DETAILED ACTION
In application filed on 07/03/2024, Claims 1-15 are pending. The claim set submitted on 07/03/2024 is considered because this is the most recent claim set. Claims 1-15 are considered in the current office 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
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/03/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims have been analyzed for eligibility in accordance with their broadest reasonable interpretation. All claims are directed to statutory categories, i.e., a method (Claim 1) (Step 1: YES).
Analysis:
Claim 1: Ineligible.
Step 1:
The claim recites a series of steps or acts, including “gas analysis method”. Thus, the claim is directed to a process, which is one of the statutory categories of invention (Step 1: YES).
Step 2A, Prong 1:
Claim 1 recites “analyzing, with a controller, the sample stream using the sample spectra and the interference spectra”. Therefore, the claim is directed towards an abstract idea, and more specifically to the abstract idea group of a math or mental process since claim 1 relates to using a math or mental process to perform the steps reciting the abstract ideas. Further, Claim 1 recites a controller, which is drawn to a generic computer/processor [Specification, Para 0085-0088], on which the mental process is being performed. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) IIIC. (Step 2A, Prong 1: YES).
Step 2A, Prong Two:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites ‘additional elements’ which are the steps performed before and after the recited abstract ideas. However, the steps before the abstract ideas are performed in order to gather data necessary to perform the determination step. Thus, these steps do not add a meaningful limitation since these steps are insignificant pre-solution activity.
The controller in the claim is drawn to a computer/processor. Nevertheless, a general-purpose computer is not a particular machine – MPEP 2106.05(b)I.
In addition, while “a switched reaction device” is claimed, this does not appear to be a particular machine. See MPEP 2106.05(b)I, specifically the section about why the antenna was considered particular (included details such as shape of the antenna, length, conductors, etc.)). The presently claimed “sample steam and sample matrix” does not appear to recite that degree of particularity.
Further appears that the steps of “controlling, with a controller, a switched reaction device to switch between providing a sample stream from an input line…; and collecting, with the controller, sample spectra from the sample stream and interference spectra from the sample matrix” are recited at a high level of generality that they amount to mere data gathering (insignificant extra-solution activity). See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Accordingly, these steps are ‘additional elements’ which do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application because they do not impose meaningful limits on practicing the abstract ideas (Step 2A, Prong Two: NO).
Step 2B:
Furthermore, the courts have found that limitations adding insignificant extrasolution activity to the judicial exception, such as mere data gathering in conjunction with a law of nature or abstract idea, are limitations found not to be enough to qualify as ‘significantly more’ when recited in a claim with a judicial exception (see the 2014 Interim Guidance on Patent Subject Matter Eligibility of the Federal Register dated December 16, 2014; and MPEP 2106.05(I)(A)). Note that mere data gathering is not significantly more than the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Here, there are no additional elements which are significantly more than the abstract idea.
The steps of “controlling, with a controller, a switched reaction device to switch between providing a sample stream from an input line…; and collecting, with the controller, sample spectra from the sample stream and interference spectra from the sample matrix” appear to be well-understood, routine, and conventional (WURC) in the field of gas analysis as evidenced by Spartz et al. (US20180252639A1, submitted in IDS on 10/03/2024) in view of Rodier et al. (US20090078862A1).
Thus, the claims do not amount to significantly more (Step 2B: NO).
Therefore, Claim 1 is ineligible.
Moreover, Claims 2-15 are rejected by virtue of dependency on Claim 1. Also, the dependent claims in the rejection do not solve the issues of claim 1.
Claims 2-9 and 11-12: Ineligible.
Step 2A, Prong One and Prong Two: Claims 2-9 and 11-12 further define the data gathering steps which appear to be generic and WURC.
Step 2B: The claims do not recite any elements which are significantly more.
Therefore, Claims 2-9 and 11-12 are ineligible.
Claim 10: Ineligible.
Step 2A, Prong One: Claim recites “determining residual spectra between the interference spectra and spectra of the sample stream and using the residual spectra for determining when to collect new interference spectra.” (math or mental step), which is an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong Two: Once the step of “determining…” is done, No further action takes place, much less a particular practical application. Also the steps of “controlling, with a controller, a switched reaction device to switch between providing a sample stream from an input line…; and collecting, with the controller, sample spectra from the sample stream and interference spectra from the sample matrix” (in claim 1) are recited at a high level of generality that it amounts to mere data gathering (insignificant extra-solution activity). See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Step 2B: The claims do not recite any elements which are significantly more.
Therefore, Claim 10 is ineligible.
Claim 13: Ineligible.
Step 2A, Prong One: Claim recites “analyzing the sample stream using the sample spectra and the interference spectra includes determining a concentration of the analyte of interest using the sample spectra and the interference spectra.” (math or mental step), which is the abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong Two: Once the step of “analyzing…” is done, No further action takes place, much less a particular practical application. Also the steps of “controlling, with a controller, a switched reaction device to switch between providing a sample stream from an input line…; and collecting, with the controller, sample spectra from the sample stream and interference spectra from the sample matrix” (in claim 1) are recited at a high level of generality that it amounts to mere data gathering (insignificant extra-solution activity). See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Step 2B: The claims do not recite any elements which are significantly more.
Therefore, Claim 13 is ineligible.
As a result, the dependent claims in the rejection do not solve the issues of claim 1.
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.
Claims 1, 7-8,12 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by Spartz et al. (US20180252639A1, submitted in IDS on 10/03/2024) in view of Rodier et al. (US20090078862A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Spartz teaches a gas analysis method (See Abstract… method for determining impurities in a beverage grade gas such as CO2 or N2 relies on a coupling of FTIR analysis and UV fluorescence detection), comprising:
controlling (See Para 0064… touch screen technology, PLC and MFC control of gas streams, multiple (e.g., 4) automated sample channels, pressure controls for CO2, N2 and/or CDA inputs, thereby teaching “controlling” ), with a controller (See Para 0064… touch screen technology, PLC and MFC control of gas streams, multiple (e.g., 4) automated sample channels, pressure controls for CO2, N2 and/or CDA inputs, thereby teaching “a controller” ), a switched reaction device (referred to as system 10 [Para 0049; Fig. 1, ref. 10]; See Para 0047…The system has one and preferably more than one sample inputs, to handle, for example, truck delivery, bulk and purified bulk samples. Automatic switching between the various channels can be provided, thereby teaching “switched reaction device”) to switch (See Para 0048…Also included are conduits and equipment for directing gases and for controlling pressures and flows used in operating the system 10, thereby teaching “switch”) between providing a sample stream (See Para 0056… provides the CO2 gas sample being evaluated, thereby teaching “sample stream”) from an input line (See Annotated Fig. 1) to an output line (See Annotated Fig. 1) in fluid communication with a spectrometer (referred to as FTIR analyzer [Para 0008; Fig. 1, ref. 16]) through a second path (See Annotated Fig. 1) and providing a sample matrix (referred to as CDA (Clean Dry Air) [Para 0044, 0059]) to the output line (See Annotated Fig. 1) in fluid communication with the spectrometer (referred to as FTIR analyzer [Para 0008; Fig. 1, ref. 16]) through a first path (See Annotated Fig. 1) coupling the input line (See Annotated Fig. 1) to the output line (See Annotated Fig. 1), wherein the sample stream (See Para 0056… provides the CO2 gas sample being evaluated, thereby teaching “sample stream”) includes an analyte of interest (See Para 0021… detecting impurities in beverage grade gases, for instance impurities present in carbon dioxide (CO2), thereby teaching “analyte of interest”) and the sample matrix (referred to as CDA (Clean Dry Air) [Para 0044, 0059]), and wherein the sample matrix is provided by removing the analyte of interest from the sample stream;
collecting, with a control system 120, typically a computer system (See Para 0064… system can include control system 120, typically a computer system for collecting, analyzing and reporting the data), sample spectra from the sample stream (See Para 0039…the collected spectra…in the CO2 sample) and interference spectra (See Para 0061… purified CDA can be used as zero…for the FTIR, thereby teaching “interference spectra” ) from the sample matrix (See Para 0061… purified CDA can be used as zero…for the FTIR); and
analyzing, with the control system 120, typically a computer system (See Para 0064… system can include control system 120, typically a computer system for collecting, analyzing and reporting the data), the sample stream (See Para 0039…the collected spectra…in the CO2 sample) using the sample spectra (See Para 0068…The FTIR sample is constantly being measured by the FTIR every 5 to 6 seconds and reported. The data are normally averaged from 1 to 5 minutes to lower the MDLs and remove process fluctuations… The FTIR reports CO2 % …; Examiner, under BRI, submits that the “data” teaches “spectra”) and the interference spectra (See Para 0061…purified CDA can be used as zero and purge for the FTIR. Other implementations employ N2 for zeroing and for purging the FTIR; See Para 0077… absorbance spectra of the background, thereby teaching “interference spectra”).
While Spartz teaches that the system can include control system 120, typically a computer system for collecting, analyzing and reporting the data (Para 0064).
Spartz does not explicitly teach that the controller controlling the switched reaction device to switch is the same as the controller collecting and analyzing the sample spectra.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modified the gas method of Spartz to utilize the control system as a controller for performing the collecting and analyzing the sample spectra, for the benefit of for collecting, analyzing and reporting the data. (Para 0064), allowing for the provision of systems and techniques that can detect and measure a wide variety of impurities (at parts per million (ppm) or even parts per billion (ppb) levels). In the case of CO2, a need also exists for determining the quality of the gas being employed (Spartz, Para 0006).
PNG
media_image1.png
1019
1084
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 1, Spartz
Further Spartz does not teach wherein the sample matrix is provided by removing the analyte of interest from the sample stream.
In the analogous art of IMS analyzers and methods for detecting, identifying, and characterizing (e.g., measuring the concentration of) peroxides in samples, Rodier teaches wherein the sample matrix is provided (See Para 0119… a “zero gas” stream that is generated within the analyzer) by removing the analyte of interest from the sample stream (See Para 0119… no hydrogen peroxide gas phase gas analyte, i.e. zero gas stream).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the gas method of Sparz to include that “wherein the sample matrix is provided by removing the analyte of interest from the sample stream” as taught by Rodier for the benefit of evaluating the sensitivity of the IMS analyzer (Rodier, Para 0119), allowing for the provision of IMS analyzers and methods having enhanced sensitivity for detecting and characterizing analytes present at very low concentrations (e.g., parts per billion and/or parts per trillion) ; having selectivity for detecting and characterizing specific gas phase analytes provided in samples comprising complex mixtures; and having useful dynamic range so as to be able to detect analytes present in samples in widely varying concentrations (Rodier, Para 0011).
Regarding Claim 7, the method of claim 1 is obvious over Spartz in view of Rodier.
Spartz teaches that the interference spectra are collected (See Para 0061…purified CDA can be used as zero and purge for the FTIR. Other implementations employ N2 for zeroing and for purging the FTIR; See Para 0077… absorbance spectra of the background, thereby teaching “interference spectra”) over a limited spectral range (See Para 0034…In practice, benzene often can be used as a surrogate for all aromatic impurities. Since all the aromatic impurities absorb in the same spectral region (3000-3200 cm−1 ) and can be measured as a group by measuring just one, it is possible to quantify for benzene and report as benzene and total aromatic hydrocarbon content, thereby teaching “a limited spectral range”).
Regarding Claim 8, the method of claim 7 is obvious over Spartz in view of Rodier.
Spartz teaches that the interference spectra are collected (See Para 0061…purified CDA can be used as zero and purge for the FTIR. Other implementations employ N2 for zeroing and for purging the FTIR; See Para 0077… absorbance spectra of the background, thereby teaching “interference spectra”) over a spectral range including 2,500 - 3,500 cm-1. (See Para 0034…In practice, benzene often can be used as a surrogate for all aromatic impurities. Since all the aromatic impurities absorb in the same spectral region (3000-3200 cm−1 ) and can be measured as a group by measuring just one, it is possible to quantify for benzene and report as benzene and total aromatic hydrocarbon content, thereby teaching “a limited spectral range”).
Regarding Claim 12, the method of claim 1 is obvious over Spartz and Rodier.
Spartz does not teach that the sample matrix is provided by removing the analyte of interest from the sample stream without changing the sample matrix.
In the analogous art of IMS analyzers and methods for detecting, identifying, and characterizing (e.g., measuring the concentration of) peroxides in samples, Rodier teaches wherein the sample matrix is provided (See Para 0119… a “zero gas” stream that is generated within the analyzer) by removing the analyte of interest from the sample stream (See Para 0119… no hydrogen peroxide gas phase gas analyte, i.e. zero gas stream) without changing the sample matrix (See Para 0119…Examiner, under BRI, submits Bodier teaches “without changing the sample stream” whereby Bodier does not teach that the zero gas stream changes).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the gas method of Sparz to include that “wherein the sample matrix is provided by removing the analyte of interest from the sample stream without changing the sample matrix” as taught by Rodier for the benefit of evaluating the sensitivity of the IMS analyzer (Rodier, Para 0119), allowing for the provision of IMS analyzers and methods having enhanced sensitivity for detecting and characterizing analytes present at very low concentrations (e.g., parts per billion and/or parts per trillion) ; having selectivity for detecting and characterizing specific gas phase analytes provided in samples comprising complex mixtures; and having useful dynamic range so as to be able to detect analytes present in samples in widely varying concentrations (Rodier, Para 0011).
Regarding Claim 14, the method of claim 1 is obvious over Spartz in view of Rodier.
Spartz teaches “wherein switching (See Para 0048…Also included are conduits and equipment for directing gases and for controlling pressures and flows used in operating the system 10, thereby teaching “switching”) between providing the sample stream(See Para 0056… provides the CO2 gas sample being evaluated, thereby teaching “sample stream”) to the spectrometer referred to as FTIR analyzer [Para 0008; Fig. 1, ref. 16]) and providing the sample matrix (referred to as CDA (Clean Dry Air) [Para 0044, 0059]) to the spectrometer (referred to as FTIR analyzer [Para 0008; Fig. 1, ref. 16]); and
collecting sample (‘CO2’) spectra (See Para 0068…The FTIR sample is constantly being measured by the FTIR every 5 to 6 seconds and reported. The data are normally averaged from 1 to 5 minutes to lower the MDLs and remove process fluctuations… The FTIR reports CO2 % …; Examiner, under BRI, submits that the “data” teaches “spectra”) (See Para 0064… system can include control system 120, typically a computer system for collecting, analyzing and reporting the data) from the sample stream (See Para 0039…the collected spectra…in the CO2 sample) and interference spectra (See Para 0061…purified CDA can be used as zero and purge for the FTIR. Other implementations employ N2 for zeroing and for purging the FTIR; See Para 0077… absorbance spectra of the background, thereby teaching “interference spectra”) from the sample matrix (See Para 0061… purified CDA can be used as zero…for the FTIR) includes:
providing the sample matrix (See Para 0061… purified CDA can be used as zero…for the FTIR) to the spectrometer (referred to as FTIR analyzer [Para 0008; Fig. 1, ref. 16]) and collecting (See Para 0064… system can include control system 120, typically a computer system for collecting, analyzing and reporting the data), the interference spectra (See Para 0061… purified CDA can be used as zero…for the FTIR, thereby teaching “interference spectra” );
after providing (See Para 0066…Before a sample is collected both analyzers are zeroed either by CDA or N2 , thereby teaching “after providing” ) the sample matrix (See Para 0061… purified CDA can be used as zero…for the FTIR),
providing the sample stream (See Para 0039…the collected spectra…in the CO2 sample) to the spectrometer (referred to as FTIR analyzer [Para 0008; Fig. 1, ref. 16]) and collecting the interference spectra (See Para 0061…purified CDA can be used as zero and purge for the FTIR. Other implementations employ N2 for zeroing and for purging the FTIR; See Para 0077… absorbance spectra of the background, thereby teaching “interference spectra”)”.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Spartz et al. (US20180252639A1, submitted in IDS on 10/03/2024) in view of Rodier et al. (US20090078862A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Warncke et al. (US2976414A, submitted in IDS on 10/03/2024)
Regarding Claim 2, the method of claim 1 is obvious over Spartz in view of Rodier
The combination of Spartz and Rodier does not teach that the analyte of interest is ethylene oxide.
In the analogous art of method of continuously analyzing ethylene oxide in the presence of ethylene by infra-red absorption, Warncke teaches that the analyte of interest is ethylene oxide (See Col… 2, lines 23-10… the continuous determination of ethylene oxide in gaseous mixtures containing at least one hydrocabon in addition to ethylene oxide by subjecting the gaseous mixture containing ethylene oxide and said at least one hydrocarbon to infra-red radiation …).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the gas method of Spartz and Rodier to include that the analyte of interest is ethylene oxide, as taught by Warncke for the benefit of carrying out the continuous determination of ethylene oxide in gaseous mixtures containing at least one hydrocabon in addition to ethylene oxide by subjecting the gaseous mixture containing ethylene oxide (Warncke, Col. 2, lines 25-30), allowing for the provision of a method of continuously analyzing ethylene oxide in the presence of ethylene by infra-red absorption (Warncke, Col. 2, lines 25-30).
Claims 3-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Spartz et al. (US20180252639A1, submitted in IDS on 10/03/2024) in view of Rodier et al. (US20090078862A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Petrovic et al. (US20050092067A1).
Regarding Claim 3, the method of claim 1 is obvious over Spartz in view of Rodier
While Spartz teaches switching between (‘Automatic switching between the various channels’) providing the sample stream (referred to as one of the process gas streams [Para 0047]) and the sample matrix (referred to as another of the process gas streams [Para 0047]) to the spectrometer (‘FTIR’)”. (See Para 0047…The system has one and preferably more than one sample inputs, to handle, for example, truck delivery, bulk and purified bulk samples. Automatic switching between the various channels can be provided. In many cases, input process gas streams from different points of the carbonation process or plant (e.g., delivery tanker, pre- or post-filtration and so forth), along with zero gas and validation gas are controlled. If desired, the system and method described herein can be integrated with the plant design; Further See Para 0078… Any sample stream switching is controlled by an integrated box, not the sulfur analyzer itself; See Para 0080… it can include controls for sample switching for the FTIR.)
The combination of Spartz and Rodier does not explicitly teach “removing water from the sample stream before switching between providing the sample stream and the sample matrix to the spectrometer”.
In the analogous art of invention pertaining to optical-type gas detectors which remove water vapor from inflowing fluids prior to the fluids entering into a sensing region, Petrovic teaches “removing water from the sample stream (‘to condense the water from the fluid’) before switching between providing the sample stream (referred to as propagation of the gas and water vapor [Para 0020]) and the sample matrix (referred to as inflow of ambient atmosphere [Claim 1]) to the spectrometer”.(See Para 0014…the condenser will remove the water vapor from the inflowing gas sufficient that the relative humidity of the gas finally entering the sensing chamber; See Para 0017…the condenser could be electronic to condense the water from the fluid prior to entry into the sensing chamber of the detector).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the gas method of the combination of Spartz and Rodier to include “removing water from the sample stream before switching between providing the sample stream and the sample matrix to the spectrometer”, as taught by Petrovic for the benefit of not having condensation in the detector, enabling the detector to function normally (Petrovic, Para 0014), allowing for the provision of water vapor excluding, condensation minimizing, sensors that do not require heaters. Preferably, such sensors could be implemented without substantially increasing manufacturing expense or complexity. It would also be preferable if such implementations were compatible with the low weight, low power, low cost requirements of wearable sensors (Petrovic, Para 0005).
Regarding Claim 4, the method of claim 3 is obvious over Spartz in view of Rodier and further in view of Petrovic.
The combination of Spartz and Rodier does not teach “removing water from the sample stream includes pressurizing the sample stream”.
In the analogous art of invention pertaining to optical-type gas detectors which remove water vapor from inflowing fluids prior to the fluids entering into a sensing region, Petrovic teaches “removing water (’extracts gas borne water vapor’) from the sample stream (referred to as propagation of the gas and water vapor [Para 0020] ; See Para 0036… condenser 42 extracts gas borne water vapor from the inflow by causing it to condense out on the element 42 prior to flowing into either of the chambers 30 a, b.) includes pressurizing the sample stream (See Para 0040…1. It removes water vapor from the inflowing gas to reduce condensation in the sensing chamber; 2. It cools the gas and remaining water vapor which then enters the sensing chamber 58); Examiner submits that under BRI, by increasing pressure, the condenser forces gas molecules into closer proximity, which assists intermolecular forces in pulling them together into a liquid state, thereby teaching “pressurizing the sample stream”.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the gas method of Spartz and Rodier to include “removing water from the sample stream includes pressurizing the sample stream”, as taught by Petrovic for the benefit of having the water vapor in the gas to then liquefies on the condenser 42-1 where temperature of the condenser is below the dew point prior to the gas entering into the sensing chamber 58 (Petrovic, Para 0039), to not having condensation in the detector, enabling the detector to function normally (Petrovic, Para 0014), allowing for the provision of water vapor excluding, condensation minimizing, sensors that do not require heaters. Preferably, such sensors could be implemented without substantially increasing manufacturing expense or complexity. It would also be preferable if such implementations were compatible with the low weight, low power, low cost requirements of wearable sensors (Petrovic, Para 0005).
Regarding Claim 5, the method of claim 4 is obvious over Spartz in view of Rodier and further in view of Petrovic.
Spartz teaches “collecting the sample spectra (referred to as absorbance spectra of the sample [Para 0077]) and the interference spectra (referred to as absorbance spectra of the background [Para 0077]) at pressures of greater than 2 atm (See Para 0077…Both the background and the sample are analyzed at 5 atm to eliminate difference due to pressure. The measurement at 5 atm is important as it allows a significant decrease in detection limits by pressuring the analysis (gas) cell; See Para 0067…the pressure to the FTIR is maintained at 5 atm).
Regarding Claim 6, the method of claim 4 is obvious over Spartz in view of Rodier and further in view of Petrovic.
The combination of Spartz and Rodier does not teach “removing water from the sample stream includes cooling the sample stream”.
In the analogous art of invention pertaining to optical-type gas detectors which remove water vapor from inflowing fluids prior to the fluids entering into a sensing region, Petrovic teaches “removing water (’extracts gas borne water vapor’) from the sample stream (referred to as propagation of the gas and water vapor [Para 0020] ; See Para 0036… condenser 42 extracts gas borne water vapor from the inflow by causing it to condense out on the element 42 prior to flowing into either of the chambers 30 a, b.) includes cooling the sample stream (See Para 0040…1. It removes water vapor from the inflowing gas to reduce condensation in the sensing chamber; 2. It cools the gas and remaining water vapor which then enters the sensing chamber 58), thereby teaching “cooling the sample stream”.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the gas method of Spartz and Rodier to include “removing water from the sample stream includes cooling the sample stream”, as taught by Petrovic for the benefit of having the water vapor in the gas to then liquefies on the condenser 42-1 where temperature of the condenser is below the dew point prior to the gas entering into the sensing chamber 58 (Petrovic, Para 0039), to not having condensation in the detector, enabling the detector to function normally (Petrovic, Para 0014), allowing for the provision of water vapor excluding, condensation minimizing, sensors that do not require heaters. Preferably, such sensors could be implemented without substantially increasing manufacturing expense or complexity. It would also be preferable if such implementations were compatible with the low weight, low power, low cost requirements of wearable sensors (Petrovic, Para 0005).
Claims 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Spartz et al. (US20180252639A1, submitted in IDS on 10/03/2024) in view of Rodier et al. (US20090078862A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of EPA320 (Test Method 320—Measurement Of Vapor Phase Organic And Inorganic Emissions By Extractive Fourier Transform Infrared (FTIR) Spectroscopy).
Regarding Claim 9, the method of claim 1 is obvious over Spartz in view of Rodier.
The combination of Spartz in view of Rodier does not teach “using the interference spectra for analyzing the sample stream for a predetermined period of time and then collecting new interference spectra”.
In the analogous art of the measurement of vapor phase organic and inorganic emissions by extractive Fourier Transform Infrared (FTIR) Spectroscopy, EPA320 teaches “using the interference spectra for analyzing the sample stream (See Section 3.21 Quantitation Limit… is estimated by mathematically subtracting scaled reference spectra of analytes and interferences from sample spectra, then measuring the RMSD in an analytical region of the subtracted spectrum) for a predetermined period of time (See Section 8.5.1… If possible, collect spectra of known and suspected major interferences using the same optical system that will be used in the field measurements. This can be done on-site or earlier, thereby teaching “a predetermined period of time”) and then collecting new interference spectra” (See Section 4.1.1, Background Interference…Periodically a new background must be collected, but no other corrective action will be required, thereby teaching “then collecting new interference spectra”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the gas method of Spartz in view of Rodier to include “using the interference spectra for analyzing the sample stream for a predetermined period of time and then collecting new interference spectra” as taught by EPA320 for the benefit of determining the lower limit of detection for the FTIR system configuration in the sample spectra (EPA320, Section 3.21. 3.21 Quantitation Limit), allowing for the provision of method to determine compound-specific concentrations in a multi component vapor phase sample, which is contained in a closed-path gas cell (EPA320, Section 1.1.2, Applicability).
Regarding Claim 10, the method of claim 1 is obvious over Spartz in view of Rodier.
The combination of Spartz in view of Rodier does not teach “determining residual spectra between the interference spectra and spectra of the sample stream and using the residual spectra for determining when to collect new interference spectra”.
In the analogous art of the measurement of vapor phase organic and inorganic emissions by extractive Fourier Transform Infrared (FTIR) Spectroscopy, EPA320 teaches “determining residual spectra between the interference spectra and spectra of the sample stream (See Section 3.21…This is estimated by mathematically subtracting scaled reference spectra of analytes and interferences from sample spectra) and using the residual spectra for determining when to collect new interference spectra” (See Section 4.1.1… This results from a change in throughput relative to the single beam background. It is corrected by collecting a new background and proceeding with the test…Periodically a new background must be collected, but no other corrective action will be required).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the gas method of Spartz in view of Rodier to include “determining residual spectra between the interference spectra and spectra of the sample stream and using the residual spectra for determining when to collect new interference spectra” as taught by EPA 320 for the benefit of correcting background interference during analysis (EPA320, Section 4.1.1), allowing for the provision of method to determine compound-specific concentrations in a multi component vapor phase sample, which is contained in a closed-path gas cell (EPA320, Section 1.1.2, Applicability).
Regarding Claim 11, the method of claim 1 is obvious over Spartz and Rodier.
The combination of Spartz and Rodier does not teach “using interference spectra collected both before and after spectra of the sample stream for analyzing the sample stream”.
In the analogous art of the measurement of vapor phase organic and inorganic emissions by extractive Fourier Transform Infrared (FTIR) Spectroscopy, EPA320 teaches “using interference spectra collected both before (‘It is corrected by collecting a new background’) and after (‘Periodically a new background must be collected’) spectra of the sample stream for analyzing the sample stream (‘test’) (See Section 4.1.1…Background Interference. This results from a change in throughput relative to the single beam background. It is corrected by collecting a new background and proceeding with the test… Periodically a new background must be collected, but no other corrective action will be required).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the gas method of Spartz and Rodier to include “using interference spectra collected both before and after spectra of the sample stream for analyzing the sample stream” as taught by EPA 320 for the benefit of correcting background interference during analysis (EPA320, Section 4.1.1), allowing for the provision of method to determine compound-specific concentrations in a multi component vapor phase sample, which is contained in a closed-path gas cell (EPA320, Section 1.1.2, Applicability).
Claims 1, 7-8,12 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by Spartz et al. (US20180252639A1, submitted in IDS on 10/03/2024) in view of Rodier et al. (US20090078862A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Binder (US20040034480A1).
Regarding Claim 13, the method of claim 1 is obvious over Spartz in view of Rodier.
The combination of Spartz and Rodier does not teach “wherein analyzing the sample stream using the sample spectra and the interference spectra includes determining a concentration of the analyte of interest using the sample spectra and the interference spectra”.
In the analogous art of an FT-IR toxic gas monitoring system and method for detection of one or more toxic gas species in a fluid environment containing or susceptible to presence of same, Binder teaches “wherein analyzing (‘programmatically analyzing the digitized spectrum’) the sample stream (‘sample’) using the sample spectra and the interference spectra (‘a stored background spectrum for the fluid environment when the toxic gas species is not present therein’) (See Para 0018…spectrometrically analyzing the samples by FT-IR analysis and generating a corresponding digitized spectrum; See Para 0019-0022…providing a programmable computer including data storage containing a stored signal-to-noise ratio reference, and a stored background spectrum for the fluid environment when the toxic gas species is not present therein; programmatically analyzing the digitized spectrum via the programmable computer and responsively producing an output indicative of quantitative presence of the toxic gas species in the fluid environment, in an analysis procedure comprising continuously measuring the quality of a background spectrum of a monitored spectral region for the fluid environment, and determining:….) includes determining a concentration of the analyte of interest using the sample spectra and the interference spectra (See 0097…The background factory drift is shown in FIG. 4 in graphical outputted form, but the specific values are stored in memory of the CPU to provide compensatory adjustment of the output of gas concentration for the specific FT-IR apparatus, thereby teaching “determining a concentration of the analyte of interest using the sample spectra and the interference spectra”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the gas method of Spartz and Rodier to include “wherein analyzing the sample stream using the sample spectra and the interference spectra includes determining a concentration of the analyte of interest using the sample spectra and the interference spectra”, as taught by Binder for the benefit of detecting one or more toxic gas species in a fluid environment containing or susceptible to presence of same (Binder, Para 0009), allowing for the provision of FTIR toxic gas monitoring systems, as an effective and reliable background monitoring capability, without noisy spectra and weak IR source intensity (Binder, Para 0007).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Spartz et al. (US20180252639A1, submitted in IDS on 10/03/2024) in view of Rodier et al. (US20090078862A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Spartz et al. (US20150260695A1, submitted in IDS on 10/03/2024, hereinafter “Spartz695”).
Regarding Claim 15, the method of claim 1 is obvious over Spartz in view of Rodier.
Spartz does not teach “wherein removing the analyte of interest from the sample stream”.
In the analogous art of IMS analyzers and methods for detecting, identifying, and characterizing (e.g., measuring the concentration of) peroxides in samples, Rodier teaches “wherein removing the analyte of interest (‘no hydrogen peroxide gas phase gas analyte’) from the sample stream (See Para 0119… no hydrogen peroxide gas phase gas analyte, i.e. zero gas stream)”.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the gas method of Sparz to include that “wherein removing the analyte of interest from the sample stream” as taught by Rodier for the benefit of evaluating the sensitivity of the IMS analyzer (Rodier, Para 0119), allowing for the provision of IMS analyzers and methods having enhanced sensitivity for detecting and characterizing analytes present at very low concentrations (e.g., parts per billion and/or parts per trillion) ; having selectivity for detecting and characterizing specific gas phase analytes provided in samples comprising complex mixtures; and having useful dynamic range so as to be able to detect analytes present in samples in widely varying concentrations (Rodier, Para 0011).
The combination of Spartz and Rodier does not teach “removing the analyte of interest from the sample stream using a reactor”
In the analogous art where components resolved in time by a separator accumulate in a sample cell and are analyzed by electromagnetic radiation-based spectroscopic techniques, Spartz639 teaches “removing (‘interact’) the analyte of interest (See Para 0064…The gaseous compounds interact with the walls of the column or stationary phase,) from the sample stream (referred to as the gaseous compounds in the mobile phase which is a carrier gas, usually an inert gas such as helium or an unreactive gas such as nitrogen [Para 0064]) using a reactor (referred to as column [Para 0064])”.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the gas method of Spartz and Rodier to include “removing the analyte of interest from the sample stream using a reactor” as taught by Spartz695 for the benefit of having the gaseous compounds interact with the walls of the column or stationary phase, causing each compound to elute at a different time, known as the retention time of the compound (Spartz695, Para 0064), allowing for the provision for rapid and sensitive identification of the molecular species present, GC has been integrated with techniques such as mass spectrometry (MS) or Fourier transform infrared (FTIR) spectrometry (Spartz695, Para 0002).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 07/22/2026, with respect to the objections to the drawings filed 07/03/2024 have been fully considered and are persuasive.
Applicant notes that Fig. 1-3 are objected to as not being legible. Applicant submits replacement versions of Figures 1-3 as part of the present response. Thus, this objection should be withdrawn.
Examiner respectfully agrees and the objections to the drawings filed 07/03/2024 are withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed on 07/22/2026, with respect to the objections to Claim 14 filed 07/03/2024 have been fully considered and are persuasive.
Applicant notes claim 14 is objected to due to a typographical error, which Applicant has addressed in the preset response. Thus, this objection should be withdrawn.
Examiner respectfully agrees and the objection to Claim 14 is withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see Page 9, filed 07/22/2026, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. §101 rejections on claims 1-15 have been fully considered and are not persuasive.
Applicant submits that amended claim 1 does not recite a mathematical concept under the abstract idea groupings of 35 U.S.C. § 101. This grouping is defined as "mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations" and courts have consistently held that a "claim does not recite a mathematical concept (i.e., the claim limitations do not fall within the mathematical concept grouping), if it is only based on or involves a mathematical concept. See, e.g., Thales Visionix, Inc. v. United States, 850 F.3d 1343, 1348-49, 121 USPQ2d 1898, 1902-03 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (determining that the claims to a particular configuration of inertial sensors and a particular method of using the raw data from the sensors in order to more accurately calculate the position and orientation of an object on a moving platform did not merely recite "the abstract idea of using 'mathematical equations for determining the relative position of a moving object to a moving reference frame'."). For example, a limitation that is merely based on or involves a mathematical concept described in the specification may not be sufficient to fall into this grouping, provided the mathematical concept itself is not recited in the claim." See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I). Even assuming for the pure sake of argument that the "analyzing" recited in the claims is based on or involves any type of mathematical concept, the claims themselves do not recite such a mathematical concept as the claims do not recite mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, or mathematical calculations.
In addition, the claims do not recite a mental process under the abstract idea groupings of 35 U.S.C. § 101. The switching of sample streams, collection of spectra, and analysis of such sample spectra cannot practically be performed in the human mind as the human mind is not equipped to control sample stream or collect or analyze spectra (see, e.g., SRI Int'l, Inc. v. Cisco9
Systems, Inc., 930 F.3d 1295, 1304 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (declining to identify the claimed collection and analysis of network data as abstract because "the human mind is not equipped to detect suspicious activity by using network monitors and analyzing network packets as recited by the claims"); CyberSource, 654 F.3d at 1376, 99 USPQ2d at 1699 (distinguishing Research Corp. Techs. v. Microsoft Corp., 627 F.3d 859, 97 USPQ2d 1274 (Fed. Cir. 2010), and SiRF Tech., Inc. v. Int'l Trade Comm'n, 601 F.3d 1319, 94 USPQ2d 1607 (Fed. Cir. 2010), as directed to inventions that "could not, as a practical matter, be performed entirely in a human's mind"); MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(A). Furthermore, solely to advance prosecution and without conceding the appropriateness of the current rejections, Applicant has amended independent claim 1 to clarify the method is performed by a controller and includes, among other things, controlling a device to switch streams to a spectrometer, which clearly fails to recite a mental process.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to amended claim 1-15 has been considered and Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Examiner assertively identifies the judicial exception (abstract idea) in amended Claim 1 as “analyzing, with a controller, the sample stream using the sample spectra and the interference spectra” as a mental or math step. Further, Claim 1 recites a controller, which is drawn to a generic computer/processor [Specification, Para 0085-0088], on which the mental process is being performed. MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)III is clear that using a computer/controller to perform the abstract idea does not preclude the steps from being considered an abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) IIIC. (Step 2A Prong One).
In addition, Examiner clarifies that the limitation “analyzing…” presents a mental or mathematical step.
In Applicants’ specification [Para 0082], it is disclosed that the controller collects the spectra from the spectrometer 110 and analyzes the spectral data for analyte employing the interference spectra and the calibration file in order to determine the analyte concentration. Examiner submits that this step can be performed as mental step by pattern recognition, deduction or visualization by a human chemist. In addition, this step can also be performed as mathematical step using calibration curves and absorbance questions to figure out concentrations and masses.
Examiner further found that the additional elements “a controller, which is drawn to a generic computer/processor [Specification, Para 0085-0088], on which the mental process is being performed; “a switched reaction device”; “samples stream and sample matrix” and the steps of “controlling, with a controller, a switched reaction device to switch between providing a sample stream from an input line…; and collecting, with the controller, sample spectra from the sample stream and interference spectra from the sample matrix” do not integrate the exception into a practical application (Step 2A Prong Two), as these additional elements appear to be insignificant post solution activities as they amount to just “data gathering” or “applying it” – both held as not practical applications (MPEP 2106.05f, MPEP 2106.05g).
Further these additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the exception (Step 2B) because they are well-understood, routine and conventional activities in the field of clinical diagnostics (See 101 rejection Supra). These elements are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity: See MPEP 2106.05(d), previously known in the field of gas analysis as evidenced by Spartz et al. (US20180252639A1, submitted in IDS on 10/03/2024) in view of Rodier et al. (US20090078862A1).
As a result, Examiner submits that the claims do not amount to significantly more that the judicial exception. The 101 rejection is maintained.
Applicant’s arguments, see Page 5, filed 07/22/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1, 7-8 and 12-14 under 35 U.S.C. §103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made for amended Claim 1 by Spartz et al. (US20180252639A1, submitted in IDS on 10/03/2024) in view of Rodier et al. (US20090078862A1).
Applicant has amended claim 1 in the present response to recite:
1. A gas analysis method, comprising:
controlling, with a controller, a switched reaction device to switch
between providing a sample stream from an input line to an output line in fluid
communication with a spectrometer through a second path and providing a
sample matrix to the output line in fluid communication with the spectrometer
through a first path coupling the input line to the output line, wherein the sample
stream includes an analyte of interest and the sample matrix, and wherein the…
In addition, amended claim 1 recites that the "the output line is in fluid communication with the spectrometer." As described above, neither the vent 90 nor the output of the furnace 18 of Spartz are in fluid communication with the FTIR 16, which the Office equates to the claimed "spectrometer."6
Thus, Claim 1 and the claims that depend from Claim 1 are allowable for at least these reasons.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to amended claim 1 has been considered and Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Examiner submits that the limitations of amended Claim 1 is taught as disclosed in the rejection of amended Claim 1 (Supra) by Spartz et al. (US20180252639A1, submitted in IDS on 10/03/2024) in view of Rodier et al. (US20090078862A1).
In addition, Claims 7-8 and 12-14 are rejected by virtue of dependency on Claim 1.
Applicant’s arguments, see Page 7, filed 07/22/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 2 under 35 U.S.C. §103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made for Claim 2 in view of amended Claim 1 by Spartz et al. (US20180252639A1, submitted in IDS on 10/03/2024) in view of Rodier et al. (US20090078862A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Warncke et al. (US2976414A, submitted in IDS on 10/03/2024).
Applicant notes that In the Office Action, the Examiner rejects claim 2 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Binder in view of Spartz and further in view of U.S. Patent No. 2,976,414 ("Warncke"). Claim 2 depends from claim 1 and, therefore, is allowable for at least the reasons set forth above with respect to claim 1. Furthermore, Warncke fails to solve the deficiencies of Binder and Spartz set forth above with respect to claim 1 and, in particular, fails to teach or suggest "controlling, with a controller, a switched reaction device to switch between providing a sample stream from an input line to an output line in fluid communication with a spectrometer through a second path and providing a sample matrix to the output line in fluid communication with the spectrometer through a first path coupling the input line to the output line," as recited in amended claim 1.
Thus, claim 2 is allowable for at least these reasons.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to Claim 2 in view of amended claim 1 has been considered and Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Examiner submits that the limitations of Claim 2 is taught as disclosed in the rejection of Claims 2 in view of amended Claim 1 (Supra) by Spartz et al. (US20180252639A1, submitted in IDS on 10/03/2024) in view of Rodier et al. (US20090078862A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Warncke et al. (US2976414A, submitted in IDS on 10/03/2024).
Applicant’s arguments, see Page 7, filed 07/22/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 3-6 under 35 U.S.C. §103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made for Claims 3-6 in view of amended Claim 1 by Spartz et al. (US20180252639A1, submitted in IDS on 10/03/2024) in view of Rodier et al. (US20090078862A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Petrovic et al. (US20050092067A1).
Applicant notes that in the Office Action, the Examiner rejects claims 3-6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Binder in view of Spartz and further in view of U.S. Published Application No. 2005/0092067 ("Petrovic"). Claims 3-6 depend from claim 1 and, therefore, are allowable for at least the reasons set forth above with respect to claim 1. Furthermore, Petrovic fails to solve the deficiencies of Binder and Spartz set forth above with respect to claim 1 and, in particular, fails to teach or suggest "controlling, with a controller, a switched reaction device to switch between providing a sample stream from an input line to an output line in fluid communication with a spectrometer through a second path and providing a sample matrix to the output line in fluid communication with the spectrometer through a first path coupling the input line to the output line," as recited in amended claim 1.
Thus, claims 3-6 are allowable for at least these reasons.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to Claims 3-6 in view of amended claim 1 has been considered and Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Examiner submits that the limitations of Claims 3-6 is taught as disclosed in the rejection of Claims 3-6 in view of amended Claim 1 (Supra) by Spartz et al. (US20180252639A1, submitted in IDS on 10/03/2024) in view of Rodier et al. (US20090078862A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Warncke et al. (US2976414A, submitted in IDS on 10/03/2024).
Applicant’s arguments, see Page 8, filed 07/22/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 9-11 under 35 U.S.C. §103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made for Claims 9-11 in view of amended Claim 1 by Spartz et al. (US20180252639A1, submitted in IDS on 10/03/2024) in view of Rodier et al. (US20090078862A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of EPA320 (Test Method 320—Measurement Of Vapor Phase Organic And Inorganic Emissions By Extractive Fourier Transform Infrared (FTIR) Spectroscopy).
Applicant notes that i the Office Action, the Examiner rejects claims 9-11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Binder in view of Spartz and further in view of the publication titled "Test Method 320 - Measurement of Vapor Phase Organic and Inorganic Emissions by Extractive Fourier Transform Infrared (FTIR) Spectroscopy" ("EPA320"). Claims 9-11 depend from claim 1 and, therefore, are allowable for at least the reasons set forth above with respect to claim 1. Furthermore, EPA320 fails to solve the deficiencies of Binder and Spartz set forth above with respect to claim 1 and, in particular, fails to teach or suggest "controlling, with a controller, a switched reaction device to switch between providing a sample stream from an input line to an output line in fluid communication with a spectrometer through a second path and providing a sample matrix to the output line in fluid communication with the spectrometer through a first path coupling the input line to the output line," as recited in amended claim 1.
Thus, claims 9-11 are allowable for at least these reasons.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to Claims 9-11 in view of amended claim 1 has been considered and Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Examiner submits that the limitations of Claims 9-11 is taught as disclosed in the rejection of Claims 9-11 in view of amended Claim 1 (Supra) by Spartz et al. (US20180252639A1, submitted in IDS on 10/03/2024) in view of Rodier et al. (US20090078862A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of EPA320 (Test Method 320—Measurement Of Vapor Phase Organic And Inorganic Emissions By Extractive Fourier Transform Infrared (FTIR) Spectroscopy).
Applicant’s arguments, see Page 8, filed 07/22/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 15 under 35 U.S.C. §103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made for Claim 15 in view of amended Claim 1 by Spartz et al. (US20180252639A1, submitted in IDS on 10/03/2024) in view of Rodier et al. (US20090078862A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Spartz et al. (US20150260695A1, submitted in IDS on 10/03/2024, hereinafter “Spartz695”).
Applicant notes that in the Office Action, the Examiner rejects claim 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Binder in view of Spartz and further in view of U.S. Published Application No. 2015/0260695 ("Spartz695"). Claim 15 depends from claim 1 and, therefore, is allowable for at least the reasons set forth above with respect to claim 1. Furthermore, Spartz695 fails to solve the deficiencies of Binder and Spartz set forth above with respect to claim 1 and, in particular, fails to teach or suggest "controlling, with a controller, a switched reaction device to switch between providing a sample stream from an input line to an output line in fluid communication with a spectrometer through a second path and providing a sample matrix to the output line in fluid communication with the spectrometer through a first path coupling the input line to the output line," as recited in amended claim 1.
Thus, claim 15 is allowable for at least these reasons.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to Claim 15 in view of amended claim 1 has been considered and Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Examiner submits that the limitations of Claim 15 is taught as disclosed in the rejection of Claim 15 in view of amended Claim 1 (Supra) by Spartz et al. (US20180252639A1, submitted in IDS on 10/03/2024) in view of Rodier et al. (US20090078862A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Spartz et al. (US20150260695A1, submitted in IDS on 10/03/2024, hereinafter “Spartz695”).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OYELEYE ALEXANDER ALABI whose telephone number is (571)272-1678. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 7:30am-5:30pm.
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, Lyle Alexander can be reached on (571) 272-1254. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/OYELEYE ALEXANDER ALABI/ Examiner, Art Unit 1797
Prosecution Insights