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 5 is objected to because of the following informalities:
As to claim 5: Line 3 of the claim recites in part “the standard gas flow channel supplies the span gas to the analyzer” but there is insufficient antecedent basis for “the span gas” in the claim or in parent claim 1. For the purpose of expedient examination, the examiner is interpreting the claim to instead read, --the standard gas flow channel supplies a span gas to the analyzer--, which could constitute a proper correction.
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.
Claim 2 is 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.
As to claim 2: The claim recites in line 3 that the purge gas flow channel supplies atmosphere to the flow channel (emphasis added) however, the claim depends from claim 1 which itself recites a main flow channel, a standard gas flow channel, and a purge gas flow channel. Accordingly, it is unclear as to which flow channel line 3 of claim 2 is referring because each of the recited elements from claim 1 are also considered to be claimed elements which are flow channels.
It appears from Applicant’s as-filed specification ¶ 54 that atmosphere is supplied into the main (emphasis added) flow channel, but the scope of the claim is still rendered unclear because the current recitation of the claim still allows for any of the main flow channel, standard gas flow channel, and a purge gas flow channel to fall within the scope of the claim as presently recited.
For the purpose of expedient examination and in light of Applicant’s as-filed specification ¶ 54, the examiner is interpreting the claim to refer to the main flow channel. The examiner recommends either explaining in remarks how Applicant believes the claim as presently recited to be clear, preferably by providing evidence from Applicant’s disclosure, and/or amending the claim to obviate the above issues.
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 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Dickow US PG-PUB 2019/0242786 A1 (hereafter Dickow), prior art of record as indicated on the IDS filed 22 June 2026.
As to claim 9: Dickow discloses a gas continuous analysis system (see the figure) comprising:
a sampling unit (14) that samples a gas containing an adsorbable component flowing in a duct (see the figure and ¶ 22),
a main flow channel (13) through which a sample gas sampled by the sampling unit flows (see the figure and ¶ 22 and 23),
a chromatograph or a mass spectrometer that analyzes an adsorbable component in the sample gas flowing in the main flow channel (not labeled but see ¶ 2), and
an overflow channel that discharges a part of the sample gas flowing in the main flow channel in an upstream side of the chromatograph or the mass spectrometer (see ¶ 28 regarding outflow line 48 that discharges prior to measurement unit 18).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 2, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hashimoto et al. US PG-PUB 2012/0152364 A1 (hereafter Hashimoto) in view of Dickow US PG-PUB 2019/0242786 A1 (hereafter Dickow), prior art of record as indicated on the IDS filed 22 June 2026.
As to claim 1: Hashimoto discloses a gas continuous analysis system (100; see fig. 1 and ¶ 22), comprising:
a main flow channel (3; see fig. 1 and ¶ 23) through which a sample gas containing an adsorbable component flows (see ¶ 26),
an analyzer (not labeled but see fig. 1 and ¶ 26 regarding the disclosed gas analyzer) that analyzes the adsorbable component in the sample gas flowing in the main flow channel (see ¶ 26),
a standard gas flow channel (4; see fig. 1) that supplies a standard gas for calibrating or validating the analyzer (see ¶ 31), and
the sample gas is introduced into the main flow channel and the sample gas is continuously analyzed by the analyzer (see ¶ 38).
Hashimoto does not explicitly teach:
a purge gas flow channel that supplies a purge gas containing moisture to a flow channel through which the sample gas of the analyzer passes, wherein
in the middle of the continuous analysis, the purge gas is supplied to the analyzer from the purge gas flow channel through which the sample gas of the analyzer passes, and successively a standard gas is supplied to the analyzer from the standard gas flow channel to calibrate or validate the analyzer.
However, Dickow teaches a purge gas flow channel (26; see the figure and ¶ 25) that supplies a purge gas containing moisture to a flow channel through which a sample gas of an analyzer passes (see ¶ 25), wherein,
in the middle of a continuous analysis, the purge gas is supplied to the analyzer from the purge gas flow channel through which the sample gas of the analyzer passes (see ¶ 28), and successively a standard gas is supplied to the analyzer from a standard gas flow channel (14) to calibrate or validate the analyzer (see ¶ 28).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hashimoto to include a purge gas flow channel that supplies a purge gas containing moisture to a flow channel through which the sample gas of the analyzer passes, wherein in the middle of the continuous analysis, the purge gas is supplied to the analyzer from the purge gas flow channel through which the sample gas of the analyzer passes, and successively a standard gas is supplied to the analyzer from the standard gas flow channel to calibrate or validate the analyzer because such a construction allows for both passing of standard and sample gases to an analyzer for detection of a variety of gas parameters and variables while simultaneously allowing for calibration of an exhaust gas analysis unit and preventing cross contamination between a sample gas and calibration gas, such as suggested in ¶ 26-28 of Dickow. Accordingly, a design improves the flexibility of Hashimoto’s device by allowing it to perform several functions simultaneously while also preventing cross contamination between purging and standard gases during analysis of samples gases moving throughout said device.
As to claim 2: Hashimoto as modified by Dickow teaches the gas continuous analysis system described in claim 1, wherein the purge gas flow channel (26 of Dickow) supplies atmosphere to the flow channel (14 of Dickow; see the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection of the instant claim for the reasons outlined previously above) through which the sample of analyzer gas passes (see ¶ 26 and 27 of Dickow).
As to claim 10: Hashimoto discloses a gas continuous analysis method using a measurement system (100; see fig. 1 and ¶ 22) that comprises a main flow channel (3; see fig. 1 and ¶ 23) through which a sample gas containing an adsorbable component flows (see ¶ 26), an analyzer (not labeled but see fig. 1 and ¶ 26 regarding the disclosed gas analyzer) that analyzes the adsorbable component in the sample gas flowing in the main flow channel (see ¶ 26), a standard gas flow channel (4; see fig. 1) that supplies a standard gas for calibrating or validating the analyzer (see ¶ 31), wherein the sample gas is introduced into the main flow channel and the sample gas is continuously analyzed by the analyzer (see ¶ 38).
Hashimoto does not explicitly teach:
a purge gas flow channel that supplies a purge gas containing moisture to a flow channel through which the sample gas of the analyzer flows, wherein
the purge gas is supplied to the analyzer from the purge gas flow channel in the middle of the continuous analysis to purge the flow channel through which the sample gas of the analyzer passes, and successively a standard gas is supplied to the analyzer from the standard gas flow channel to calibrate or validate the analyzer.
However, Dickow teaches a purge gas flow channel (26; see the figure and ¶ 25) that supplies a purge gas containing moisture to a flow channel through which a sample gas of an analyzer flows (see ¶ 25), wherein,
the purge gas is supplied to the analyzer from the purge gas flow channel in the middle of a continuous analysis to purge the flow channel through which the sample gas of the analyzer passes (see ¶ 28), and successively a standard gas is supplied to the analyzer from a standard gas flow channel (14) to calibrate or validate the analyzer (see ¶ 28).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hashimoto’s method to include a purge gas flow channel that supplies a purge gas containing moisture to a flow channel through which the sample gas of the analyzer flows, wherein the purge gas is supplied to the analyzer from the purge gas flow channel in the middle of the continuous analysis to purge the flow channel through which the sample gas of the analyzer passes, and successively a standard gas is supplied to the analyzer from the standard gas flow channel to calibrate or validate the analyzer because such a construction allows for both passing of standard and sample gases to an analyzer for detection of a variety of gas parameters and variables while simultaneously allowing for calibration of an exhaust gas analysis unit and preventing cross contamination between a sample gas and calibration gas, such as suggested in ¶ 26-28 of Dickow. Accordingly, a design improves the flexibility of Hashimoto’s device by allowing it to perform several functions simultaneously while also preventing cross contamination between purging and standard gases during analysis of samples gases moving throughout said device.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hashimoto et al. US PG-PUB 2012/0152354 A1 (hereafter Hashimoto) in view of Dickow US PG-PUB 2019/0242786 A1 (hereafter Dickow), prior art of record as indicated on the IDS filed 22 June 2026 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Itaya et al. US PG-PUB 2014/0223993 A1 (hereafter Itaya).
As to claim 3: Hashimoto as modified by Dickow teaches all of the limitations of the claimed invention as described above regarding claim 1, including an analyzer (see the gas analyzer depicted in fig. 1 of Hashimoto) and an adsorbable component (see ¶ 26 of Hashimoto), but does not explicitly teach:
wherein the analyzer analyzes HF, HCl, or NH3 as the adsorbable component.
However, Itaya teaches that gas analyzers may analyze HF, HCl, or NH3 as an adsorbable component (see ¶ 65 and 66).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Hashimoto such that the analyzer analyzes HF, HCl, or NH3 as the adsorbable component because gas analysis of NH3 is one of several important measured gases exhibiting adsorbent characteristics in an exhaust gas such as suggested in ¶ 3 and 68 of Itaya. Accordingly, such a modification would improve the flexibility of Hashimoto’s device by allowing for a further number of similar gases typically present in exhaust gas to be analyzed.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hashimoto et al. US PG-PUB 2012/0152354 A1 (hereafter Hashimoto) in view of Dickow US PG-PUB 2019/0242786 A1 (hereafter Dickow), prior art of record as indicated on the IDS filed 22 June 2026 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Poynot US Pat 6,332,349 B1 (hereafter Poynot).
As to claim 7: Hashimoto as modified by Dickow teaches all of the limitations of the claimed invention as described above regarding claim 1, including a sample gas flowing in a main flow channel in the upstream side of an analyzer (see Hashimoto ¶ 31 and 38), but does not explicitly teach:
the gas continuous analysis system further comprising an overflow flow channel that discharges a part of the sample gas flowing in the main flow channel in the upstream side of the analyzer.
However, Poynot teaches a gas analysis system comprising an overflow flow channel (not labeled but see col. 6, lines 36-45 regarding the tertiary line) that discharges a part of a sample gas flowing in a main flow channel in the upstream side of an analyzer (see fig. 6 and col. 6, lines 36-45).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Hashimoto’s gas continuous analysis system to include an overflow flow channel that discharges a part of the sample gas flowing in the main flow channel in the upstream side of the analyzer because such a construction ensures a constant flow rate in the analysis line of a gas analysis system and thus improves the reliability of Hashimoto’s gas analysis system, such as suggested in col. 6, lines 36-45 of Poynot.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-6 and 8 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
As to claim 4: The prior art of record does not disclose or render obvious to the skilled artisan wherein the standard gas flow channel has a zero gas flow channel that supplies a zero gas to the analyzer and (emphasis added) a span gas flow channel that supplies a span gas to the analyzer, wherein the gas continuous analysis system successively supplies the zero gas from the zero gas flow channel to the analyzer to zero-calibrate the analyzer and supplies the span gas to the analyzer from the span gas flow channel to span-calibrate the analyzer, when considered in combination with the other limitations recited in the instant claim and with those of parent claim 1.
As to claim 5: The prior art of record does not disclose or render obvious to the skilled artisan supplying a purge gas to the analyzer from the purge gas flow channel to purge the flow channel through which the sample gas of the analyzer passes and (emphasis added) to zero-calibrate the analyzer, and (emphasis added) successively supplies the span gas to the analyzer from the standard gas flow channel to span-calibrate the analyzer, when considered in combination with the other limitations recited in the instant claim and with the limitations of parent claim 1.
As to claim 6: The prior art of record does not disclose or render obvious to the skilled artisan a gas continuous analysis system comprising a second purge gas flow channel that is connected to an upstream side of the analyzer in the main flow channel and that supplies a second purge gas from a connection point of the second purge gas flow channel to the main flow channel toward the upstream side of the main flow channel, when considered in combination with the other limitations recited in the instant claim and with those of parent claim 1.
In particular, while it is known from the prior art to utilize a second purge gas flow in an air sampling or emissions monitoring device (see, for example, Massengale et al. US PG-PUB 2017/0227428 A1 ¶ 16), the second purge gas flow described therein is utilized in conjunction with a second sample collection device and thus there does not appear to be a disclosure, teaching, suggestion, or motivation available therein or in the other cited prior art of record to modify Hoshimoto in an obvious manner in order to arrive at the claimed invention as set forth by the limitations of claim 6 when considered in combination with the limitations of claim 1.
As to claim 8: The prior art of record does not disclose or render obvious to the skilled artisan a gas continuous analysis system comprising a throttle unit provided between a connection of the overflow flow channel to the main flow channel and the analyzer in the main flow channel, a main suction pump provided in the downstream side of the analyzer in the main flow channel, and a sub-suction pump provided in the overflow flow channel, when considered in combination with the limitations of parent claims 1 and 7.
In particular, while the combination of Hashimoto, Dickow, and Poynot is considered to teach all of the features of claim 7, there is no disclosure therein nor combination of the cited prior art of record that renders obvious the additional limitations of a throttle unit provided between a connection of the overflow flow channel to the main flow channel and the analyzer in the main flow channel, a main suction pump provided in the downstream side of the analyzer in the main flow channel, and a sub-suction pump provided in the overflow flow channel, all of which are required by the limitations of the claimed invention as set forth by claim 8.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN M ROYSTON whose telephone number is (571)270-7215. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-4:30 E.S.T..
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, Peter Macchiarolo can be reached at 571-272-2375. 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.
/JOHN M ROYSTON/Examiner, Art Unit 2855
Prosecution Insights