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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because Figures 14a-15b are blurry and unreadable. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 9 and 15 - 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 9, the claim recites “the second element bottom end has a reducer connector; wherein the reducer connector is capable of receiving a tube; and wherein the reducer connector creates a gas-tight connection between the tube and the second element.” However it is unclear if the claim is referring to the “tube” introduced in claim 2 from which it ultimately depends or introducing a new respective and distinct “tube”. Therefore, the claim has been rendered indefinite.
Regarding claim 15, the claim recites “The apparatus of claim 14, further comprising a tube, the tube having a first tube end and a second tube end, the first tube end in gaseous communication with the syringe and the second tube end in gaseous communication with the cartridge.” However it is unclear if the claim is referring to the “tube” introduced in claim 2 from which it ultimately depends or introducing a new respective and distinct “tube”. Therefore, the claim has been rendered indefinite. Claims 16-18 depend from claim 15.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 7, 10-12, 19-22, 24 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Baugh US5574230.
Regarding claim 1, Baugh discloses an apparatus (Abstract) for absorbing a gas, the apparatus comprising a cartridge (tube-1), the cartridge comprising:
a housing (Fig 1) having a top end opposite a bottom end (Fig 1 shows a top and bottom end);
a first gas absorbing material (element-3) disposed within the housing;
a second gas absorbing material (element-4) disposed within the housing; and
a top end cap (end cap-12), wherein the top end of the housing is capable of forming a gas-tight coupling with the top end cap. (Col 2 line 8-30)
Regarding claim 2, Baugh discloses the bottom end of the housing has an opening capable of receiving a tube (inlet-13 receives tube delivering a gas). (Col 2 line 8-30)
Regarding claim 3, Baugh discloses a bottom end cap (end cap-14), wherein the bottom end of the housing is capable of forming a gas-tight coupling with the bottom end cap. (Col 2 line 8-30)
Regarding claim 7, Baugh discloses a gas porous separation layer (plug-11) disposed between the first gas absorbing material and the second gas absorbing material. (Col 2 line 8-30)
Regarding claim 10, Baugh discloses the first gas absorbing material (elements-3 and 4 can be made of carbon phases) is a nitrous oxide sorbent (carbon phases absorbs nitrous oxide). (Col 2 line 8-30)
Regarding claim 11, Baugh discloses the cartridge (tube-1) is made of metal (tube-1 is made of stainless steel). (Col 2 line 8-30)
Regarding claim 12, Baugh discloses the separation layer is glass wool (plug-11). (Col 2 line 8-30)
Regarding independent claim 19, Baugh discloses a system (abstract) for absorbing a gas from a ground source (soil applications), comprising:
a chamber (tube-1) having a top portion and a bottom portion (See Fig 1), the bottom portion having an opening in one end (inlet-13), the opening exposed to gas emanating from the ground source;
a support structure (plugs-10, 11) disposed within the chamber;
a gas absorbing material (element-3 and 4) supported by the support structure, wherein the gas absorbing material is in gaseous communication with the ground source (Col 2 line 8-30); and
wherein the chamber is sealed from ambient air (sealed off by end cap-12) when the opening of the bottom portion is placed in gaseous communication with the ground source. (Col 2 line 8-Col 3 line 2)
Regarding independent claim 20, Baugh discloses a method (abstract) for absorbing a gas from a ground source (soil applications), the method comprising the steps of:
collecting a gas in a chamber (tube-1);
sampling the gas in the chamber to form a gas sample (Col 2 line 8-30); and
stabilizing the gas sample to form a stabilized gas sample (Col 2 line 51-Col 3 line 2).
Regarding claim 21, Baugh discloses the step of: circulating the gas within the chamber. (Col 2 line 51-Col 3 line 2)
Regarding claim 22, Baugh discloses cooling the stabilized gas sample (sample is placed in freezer). (Col 2 line 51-Col 3 line 2)
Regarding claim 24, Baugh discloses sampling the gas comprises absorbing the gas sample with a sorbent (elements-3 and 4) in the chamber. (Col 2 line 8-30)
Regarding claim 27, Baugh discloses stabilizing the gas sample comprises placing the sorbent in a cartridge (tube-1) and sealing the cartridge from ambient air. (Col 2 line 51-Col 3 line 2)
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.
Claims 4-6, 8-9 and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baugh US5574230 in view of Zimbron et al US8714034 (hereinafter “Zimbron”)
Regarding claim 4, Baugh discloses the housing (Fig 1) further comprises wherein the first gas absorbing material (element-3) is disposed within the first section, and the second gas absorbing material (element-4) is disposed within the second section. (Col 2 line 8-30)
However, Baugh fails to disclose the housing comprises a first element and a second element; wherein the first element is separable from the second element. Zimbron discloses the housing (See Fig 2) comprises a first element (trap-10) and a second element (trap receiver -38); wherein the first element is separable from the second element (trap and receiver are connected using O-ring Fittings 40a-b). (Col 5 line 48-54)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include the design of Zimbron into Baugh for the purpose of increasing detection accuracy. The modification would allow for comparing the gas samples in each element to ensure detection accuracy and also decrease potential damage of losing the entire sample during transport.
Regarding claim 5, Baugh discloses the apparatus according to claim 4.
However, Baugh fails to disclose the first element has a first element top end and first element bottom end; the second element has a second element top end and a second element bottom end; wherein the first element bottom end is separably coupled to the second element top end; and wherein the first element bottom end forms a gas-tight coupling to the second element top end. Zimbron discloses the first element (trap-10) has a first element top end and first element bottom end (See Fig 1-2); the second element (trap receiver-38) has a second element top end and a second element bottom end (See Fig 2); wherein the first element bottom end is separably coupled to the second element top end (See Fig 2); and wherein the first element bottom end forms a gas-tight coupling to the second element top end (trap and receiver are connected using air-tight O-ring Fittings 40a-b). (Col 5 line 48-54)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include the design of Zimbron into Baugh for the purpose of increasing detection accuracy. The modification would allow for comparing the gas samples in each element to ensure detection accuracy and also decrease potential damage of losing the entire sample during transport.
Regarding claim 6, Baugh discloses the apparatus according to claim 5.
However, Baugh fails to disclose the first element bottom end is separably coupled to the second element top end by a gas-tight connector, where a top end of the gas-tight connector is coupled to the first element bottom end and a bottom end of the gas-tight connector is coupled to the second element top end. Zimbron discloses the first element bottom end (bottom of trap-10) is separably coupled to the second element top end (top of trap receiver-38) by a gas-tight connector (trap and receiver are connected using air-tight O-ring Fittings 40a-b), where a top end of the gas-tight connector is coupled to the first element bottom end and a bottom end of the gas-tight connector is coupled to the second element top end. (Fig 2, Col 5 line 48-54)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include the design of Zimbron into Baugh for the purpose of increasing detection accuracy. The modification would allow for comparing the gas samples in each element to ensure detection accuracy and also decrease potential damage of losing the entire sample during transport.
Regarding claim 8, Baugh discloses the apparatus according to claim 7.
However, Baugh fails to disclose the cartridge has a first gas permeable support layer between the first gas absorbing material and the gas porous separation layer; and wherein the cartridge has a second gas permeable support layer between the second gas absorbing material and the gas porous separation layer. Zimbron discloses the cartridge (trap-10) has a first gas permeable support layer (screen-34) between the first gas absorbing material (material-20) and the gas porous separation layer (material-30); and wherein the cartridge has a second gas permeable support layer (screen-26) between the second gas absorbing material (material-22) and the gas porous separation layer (material-32).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include the design of Zimbron into Baugh for the purpose of increasing detection accuracy. The modification would allow for ensuring samples are effectively separated and the particular components of the sample are maintained in the proper section of the tube.
Regarding claim 9, Baugh in view of Zimbron discloses the apparatus according to claim 6.
Furthermore, Baugh discloses the second element bottom end has a reducer connector (reducer-9); wherein the reducer connector is capable of receiving a tube; and wherein the reducer connector creates a gas-tight connection between the tube and the second element. (Col 2 line 8-30)
Regarding claim 30, Baugh discloses wherein the cartridge (tube-1) comprises: a housing (See Fig 1) having a top end opposite a bottom end (See Fig 1); and a first gas absorbing material (element-3) disposed within the housing. (Col 2 line 8-30)
However, Baugh fails to disclose a pump is in gaseous communication with the chamber (Col 8 line 31-45); wherein a cartridge (trap-10) is in gaseous communication with the pump and the chamber.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include the design of Zimbron into Baugh for the purpose of increasing detection accuracy. The modification would allow for ensuring samples are effectively separated and the particular components of the sample are maintained in the proper section of the tube. (Fig 2, Col 5 line 48-54)
Claims 13 and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baugh US5574230 in view of Peterson US6477906.
Regarding claim 13, Baugh discloses the apparatus according to claim 1.
However, Baugh fails to disclose a cooling element coupled to the cartridge. Peterson discloses a cooling element (cooling fan) coupled to the cartridge. (Col 7 line 6-13)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include the design of Peterson into Baugh for the purpose of increasing detection accuracy. The modification would allow ensuring the sample is not contaminated or spoiled before detection analysis can be performed.
Regarding claim 28, Baugh discloses the method according to claim 21.
However, Baugh fails to disclose a fan is disposed in the chamber. Peterson discloses a fan (cooling fan) is disposed in the chamber. (Col 7 line 6-13)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include the design of Peterson into Baugh for the purpose of increasing detection accuracy. The modification would allow ensuring the sample is not contaminated or spoiled before detection analysis can be performed.
Claims 23, 25, 26 and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baugh US5574230 in view of Springer Science and Business Media B.V. “Improving process-based estimates of N2O emissions from soil using temporally extensive chamber techniques and stable isotopes” published September 10, 2011 (hereinafter “Springer”).
Regarding claim 23, Baugh discloses the method according to claim 20.
However, Baugh fails to disclose calculating a gas flux from the stabilized gas sample. Springer discloses calculating a gas flux from the stabilized gas sample. (Abstract, Page 149 Section Field Testing -Page 152 Section results and discussion).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include the design of Springer into Baugh for the purpose of increasing detection accuracy.. The modification would allow for improving flux estimates by capturing episodic flux events owing to long-term deployment in applications.
Regarding claim 25, Baugh discloses the method according to claim 20.
However, Baugh fails to disclose sampling the gas comprises extracting a gas sample from the chamber with a syringe. Springer discloses sampling the gas comprises extracting a gas sample from the chamber with a syringe. (Pages 148-149 section sample recovery and analysis of Isotopomers)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include the design of Springer into Baugh for the purpose of increasing detection accuracy. The modification would allow for decreasing potential sample contamination during transferring of the sample for analysis.
Regarding claim 26, Baugh discloses stabilizing the gas sample comprises injecting the gas sample (Col 2 line 51-Col 3 line 2); wherein the cartridge (tube-1) comprises: a housing having a top end opposite a bottom end (see fig 1); a first gas absorbing material (element-3) disposed within the housing; a second gas absorbing material (element-4) disposed within the housing; and a gas porous separation layer (plug-11) disposed between the first gas absorbing material and the second gas absorbing material.
However, Baugh fails to discloses moving a sample using a syringe to a cartridge. (Pages 148-149 section sample recovery and analysis of Isotopomers)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include the design of Springer into Baugh for the purpose of increasing detection accuracy. The modification would allow for meeting required greenhouse gas mitigation regulations.
Regarding claim 29, Baugh discloses the method according to claim 21.
However, Baugh fails to disclose sampling the gas in the chamber to form a gas sample is automated and performed continuously to reduce biases caused by gas accumulation within the chamber. Peterson discloses sampling the gas in the chamber to form a gas sample is automated and performed continuously (Automated STGTS) to reduce biases caused by gas accumulation within the chamber. (Abstract, Page 147 Section Methods, Pages 151-152 Section Adsorption and Recovery of N2O during field deployment and Implications and applications)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include the design of Springer into Baugh for the purpose of increasing detection accuracy. The modification would allow for decreasing potential sample contamination during transferring of the sample for analysis.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 14-18 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims and rewritten the above rejection under 35 USC 112.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Prior arts made available like the art mentioned above and below do not teach, or fairly suggest, a syringe, the syringe having a barrel and a plunger, the plunger operable to displace a gas within the barrel; and wherein the syringe is in gaseous communication with the cartridge such that the gas is capable of being transferred from the syringe to the cartridge as recited in claim 14. Claims 15-18 depend from claim 14.
In addition, prior arts made available like the art mentioned above and below do not teach, or fairly suggest, a syringe pump operably connected to the syringe, wherein the syringe pump is capable of pushing the plunger into the barrel of the syringe to expel the gas from the syringe through the tube and into the cartridge such that the gas is absorbed by the second gas absorbing material; and wherein the syringe pump is capable of expelling the gas from the syringe at a constant rate as recited in claim 16.
Conclusion
The prior art as cited on the PTO-892 is made of record and not relied upon but considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Choi et al US7412872 (hereinafter “Choi”) discloses a process for measuring outgas emissions in fabrication chambers used for semiconductors, micromachines and the like. In one embodiment, the invention includes inserting a gas adsorption material into a processing chamber exhaust vent, running a process in the chamber, venting gasses in the chamber through the gas adsorption material, removing the adsorption material from the exhaust vent, and analyzing the adsorption material for gases.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NIGEL H PLUMB whose telephone number is (571)272-8886. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7am-5pm.
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, John Breene can be reached at 571-272-4107. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (USA or CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/NIGEL H PLUMB/Examiner, Art Unit 2855
/Eric S. McCall/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855
Prosecution Insights