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 .
Response to Arguments
a. In regards to the 35 U.S.C 103 rejection, Applicant submits claims 1 & 15 are neither disclosed nor suggest by Overkamp or the modified version of Overkamp.
a. (Examiner’s response) Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 & 15 under OVERKAMP EP0398462 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 Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn.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 in view of EP0398462 in view of 海田 啓司 Kaida JP WO2006030528. Further detail is shown in the action below.
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.
Claim(s) 1-7, 14-16, 18, & 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over OVERKAMP EP0398462 in view of 海田 啓司 Kaida JP WO2006030528.
With respect to claim 1, Overkamp teaches a spark stand for an optical emission spectrometer, comprising:
a first gas conduit (fig 1, 1) for providing a first gas “high-purity argon” (0023-0024) flow into the spark chamber at least during a spark operation “flows through the spark plasma” (0023-0024);
a spark chamber (fig 1, 7) “sparking chamber” (claim 1, lines 14-15); and
at least one auxiliary gas conduit “branch line” for providing an auxiliary gas flow into the spark
chamber, wherein the at least one auxiliary gas conduit is configured to provide the auxiliary gas flow into the spark chamber (0017, lines 182-185).
Overkamp does not specifically teach a period after spark operation but not during spark operation.
Overkamp teaches the combustion chamber can also be purged immediately after a completed measurement if required (0011, lines 124-125). Examiner notes one of ordinary skill would understand a completed measurement is the procedure in which a spark plasma of a sample is produced in a spark chamber and is spectrally evaluated (abstract, lines 1-2). At the time prior to the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to try to purge the spark chamber after a spark operation to thoroughly clean debris from the sample chamber.
Overkamp does not teach the auxiliary gas conduit is separate to the first gas conduit.
Kaida, in the same field endeavor as Overkamp of spark chambers, teaches a first gas conduit i.e. intake configured to supply air to a spark chamber is separate from a second conduit (fig 2, 166) i.e. auxiliary gas conduit configured to supply a purge gas to the spark chamber via a canister (fig 2, 162) (pg. 6, ¶ 1, lines 15-20). At the time prior to the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Kaida‘s auxiliary gas conduit with Overkamp’s spark chamber to efficiently clean the spark chamber.
With respect to claim 2 according to claim 1, the combination teaches a spark stand wherein the at least one auxiliary gas conduit is a single auxiliary gas conduit “branch line” (0017, lines 182-185 Overkamp).
With respect to claim 3 according to claim 1, the combination teaches a spark stand wherein the at least one auxiliary gas conduit is two or more auxiliary gas conduits “secondary line” (0019, lines 207-210 Overkamp).
With respect to claim 4 according to claim 1, the combination teaches a spark stand wherein the at least one auxiliary gas conduit (fig 1, 8 & 9) is switchable between an open position “open” (0025, line 260 Overkamp) (claim 4 Overkamp) and a closed position “close” (0026, line 265 Overkamp).
With respect to claim 5 according to claim 4, the combination teaches a spark stand wherein the at least one auxiliary gas conduit comprises at least one valve “flap valve” (0023, line 247 Overkamp) (fig 1, 8 & 9 Overkamp) to open or close (0024, line 251 Overkamp) the at least one auxiliary gas conduit and thereby allow or prevent the auxiliary gas flow into the spark chamber.
With respect to claim 6 according to claim 1, the combination teaches a spark stand further comprising:
a second gas conduit (fig 1, 12) for carrying gas “escape via the exhaust” from the spark chamber (0024, lines 254-255 Overkamp).
With respect to claim 7 according to claim 6, the combination teaches a spark stand wherein the first gas conduit is for providing the first gas flow into the spark chamber after spark operation “supplying a so-called protective gas atmosphere even during the standby time” (0005, line 48-50 Overkamp) additionally to during spark operation “protective gas continuously flows through … the sparking chamber …during a sparking process” (claim 1, lines17-18 Overkamp) such that the auxiliary gas flow combines with the first gas flow after spark operation “combustion chamber can also be purged immediately after a completed measurement” (0011, lines 124-125 Overkamp).
With respect to claim 14, the combination teaches an optical emission spectrometer “spark emission spectrometry” (claim 1, line 13 Overkamp) comprising a spark stand (fig 1 Overkamp).
The combination does not specifically teach a period after spark operation but not during spark operation.
Overkamp teaches the combustion chamber can also be purged immediately after a completed measurement if required (0011, lines 124-125). Examiner notes one of ordinary skill would understand a completed measurement is the procedure in which a spark plasma of a sample is produced in a spark chamber and is spectrally evaluated (abstract, lines 1-2). At the time prior to the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to try to purge the spark chamber after a spark operation to thoroughly clean debris from the sample chamber.
With respect to claim 15, Overkamp teaches a method of optical emission spectrometry, comprising:
providing a first gas flow (fig 1, 1) “high-purity argon” (0023-0024) into a spark chamber via a first gas conduit at least during a spark operation “flows through the spark plasma” (0023-0024), and further providing an auxiliary gas flow into the spark operation, and
further providing an auxiliary gas flow into a spark chamber (fig 1, 7) “sparking chamber” (claim 1, lines 14-15) via at least one auxiliary gas conduit (fig 1, 4) configured to provide the auxiliary gas flow into the spark chamber (0023, lines 242-244).
Overkamp does not specifically teach a period after spark operation but not during spark operation.
Overkamp teaches the combustion chamber can also be purged immediately after a completed measurement if required (0011, lines 124-125). Examiner notes one of ordinary skill would understand a completed measurement is the procedure in which a spark plasma of a sample is produced in a spark chamber and is spectrally evaluated (abstract, lines 1-2). At the time prior to the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to try to purge the spark chamber after a spark operation to thoroughly clean debris from the sample chamber.
Overkamp does not teach the auxiliary gas conduit is separate to the first gas conduit.
Kaida, in the same field endeavor as Overkamp of spark chambers, teaches a first gas conduit i.e. intake configured to supply air to a spark chamber is separate from a second conduit (fig 2, 166) i.e. auxiliary gas conduit configured to supply a purge gas to the spark chamber via a canister (fig 2, 162) (pg. 6, ¶ 1, lines 15-20). At the time prior to the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Kaida‘s auxiliary gas conduit with Overkamp’s spark chamber to efficiently clean the spark chamber.
With respect to claim 16 according to claim 5, the combination teaches a spark stand wherein the at least one auxiliary gas conduit (fig 1, 8 & 9 Overkamp) is switchable between an open position “open” (0025, line 260) (claim 4) and a closed position “close” (0026, line 265 Overkamp).
With respect to claim 18 according to claim 6, the combination does not specifically teach a flow rate of the auxiliary gas flow is greater than a flow rate of the first gas flow during spark operation.
Overkamp teaches a first gas flow i.e. pure protective gas atmosphere which flows within the chamber during spark operation with a relatively low flow rate (0002, lines 27-28) (0005, lines 48-51). Overkamp further the auxiliary gas is suddenly released building up pressure in a very short time to flush the spark chamber of debris (0010, lines 112-120). Examiner notes one of ordinary skill would understand the flow rate of the auxiliary gas is greater since pressure is built in a short time to remove debris in comparison to using the protective gas such as argon at a low flow rate for enabling radiation of the spark plasma. At the time prior to the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to try to produce a faster gas auxiliary flow rate than the first gas to enable a thorough cleaning of the spark chamber.
With respect to claim 20 according to claim 1, the combination teaches a spark stand wherein the auxiliary gas flow comprises a series of gas pulses “purge gas volume flows…in pulses” (claim 1, line 21-23 Overkamp).
Claim(s) 8 & 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over OVERKAMP EP0398462 in view of 海田 啓司 Kaida JP WO2006030528 in further view of Massspecguy, “FTIR and ATR setup w/ option for different purge gases ... description and demo”, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oRfH0-rTDJc Jun 20, 2016 hereafter Massspecguy.
With respect to claim 8 according to claim 7, the combination does not teach the at least one auxiliary gas conduit is configured to provide the auxiliary gas flow in a crossed flow configuration with the first gas flow.
Massspecguy, in the same field of endeavor as Overkamp of purging optical spectrometers, teaches at least one auxiliary gas conduit (fig 1, 1) is provided in a crossed flow configuration with a first gas (fig 1, 2), wherein each line may be opened or closed with corresponding valves (fig 2). Examiner further notes gas turbulence is observed based upon the movement of air shown where the pencil is located (fig 2, ball). At the time prior to the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to combine Massspecguy’s crossed flow configuration with Overkamp’s auxiliary gas conduit and first gas conduit to conveniently add gas from each line when needed.
PNG
media_image1.png
884
1414
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
772
1430
media_image2.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 9 according to claim 8, the combination teaches wherein the crossed flow configuration enables the generation of gas turbulences in the spark chamber (fig 2 Massspecguy).
Claim(s) 10 & 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over OVERKAMP EP0398462 in view of 海田 啓司 Kaida JP WO2006030528 in further view of Massspecguy, “FTIR and ATR setup w/ option for different purge gases ... description and demo”, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oRfH0-rTDJc Jun 20, 2016, hereafter Massspecguy in further view of Walters US 3815995.
With respect to claim 10 according to claim 9, the combination teaches a spark stand wherein the first gas flow is during spark operation “protective gas continuously flows through the connecting space and the sparking chamber via a gas supply line during a sparking process” (claim 1, lines17-18 Overkamp) and the flow is broken by the auxiliary gas flow after spark operation “combustion chamber can also be purged immediately after a completed measurement” (0011, lines 124-125 Overkamp).
The combination does not teach first gas flow is a laminar flow during spark operation.
Walters, in the same field of endeavor as Overkamp of spark emission spectroscopy via Argon, teaches Argon gas may be supplied as a laminar flow to stabilize spark discharge (claims 12 & 13). At the time prior to the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to supply the combination’s first gas flow of Argon as a laminar flow to help stabilize spark discharge for enabling spectroscopy analysis of various samples.
With respect to claim 11 according to claim 10, the combination does not specifically teach the flow rate of the auxiliary gas flow is greater than the flow rate of the first gas flow during spark operation.
Overkamp teaches a first gas flow i.e. pure protective gas atmosphere which flows within the chamber during spark operation with a relatively low flow rate (0002, lines 27-28) (0005, lines 48-51). Overkamp further the auxiliary gas is suddenly released building up pressure in a very short time to flush the spark chamber of debris (0010, lines 112-120). Examiner notes one of ordinary skill would understand the flow rate of the auxiliary gas is greater since pressure is built in a short time to remove debris in comparison to using the protective gas such as argon at a low flow rate for enabling radiation of the spark plasma. At the time prior to the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to try to produce a faster gas auxiliary flow rate than the first gas to enable a thorough cleaning of the spark chamber.
Claim(s) 12 & 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over OVERKAMP EP0398462 in view of 海田 啓司 Kaida JP WO2006030528 in further view of Massspecguy, “FTIR and ATR setup w/ option for different purge gases ... description and demo”, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oRfH0-rTDJc Jun 20, 2016 hereafter Massspecguy in further view of Walters US 3815995 in further view of Matheson Specialty Gas Equipment Tech Support, “Introduction to Gas Cabinet Systems”, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pAxOvoIZdZI Jun 21, 2021.
With respect to claim 12 according to claim 11, the combination teaches a spark stand wherein the at least one auxiliary gas conduit is two auxiliary gas conduits “secondary line” (0019, lines 207-210 Overkamp).
The combination does not teach the two auxiliary gas conduits being positioned symmetrically on either side of the first gas conduit.
Matheson, in the field of endeavor of gas lines, implicitly teaches three gas lines positioned symmetrically on either side of a first gas conduit (fig 1). At the time prior to the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to position the combination’s auxiliary gas conduits symmetrically on either side of the first gas conduit since it is considered to be a rearrangement of parts which is held to be an obvious matter of design choice it does not modify the operation of the device. In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950). SEE MPEP 2144.04.VI.C.
PNG
media_image3.png
387
621
media_image3.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 13 according to claim 12, the combination teaches a spark stand wherein the auxiliary gas flow comprises a series of gas pulses “purge gas volume flows…in pulses” (claim 1, line 21-23 Overkamp).
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over OVERKAMP EP0398462 in view of 海田 啓司 Kaida JP WO2006030528 in further view of Massspecguy, “FTIR and ATR setup w/ option for different purge gases ... description and demo”, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oRfH0-rTDJc Jun 20, 2016, hereafter Massspecguy in further view of Walters US 3815995.
With respect to claim 17 according to claim 8, the combination teaches a spark stand wherein the first gas flow is during spark operation “protective gas continuously flows through the connecting space and the sparking chamber via a gas supply line during a sparking process” (claim 1, lines17-18 Overkamp) and the flow is broken by the auxiliary gas flow after spark operation “combustion chamber can also be purged immediately after a completed measurement” (0011, lines 124-125 Overkamp).
The combination does not teach first gas flow is a laminar flow during spark operation.
Walters, in the same field of endeavor as Overkamp of spark emission spectroscopy via Argon, teaches Argon gas may be supplied as a laminar flow to stabilize spark discharge (claims 12 & 13). At the time prior to the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to supply the combination’s first gas flow of Argon as a laminar flow to help stabilize spark discharge for enabling spectroscopy analysis of various samples.
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over OVERKAMP EP0398462 in view of 海田 啓司 Kaida JP WO2006030528 in further view of Matheson Specialty Gas Equipment Tech Support, “Introduction to Gas Cabinet Systems”, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pAxOvoIZdZI Jun 21, 2021.
With respect to claim 19 according to claim 6, the combination teaches a spark stand wherein the at least one auxiliary gas conduit is two auxiliary gas conduits “secondary line” (0019, lines 207-210 Overkamp).
The combination does not teach two auxiliary gas conduits being positioned symmetrically on either side of the first gas conduit.
Matheson, in the field of endeavor of gas lines, implicitly teaches three gas lines positioned symmetrically on either side of a first gas conduit (fig 1). At the time prior to the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to position the combination’s auxiliary gas conduits symmetrically on either side of the first gas conduit since it is considered to be a rearrangement of parts which is held to be an obvious matter of design choice it does not modify the operation of the device. In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950). SEE MPEP 2144.04.VI.C.
PNG
media_image4.png
870
1398
media_image4.png
Greyscale
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 MAURICE C SMITH whose telephone number is (571)272-2526. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-5pm 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, Kara Geisel can be reached at (571) 272-2416. 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.
/MAURICE C SMITH/Examiner, Art Unit 2877
Prosecution Insights