presented in a continuation or divisional application is anticipated by, or includes all the limitations of, a claim that is allowable in the present application, such claim may be subject to provisional statutory and/or nonstatutory double patenting rejections over the claims of the instant application. Once the restriction requirement is withdrawn, the provisions of 35 U.S.C. 121 are no longer applicable. See In re Ziegler, 443 F.2d 1211, 1215,170 USPQ 129, 131-32 (CCPA 1971). See also MPEP § 804.01.
Examiner’s Note
The Examiner has pointed out particular references contained in the prior art of record within the body of this action for the convenience of the Applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages, paragraph and figures may apply. Applicant, in preparing the response, should consider fully the entire reference as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner.
Claim objections
Claim 1 are objected to because: As per claim 1, claim recites “concentration calculation unit” on line 6; “light intensity output unit” on line 9, there is no antecedent basis for this limitation in this claim.
The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Appropriate correction is required. For the purpose of expediting the processing of the application, Claims have been rejected in view of the prior art (see below) based on a broader interpretation that meets the claimed subject matter as interpreted by the Examiner.
Claim 4 are objected to because: As per claim 4, claim recites “warning output unit” on line 2, there is no antecedent basis for this limitation in this claim.
The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Appropriate correction is required. For the purpose of expediting the processing of the application, Claims have been rejected in view of the prior art (see below) based on a broader interpretation that meets the claimed subject matter as interpreted by the Examiner.
Claim 10 are objected to because: As per claim 10, claim recites “flow restriction unit” on line 6, there is no antecedent basis for this limitation in this claim.
The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Appropriate correction is required. For the purpose of expediting the processing of the application, Claims have been rejected in view of the prior art (see below) based on a broader interpretation that meets the claimed subject matter as interpreted by the Examiner.
Claim 4 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 4, " threshold value set in advance, and outputs a warning signal if the relative value exceeds the " in line 3, should be changed to – threshold value set in advance, and outputs a warning signal when the relative value exceeds the --.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “concentration calculation unit; light intensity output unit” in claim 1 and “warning output unit” in claim 4 and “cell heating mechanism, flow restriction unit” in claim 10; “emissions amount calculation unit” in claim 13.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 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 of this title, 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, 5-8 and 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DONG et al. (JP WO2014/162537 A1) (herein after DONG) in view of DOBASHI et al. (JP 5086971 B2) (herein after DOBASHI).
As to claim(s) 1, DONG discloses a gas analysis device comprising:
a sample cell [304] into which sample gas is introduced [@fig.3: The sample cell 304 is supplied with a sample gas to be measured…page 6];
a light source [302] that irradiates the sample cell with light [The visible light source 302 is a light emitting diode that emits visible light…page 6];
a photodetector [306a] that detects light intensity of light which passes through the sample cell irradiated by the light source [The photodetector 306a is provided on the other end side of the reference cell 303, and detects ultraviolet light or visible light transmitted through the window 303b of the reference cell 303…page 6];
a concentration calculation unit [308] which calculates a concentration of a measurement target component contained in the sample gas based on light intensity outputted from the photodetector [The calculation unit 308 receives the four signals from the light detection unit 306 via the control unit 307, and calculates the NO 2 gas concentration based on the four signals. Thereby, compensation of drift of the ultraviolet light source 301 and the visible light source 302, correction of interference of other components other than the measurement component…page 6]; and
a light intensity output unit that outputs, comparably with a reference light intensity set in advance [Light intensity signals from the transmitted light receiving unit 31 and the reference light receiving unit 32 are transmitted to the signal
processing / drive control unit 61…page 15].
[Note: while each unit configured to perform as claimed may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function, because apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does].
DONG discloses all the features of the claimed invention except the limitation such as: “a light intensity at calibration detected by the photodetector during calibration”.
However, DOBASHI from the same field of endeavor discloses a light intensity at calibration detected by the photodetector during calibration [@FIG.1: A second photo detector (Raman scattered light detector) 18 comprising a spectroscopic unit 16 for measuring the Raman scattered light 15 generated by the irradiation of the laser light 11, and an ICCD (Intensified Charge Coupled Device) camera 17. the result was provided in advance, as well as measuring the dust of the signal intensity of Mie scattered light (= M 0) by the first photodetector 31, a second light detection Vessel 18 in advance by measuring the density calibration gas present in the measurement region…page 3].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to modify the device/method/system of DONG such that the light intensity at calibration detected by the photodetector during calibration; as taught by DOBASHI, for the advantages such as: in order to obtain an optimum measurement.
As of claims 2 and 7, DONG discloses all the features of the claimed invention except the limitation such as: “The gas analysis device further comprising a calibration gas supply line that supplies a calibration gas to the sample cell, wherein the light intensity output unit outputs, as the light intensity at calibration, light intensity detected by the photodetector in a state in which the calibration gas is supplied to the sample cell.
The gas analysis device wherein the light intensity output unit outputs, as the light intensity at calibration, light intensity detected by the photodetector during zero calibration”.
However, DOBASHI from the same field of endeavor discloses a calibration gas supply line that supplies a calibration gas to the sample cell, wherein the light intensity output unit outputs, as the light intensity at calibration [FIG. 1, the dust concentration measuring device 10 </ b> A in the gas measures the dust concentration in the measured gas 12 from the Mie scattered light 30 generated by the laser light 11 irradiated to the measured gas 12…page 3], light intensity detected by the photodetector in a state in which the calibration gas is supplied to the sample cell [A second photo detector (Raman scattered light detector) 18 comprising a spectroscopic unit 16 for measuring the Raman scattered light 15 generated by the irradiation of the laser light 11, and an ICCD (Intensified Charge Coupled Device) camera 17. the result was provided in advance, as well as measuring the dust of the signal intensity of Mie scattered light (= M 0) by the first photodetector 31, a second light detection Vessel 18 in advance by measuring the density calibration gas present in the measurement region…page 3]; wherein the light intensity output unit outputs, as the light intensity at calibration, light intensity detected by the photodetector during zero calibration [an ICCD (Intensified Charge Coupled Device) camera 17. the result was provided in advance, as well as measuring the dust of the signal intensity of Mie scattered light (= M 0) by the first photodetector 31, a second light detection Vessel 18 in advance by measuring the density calibration gas present in the measurement region…page 5].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to modify the device/method/system of DONG such that the calibration gas supply line that supplies the calibration gas to the sample cell, wherein the light intensity output unit outputs, as the light intensity at calibration, light intensity detected by the photodetector in the state in which the calibration gas is supplied to the sample cell; wherein the light intensity output unit outputs, as the light intensity at calibration, light intensity detected by the photodetector during zero calibration; as taught by DOBASHI, for the advantages such as: to produce an optical module with good production efficiency.
As of claim 3, DONG discloses all the features of the claimed invention except the limitation such as: “The gas analysis device wherein the light intensity output unit outputs the light intensity at calibration as a relative value with respect to the reference light intensity”.
However, DOBASHI from the same field of endeavor discloses wherein the light intensity output unit outputs the light intensity at calibration as a relative value with respect to the reference light intensity [A second photo detector (Raman scattered light detector) 18 comprising a spectroscopic unit 16 for measuring the Raman scattered light 15 generated by the irradiation of the laser light 11, and an ICCD (Intensified Charge Coupled Device) camera 17. the result was provided in advance, as well as measuring the dust of the signal intensity of Mie scattered light (= M 0) by the first photodetector 31, a second light detection Vessel 18 in advance by measuring the density calibration gas present in the measurement region…page 3].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to modify the device/method/system of DONG such the light intensity output unit outputs the light intensity at calibration as a relative value with respect to the reference light intensity; as taught by DOBASHI, for the advantages such as: improving accuracy of the measurement.
As of claim 5, DONG discloses the gas analysis device wherein the gas analysis device analyzes a plurality of measurement target components contained in the sample gas [The measurement target gas flows into the detection space 25 from the gas inlet 26 and flows out of the gas outlet 27. In such a gas flow cell 21, irradiation light is irradiated to the flowing measurement target gas and light absorption occurs…page 11].
DONG discloses all the features of the claimed invention except the limitation such as: “the light intensity output unit outputs the light intensity at calibration for each wavelength region corresponding to each of the measurement target components”.
However, DOBASHI from the same field of endeavor discloses the light intensity output unit outputs the light intensity at calibration for each wavelength region corresponding to each of the measurement target components [A second photo detector (Raman scattered light detector) 18 comprising a spectroscopic unit 16 for measuring the Raman scattered light 15 generated by the irradiation of the laser light 11, and an ICCD (Intensified Charge Coupled Device) camera 17. the result was provided in advance, as well as measuring the dust of the signal intensity of Mie scattered light (= M 0) by the first photodetector 31, a second light detection Vessel 18 in advance by measuring the density calibration gas present in the measurement region…page 3].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to modify the device/method/system of DONG such the light intensity output unit outputs the light intensity at calibration for each wavelength region corresponding to each of the measurement target components; as taught by DOBASHI, for the advantages such as: improving accuracy of the measurement.
As of claim 6, DONG discloses all the features of the claimed invention except the limitation such as: “The gas analysis device the reference light intensity is light intensity detected by the photodetector during calibration performed at a time of product shipment or before initiation of a first measurement”.
However, DOBASHI from the same field of endeavor discloses the reference light intensity is light intensity detected by the photodetector during calibration performed at a time of product shipment or before initiation of a first measurement [A second photo detector (Raman scattered light detector) 18 comprising a spectroscopic unit 16 for measuring the Raman scattered light 15 generated by the irradiation of the laser light 11, and an ICCD (Intensified Charge Coupled Device) camera 17. the result was provided in advance, as well as measuring the dust of the signal intensity of Mie scattered light (= M 0) by the first photodetector 31, a second light detection Vessel 18 in advance by measuring the density calibration gas present in the measurement region…page 3].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to modify the device/method/system of DONG such the reference light intensity is light intensity detected by the photodetector during calibration performed at the time of product shipment or before initiation of the first measurement; as taught by DOBASHI, for the advantages such as: improving accuracy of the measurement.
As of claim 8, DONG discloses the gas analysis device wherein the sample cell is a multiple reflection type cell that emits incident light to an exterior after multiple reflections [The tube 22 is a cylinder. The inner surface of the tube 22 can be, for example, a polished stainless steel inner surface. Thereby, the reflectance of irradiation light can be kept favorable, preventing adsorption of measurement object gas. In the tube 22, the irradiation light propagates while being reflected by the inner surface of the tube 22…page 11].
As to claim(s) 18 and 19, DONG discloses A non-transitory computer readable medium having a program for a gas analysis device stored thereon, the gas analysis device comprising:
a sample cell [304] into which sample gas is introduced [@fig.3: The sample cell 304 is supplied with a sample gas to be measured…page 6];
a light source [302] that irradiates the sample cell with light [The visible light source 302 is a light emitting diode that emits visible light…page 6];
a photodetector [306a] that detects light intensity of light which passes through the sample cell irradiated by the light source [The photodetector 306a is provided on the other end side of the reference cell 303, and detects ultraviolet light or visible light transmitted through the window 303b of the reference cell 303…page 6];
the gas analysis device analyzing a measurement target component contained in the sample gas based on a light intensity signal output from the photodetector [The calculation unit 308 receives the four signals from the light detection unit 306 via the control unit 307, and calculates the NO 2 gas concentration based on the four signals. Thereby, compensation of drift of the ultraviolet light source 301 and the visible light source 302, correction of interference of other components other than the measurement component…page 6];
the program, when executed by a computer [61], causing the computer to perform the functions of:
a concentration calculation unit [308] which calculates a concentration of a measurement target component contained in the sample gas based on light intensity outputted from the photodetector [The calculation unit 308 receives the four signals from the light detection unit 306 via the control unit 307, and calculates the NO 2 gas concentration based on the four signals. Thereby, compensation of drift of the ultraviolet light source 301 and the visible light source 302, correction of interference of other components other than the measurement component…page 6]; and
a light intensity output unit that outputs, comparably with a reference light intensity set in advance [Light intensity signals from the transmitted light receiving unit 31 and the reference light receiving unit 32 are transmitted to the signal
processing / drive control unit 61…page 15].
[Note: while each unit configured to perform as claimed may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function, because apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does].
DONG discloses all the features of the claimed invention except the limitation such as: “a light intensity at calibration detected by the photodetector during calibration”.
However, DOBASHI from the same field of endeavor discloses a light intensity at calibration detected by the photodetector during calibration [@FIG.1: A second photo detector (Raman scattered light detector) 18 comprising a spectroscopic unit 16 for measuring the Raman scattered light 15 generated by the irradiation of the laser light 11, and an ICCD (Intensified Charge Coupled Device) camera 17. the result was provided in advance, as well as measuring the dust of the signal intensity of Mie scattered light (= M 0) by the first photodetector 31, a second light detection Vessel 18 in advance by measuring the density calibration gas present in the measurement region…page 3].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to modify the device/method/system of DONG such that the light intensity at calibration detected by the photodetector during calibration; as taught by DOBASHI, for the advantages such as: in order to obtain an optimum measurement.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DONG et al. in view of DOBASHI et al. and further in view of TAKAHASHI et al.
(JP H07-294472 A) (herein after TAKAHASHI).
As of claim 4, DONG when modified by DOBASHI discloses all the features of the claimed invention except the limitation such as: “The gas analysis device further comprising a warning output unit which compares the relative value with a predetermined threshold value set in advance, and outputs a warning signal if the relative value exceeds the threshold value”.
However, TAKAHASHI from the same field of endeavor discloses a warning output unit which compares the relative value with a predetermined threshold value set in advance [page 6], and outputs a warning signal if the relative value exceeds the threshold value [when the control means 3 detects this state, a hot start is performed, and at this time, the switching means TR is turned off and the warning state is maintained. Therefore, in this case, the control means 3 immediately outputs the alarm signal Vc when it determines that the gas detection signal Vi is larger than the threshold value VTH…page 6][see claim 2].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to modify the device/method/system of DONG when modified by DOBASHI such that the warning output unit which compares the relative value with the predetermined threshold value set in advance, and outputs the warning signal if the relative value exceeds the threshold value; as taught by TAKAHASHI, for the advantages such as to provide a highly reliable gas detection device.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DONG et al. in view of DOBASHI et al. and further in view of Juneau et al. (US 20030029221 A1) (herein after Juneau).
As of claim 9, DONG when modified by DOBASHI discloses all the features of the claimed invention except the limitation such as: “The gas analysis device wherein the gas analysis device is an FTIR method or a QCL-IR method type on.”.
However, Juneau from the same field of endeavor discloses the gas analysis device is an FTIR method [¶0045]; [¶0033-0034].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to modify the device/method/system of DONG when modified by DOBASHI such that the gas analysis device is the FTIR method; as taught by Juneau, for the advantages such as: provide accurate data regarding particulate matter concentration that can be compared with readings on the PM CEMS and enable a calibration curve to be generated.
Claim(s) 10-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DONG et al. in view of DOBASHI et al. and further in view of HORIBA (JP 2012002799 A) (herein after HORIBA) [cited in the IDS filed by the applicant].
As of claims 10-12, DONG when modified by DOBASHI discloses all the features of the claimed invention except the limitation such as: “The gas analysis device, further comprising a cell heating mechanism which heats the sample cell to a predetermined temperature, and a gas introduction line which introduces the collected sample gas into the sample cell, and is provided with a flow restriction unit which restricts a flow rate of the sample gas introduced into the sample cell, wherein a filter is provided in the gas introduction line on a downstream side of the flow restriction unit, for eliminating particulate matter contained within the sample gas.
The gas analysis device wherein the filter is maintained at a temperature higher than a dew point temperature of the sample gas passing therethrough, and lower than the predetermined temperature.
The gas analysis device wherein an upstream side filter is further provided in the gas introduction line on an upstream side of the flow restriction unit, for eliminating particulate matter from within the sample gas”.
However, HORIBA from the same field of endeavor discloses a cell heating mechanism which heats the sample cell to a predetermined temperature [¶0018], and a gas introduction line which introduces the collected sample gas into the sample cell, and is provided with a flow restriction unit which restricts a flow rate of the sample gas introduced into the sample cell [¶0022], wherein a filter is provided in the gas introduction line on a downstream side of the flow restriction unit, for eliminating particulate matter contained within the sample gas [¶0023-0030];
the filter is maintained at a temperature higher than a dew point temperature of the sample gas passing therethrough, and lower than the predetermined temperature [¶0022-0025]; wherein an upstream side filter is further provided in the gas introduction line on an upstream side of the flow restriction unit, for eliminating particulate matter from within the sample gas [¶0022-0025].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to modify the device/method/system of DONG when modified by DOBASHI such that the cell heating mechanism which heats the sample cell to the predetermined temperature, and the gas introduction line which introduces the collected sample gas into the sample cell, and is provided with the flow restriction unit which restricts the flow rate of the sample gas introduced into the sample cell, wherein a filter is provided in the gas introduction line on the downstream side of the flow restriction unit, for eliminating particulate matter contained within the sample gas; the filter is maintained at the temperature higher than the dew point temperature of the sample gas passing therethrough, and lower than the predetermined temperature; the upstream side filter is further provided in the gas introduction line on the upstream side of the flow restriction unit, for eliminating particulate matter from within the sample gas; as taught by HORIBA, for the advantages such as: to measure the optical property with higher precision and also facilitate focusing at the object.
Claim(s) 13-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DONG et al. in view of DOBASHI et al. and further in view of Nakamura (JP 2004117259 A) (herein after Nakamura) [cited in the IDS filed by the applicant].
As of claims 13-17, DONG when modified by DOBASHI discloses all the features of the claimed invention except the limitation such as: “An exhaust gas analysis system that analyzes a measurement target component contained in exhaust gas emitted from a test subject which is a vehicle or a part thereof, comprising: a main flow path connected to an exhaust pipe of the test subject, into which the exhaust gas is introduced; a flowmeter which measures a flow rate of the exhaust gas flowing in the main flow path; a sampling part which collects a portion of the exhaust gas from the main flow path upstream of the flowmeter; the gas analysis device that analyzes the exhaust gas collected by the sampling part and measures a concentration of the measurement target component; and an emissions amount calculation unit which calculates an amount of emissions of the measurement target component based on a corrected flow rate, which is a flow rate measured by the flowmeter which has been corrected by a flow rate collected by the sampling part, and a concentration of the measurement target component measured by the gas analysis device.
The exhaust gas analysis system, wherein the measurement target component has high adsorptivity to an inner pipe wall which forms the main flow path, and includes a water-soluble component.
The exhaust gas analysis system, wherein the measurement target component includes NH3.
The exhaust gas analysis system, further comprising a heating mechanism which heats a section of the main flow path between an exit of the exhaust pipe and a sample point of the sampling part.
The exhaust gas analysis system, wherein the exhaust gas flowing in the main flow path is raw exhaust gas which has not been diluted”.
However, Nakamura from the same field of endeavor discloses an on-vehicle HC measurement device provided with: an exhaust pipe (3) connected to an engine (2) of an automobile (1) and through which exhaust gas G flows; an NDIR-type gas analyzer (8) including a gas analysis unit (SA) and a calculation control unit (SB) and continuously measuring the hydrocarbon (HC) concentration in exhaust gas; an exhaust gas flow meter (9); and an arithmetic processing unit (10), wherein the gas analysis unit (SA) is formed in the exhaust pipe (3) and analyzes the sample gas supplied from a branch connection part (12) through a sampling passage (14a) to a cell, the branch connection part (12) being configured such that a part of the exhaust gas G from an engine (2), flowing through the exhaust pipe (3), can be collected as sample gas S, and the arithmetic processing unit (10) arithmetic-processes the respective outputs of the NDIR-type gas analyzer (8) and the exhaust gas flow meter (9) to continuously calculate the amount of total hydrocarbon (THC) in the exhaust gas (paragraphs [0006]-[0042] and fig. 1-11). The exhaust pipe (3) in the invention disclosed in document 9 is connected to the engine (2) of the automobile (1 ). Considering that the exhaust pipe (3) is connected through the catalyst device ( 4 ), the upstream and downstream sides of the catalyst device ( 4) of the exhaust pipe (3) respectively correspond to the "exhaust pipe" and the "main passage" of the invention as in claim 13.
In addition, a person skilled in the art could easily replace the configuration of the NDIR-type gas analyzer (8) for continuously measuring the hydrocarbon (HC) concentration in the exhaust gas with at least the configuration including the "signal processing system for detecting the degree of contamination of the measurement cell (1) at the time of zero point calibration" in document 1, which is the configuration of the gas analysis device. In addition, since the sample gas returns to the exhaust pipe (3) through the exhaust passage (14b) and the merging connection part (13), the exhaust gas flow meter (9) measures the total flow rate including the sample gas supplied to the cell through the sampling passage (14a).
However, when capturing the sample gas from the main passage of the exhaust gas and performing gas analysis, not having a feature of returning the sample gas to the main passage is well known (see, for example, fig. 1 of document 7, fig. 1 of document 8, etc., hereinafter referred to as "well-known feature 5"). Therefore, a person skilled in the art could easily apply said well known to the invention disclosed in the prior art. At that time, when continuously calculating the amount of total hydrocarbon (THC) in the exhaust gas, correcting the flow rate of the exhaust gas flow meter (9) on the basis of the flow rate of the sample gas is merely an exercise of ordinary creativity of a person skilled in the art.
The invention disclosed the measures hydrocarbon (HC) in the exhaust gas. Nakamura, when replacing the configuration of the NDIR-type gas analyzer (8) with at least the configuration including the "signal processing system for detecting the degree of contamination of the measurement cell (1) at the time of zero point calibration" in document 1, which is the configuration of the gas analysis device as discussed in the above 1-9, a person skilled in the art could easily have used NH3 as an object to be measured. The "heating mechanism" of the invention as in claim 16 is disclosed in Nakamura (paragraph [0017]). In addition, it is clear that the exhaust gas of the invention disclosed in Nakamura is undiluted exhaust gas discharged from the engine (2) of the automobile (1) and corresponds to the "raw exhaust gas.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to modify the device/method/system of DONG when modified by DOBASHI such that the exhaust gas analysis system that analyzes the measurement target component contained in exhaust gas emitted from the test subject which is the vehicle or the part thereof, comprising: the main flow path connected to the exhaust pipe of the test subject, into which the exhaust gas is introduced; the flowmeter which measures the flow rate of the exhaust gas flowing in the main flow path; the sampling part which collects the portion of the exhaust gas from the main flow path upstream of the flowmeter; the gas analysis device that analyzes the exhaust gas collected by the sampling part and measures the concentration of the measurement target component; and the emissions amount calculation unit which calculates the amount of emissions of the measurement target component based on the corrected flow rate, which is the flow rate measured by the flowmeter which has been corrected by the flow rate collected by the sampling part, and the concentration of the measurement target component measured by the gas analysis device; the measurement target component has high adsorptivity to the inner pipe wall which forms the main flow path, and includes the water-soluble component; wherein the measurement target component includes NH3; the heating mechanism which heats the section of the main flow path between the exit of the exhaust pipe and the sample point of the sampling part; the exhaust gas flowing in the main flow path is raw exhaust gas which has not been diluted; as taught by Nakamura, for the advantages such as: to measure the optical property with higher precision and also facilitate focusing at the object.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MD M RAHMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-9175. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thur.
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, TARIFUR CHOWDHURY can be reached at 571-272-2287. 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.
MD M. RAHMAN
Primary Patent Examiner
Art Unit 2886
/MD M RAHMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2877