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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: in line 9, it appears that “water vapour” should perhaps be “water vapour samples”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: in lines 3-4, it appears that “water vapour” should perhaps be “water vapour samples”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities: in each of lines 2-5, it appears that “carbon black” should be “black carbon” to keep the terms consistent throughout the claims. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities: in line 2, it appears that “carbon black” should be “black carbon” to keep the terms consistent throughout the claims. 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 1-19 and 21-22 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 isotope ratio" in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the purified water vapour" in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 1, the phrase "optionally" in line 8 renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
In claim 1, line 4, “hydrophobic graphitized black carbon sorbent, GBC” should perhaps be “hydrophobic graphitized black carbon sorbent (GBC)”.
In claim 1, lines 4-5, “hydrophobic carbon molecular sieve sorbent, CMS” should perhaps be “hydrophobic carbon molecular sieve sorbent (CMS)”.
Claims 2-19 are rejected by virtue of their dependency on claim 1.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the effective surface area" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "a third hydrophobic graphitized carbon black sorbent" in line 2. However, there is no prior “second hydrophobic graphitized carbon black sorbent”.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the first hydrophobic graphitized carbon black sorbent" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the two subsequent hydrophobic graphitized carbon black sorbents" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 9, the phrase "preferably being formed…" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
In claim 14, in each of lines 4 and 5, there should not be any parentheses (e.g. “(vapour mode)” and “(liquid mode)”).
Claim 14 recites the limitation "the injected liquid water sample" in lines 5-6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
In claim 19, “an isotope-ratio infrared spectroscopy, IRIS, based instrument” should perhaps be “an isotope-ratio infrared spectroscopy (IRIS) based instrument”.
Regarding claim 19, the phrase "i.e.” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 21 recites the limitation "the isotope ratio" in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 21 recites the limitation "the purified water vapour" in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 22 appears to have typos. As a result, the metes and bounds are indeterminable.
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.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Steinbacher et al. (“Performance characteristics of a proton-transfer-reaction mass spectrometer (PTR-MS) derived from laboratory and field measurements”, INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF MASS SPECTROMETRY, ELSEVIER SCIENCE PUBLISHERS, Amsterdam, NL, vol. 239, no. 2-3, 15 December, 2004, pages 117-128, XP004676183, ISSN: 1387-3806, DOI: 10.1016/J.IJMS.2004.07.015).
With respect to claim 20, Steinbacher et al. disclose (section 2.3) a pipe segment (adsorption tubes) for a system suitable for isotope analysis of water vapour, the pipe segment encompassing a multi-bed trap comprising at least one hydrophobic graphitized black carbon sorbent (Carbopack B) and a hydrophobic carbon molecular sieve sorbent (Carbosieve III).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JURIE YUN whose telephone number is (571)272-2497. The examiner can normally be reached 10:30 am - 7:30 pm.
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, David J Makiya can be reached at 571 272-2273. 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.
/JURIE YUN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2884
June 16, 2026
Prosecution Insights