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 .
Status of Claims
Examiner has noticed a total of 4 claim sets submitted on 10/02/2024 and 08/27/2024. There are amendments noted on the claim set with 3 pages submitted on 08/27/2024 with status identifiers which were considered for examination. Claims 1-13 are pending in this application.
Drawings
The drawing submitted on 10/02/2024 have a [Fig. 3] labeled as “Figure 2” on the bottom left. Drawing submitted on 08/27/2024 on the Replacement Sheet are correctly labeled. Drawing submitted on 08/27/2024 on the Replacement Sheet is accepted by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 8 recites “…the second spectrographic activity is at ten times the first…”, however, it should be “…the second spectrographic activity is ten times the first…”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-13 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the conversion vial" in line 11. There is no mention of a conversion vial defined in the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, ‘the conversion vial’ is interpreted as the conversion cell’. Claim 2-13 depend upon claim 1, thus also rejected.
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.
Claims 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: Claim 1 recites the steps for chemical analysis of gaseous sample. Thus, the claim is a method, which is one of the statutory categories of invention. Claim 2-13 also are dependent on Claim 1.
Step 2A Prong One: Claim 1 recite a judicial exception and identify the abstract idea/law of nature/natural phenomenon. Claim 1 recites “steps for mathematical processing”. This mathematical processing step is a mathematical concept, thus an abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I). This mathematical processing could also be done in the human mind and/or on pen and paper. Thus, the mathematical processing step would fall under the abstract idea groups of mathematical concepts. (Step 2A -Prong 1: Yes)
Step 2A Prong Two: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Claim 1 has a conversion step and step for acquiring an absorption spectrum which are data gathering step recited at a high level of generality. After the “mathematical processing”, no steps are taken and therefore there is no particular practical application. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. (Step 2A -Prong 2: No)
Step 2B: Claims 1 does not have any steps or features which are significantly more, and the steps are well known in the art as taught in Wallin as referenced below. There appears to be no additional steps which are significantly more than the abstract idea. Claim 1 is ineligible. Claims 2-13 do not appear to have ‘significantly’ more. Claims 2-6 and 8-12 merely add parameters for the method for chemical analysis of gaseous samples which are well understood routine and conventional as referenced in the prior art below. Claim 7 and 13 adds a further detail to a step for chemical analysis of gaseous sample which is well understood routine and conventional as referenced in the prior art Wallin below. Since it is claimed to be at a high level of generality, there are no meaningful limitations claimed, such as a particular or unconventional machine or transformation of a particular article. (Step 2B: No)
Thus, claim 1 is ineligible. Claims 2-13 are dependent on Claim 1 and are also rejected.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 2, 3, 4, 7, 8, 9, 10, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by Wallin et al (US 20200173913 A1) as cited in the IDS submitted on 07/24/2024.
Regarding claim 1, Wallin teaches a method for chemical analysis of a gaseous sample comprising a first species (“H2S”, Abstract), the first species exhibiting first spectroscopic activity, in a predetermined wavelength range (para 0067), the method comprising:
converting the first species into a second species by reaction with a conversion reagent (‘oxidizing agent”, para 0082), the second species exhibiting a second spectroscopic activity, greater than the first spectroscopic activity (para 0067 and 0078);
acquiring an absorption spectrum by spectroscopic measurement of the gaseous sample in a measuring cell fluidically connected to the conversion vial after converting the first species into the second species (Figure 3, para 0080) and;
mathematically processing the absorption spectrum to deduce a concentration of the first species in the gaseous sample (para 0084).
Regarding claim 2, Wallin teaches the invention of claim 1. Wallin further teaches the second spectroscopic activity is at least twice the first spectroscopic activity (Figure 4, para 0085).
Regarding claim 3, Wallin teaches the invention of claim 2. Wallin further teaches the second species exhibits a substantially periodic absorption spectrum in the predetermined wavelength range (Figure 4, para 0085).
Regarding claim 4, Wallin teaches the invention of claim 3. Wallin further teaches the first species comprises H2S and the second species comprises SO2 (para 0085).
Regarding claim 7, Wallin teaches the invention of claim 6. Wallin further teaches acquiring the absorption spectrum by spectroscopic measurement comprises using a spectrograph to measure the absorption spectrum by the gaseous sample of light radiation emitted by a light source (para 0080).
Regarding claim 8, Wallin teaches the invention of claim 2. Wallin further teaches the second spectroscopic activity is at least ten times the first spectroscopic activity (Figure 4, para 0085).
Regarding claim 9, Wallin teaches the invention of claim 1. Wallin further teaches the second species exhibits a substantially periodic absorption spectrum in the predetermined wavelength range (Figure 4, para 0085).
Regarding claim 10, Wallin teaches the invention of claim 1. Wallin further teaches the first species comprises H2S and the second species comprises SO2 (para 0085).
Regarding claim 13, Wallin teaches the invention of claim 1. Wallin further teaches acquiring the absorption spectrum by spectroscopic measurement comprises using a spectrograph to measure the absorption spectrum by the gaseous sample of light radiation emitted by a light source (para 0080).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 5, 6, 11, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wallin et al (US 20200173913 A1), and further in view of Hozumi (US 3589868 A).
Regarding claim 5, Wallin teaches the invention of claim 4. Wallin further teaches using catalysts such as aluminum(III) or titanium (IV) oxide to convert H2S to other sulfur compounds (para 0071-0072).
Wallin does not teach the conversion reagent comprises I2O5.
Hozumi teaches determining the concentration of hydrogen sulfide (Column 7 Line 71-75, Column 8 Line 1-2). Hozumi further teaches apparatus for quantitative analysis of a particular constituent of a sample using a light source and photoelectric light receiving means (Column 2, lines 13-27). Hozumi further teaches using iodine pentoxide (I2O5) as an oxidizing agent (Column 6, line 16-19). Thus, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date to modify Wallin with the conversion reagent comprises I2O5 as taught by Hozumi for the benefit of freeing iodine into a vapor for optical detection (Column 2, Line 28-41).
Regarding claim 6, Wallin in view of Hozumi teaches the invention of claim 5.
Wallin does not teach the conversion reagent is in a form chosen from among: powder, pellets, flakes, granules, or beads.
Hozumi teaches an iodine packed tube and silver granules (Column 5, line 33-46). Thus, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date to make the conversion reagent in the form of granules as taught by Hozumi for the benefit of using the conversion reagent in a capillary tube to interact with the gas sample for detection (Column 5, line 33-46).
Regarding claim 11, Wallin teaches the invention of claim 10. Wallin further teaches using catalysts such as aluminum(III) or titanium (IV) oxide to convert H2S to other sulfur compounds (para 0071-0072).
Wallin does not teach the conversion reagent comprises I2O5.
Hozumi teaches determining the concentration of hydrogen sulfide (Column 7 Line 71-75, Column 8 Line 1-2). Hozumi further teaches apparatus for quantitative analysis of a particular constituent of a sample using a light source and photoelectric light receiving means (Column 2, lines 13-27). Hozumi further teaches using iodine pentoxide (I2O5) as an oxidizing agent (Column 6, line 16-19). Thus, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date to modify Wallin with the conversion reagent comprises I2O5 as taught by Hozumi for the benefit of freeing iodine into a vapor for optical detection (Column 2, Line 28-41).
Regarding claim 12, Wallin in view of Hozumi teaches the invention of claim 11.
Wallin does not teach the conversion reagent is in a form chosen from among: powder, pellets, flakes, granules, or beads.
Hozumi teaches an iodine packed tube and silver granules (Column 5, line 33-46). Thus, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date to make the conversion reagent in the form of granules as taught by Hozumi for the benefit of using the conversion reagent in a capillary tube to interact with the gas sample for detection (Column 5, line 33-46).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HENA BERA whose telephone number is (571)272-9964. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00-5:00pm EST.
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, Charles Capozzi can be reached at (571) 270-3638. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/H.R.B./Examiner, Art Unit 1798
/CHARLES CAPOZZI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1798
