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 .
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged.
Status of Claims
The examiner acknowledges the preliminary amendment filed 02 January 2025. Claims 17-36 are pending in the application. Claims 1-16 are cancelled.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 13 December 2024 was filed in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement has been considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 17-36 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 17, line 4 recites the limitation “the ADR crystal” which should be amended to recite “the ATR crystal” to fix the typographical error. Claims 18-36 depend on claim 17 and are therefore also objected to.
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 21 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.
Regarding claim 21, lines 1-2 recite the limitation “the IR light source”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Neither claim 21 nor claim 17, in which claim 21 depends on, previously recite an IR light source. Claim 17 recites “a light source” on line 4, but does not specify whether the light source emits infrared radiation or not. Therefore, claim 21 is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b). The examiner assumes lines 1-2 of claim 21 are supposed to recite ‘the light source’. If this is applicant’s intent, please amend accordingly.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 17 and 23-24 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,203,849, hereinafter ‘849. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other as outlined below.
Regarding claim 17, ‘849 claims apparatus for detecting an analyte in a mixed sample containing the analyte and other analytes (col. 8 lines 40-41), the apparatus comprising:
an attenuated total reflection (ATR) crystal having an outer surface (col. 8 lines 43-44);
a light source wherein light from the light source passes through the ATR crystal (col. 8 lines 45-47);
a detector that receives the light that has passed through the ATR crystal (col. 8 lines 46-47, the means for detecting being a detector (see col. 3 line 57-col. 4 line 13 for 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) means interpretation));
a heat source (col. 8 line 48); and
a controller configured to monitor a temperature as the mixed sample is heated by the heat source (col. 8 lines 49-51).
Regarding claim 23, ‘849 claims the apparatus of claim 17, as outlined above, and further claims the controller is configured to identify the analyte (col. 8 lines 49-51).
Regarding claim 24, ‘849 claims the apparatus of claim 23, as outlined above, and further claims the controller is configured to derive a dwell time from the monitored temperature, the dwell time corresponding to an interval of substantially constant temperature as the ATR crystal is heated (col. 8 lines 52-55).
Claim 18 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 2 of U.S. Patent No. 12,203,849, hereinafter ‘849. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other as outlined below.
Regarding claim 18, ‘849 claims the apparatus of claim 17, as outlined above, and further claims a cooling device (col. 8 lines 56-57).
Claim 19 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 3 of U.S. Patent No. 12,203,849, hereinafter ‘849. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other as outlined below.
Regarding claim 19, ‘849 claims the apparatus of claim 17, as outlined above, and further claims a heating device (col. 8 lines 59-60).
Claim 25 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 4 of U.S. Patent No. 12,203,849, hereinafter ‘849. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other as outlined below.
Regarding claim 25, ‘849 claims the apparatus of claim 24, as outlined above, and further claims the controller is configured to identify an end of the dwell time based on a sharp increase in temperature (col. 8 lines 62-64).
Claim 26 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 5 of U.S. Patent No. 12,203,849, hereinafter ‘849. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other as outlined below.
Regarding claim 26, ‘849 claims the apparatus of claim 24, as outlined above, and further claims the controller is configured to monitor a slope of an increase in the temperature to identify an end of the dwell time (col. 8 lines 65-67).
Claim 27 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 6 of U.S. Patent No. 12,203,849, hereinafter ‘849. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other as outlined below.
Regarding claim 27, ‘849 claims the apparatus of claim 24, as outlined above, and further claims the controller is configured to identify the analyte based also on the dwell time (col. 9 lines 1-3).
Claim 28 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 7 of U.S. Patent No. 12,203,849, hereinafter ‘849. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other as outlined below.
Regarding claim 28, ‘849 claims a method of detecting an analyte in a mixed sample containing the analyte and other analytes (col. 9 lines 4-5), the method comprising using the apparatus of claim 17 (‘849 claims the apparatus of claim 17 outlined above (see col. 8 lines 40-55)) to perform the steps of:
heating the mixed sample (col. 9 line 8);
adsorbing the mixed sample onto an attenuated total reflection (ATR) crystal (col. 9 lines 9-10);
directing light into the ATR crystal (col. 9 lines line 11);
detecting light from the light source that has passed through the ATR crystal (col. 9 lines 12-13); and
monitoring a temperature as the mixed sample is heated and, based at least in part on the monitored temperature, identifying the analyte (col. 9 lines 14-16).
Claim 29 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 8 of U.S. Patent No. 12,203,849, hereinafter ‘849. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other as outlined below.
Regarding claim 29, ‘849 claims the method of claim 28, as outlined above, and further claims the step of cooling the ATR crystal to cause condensation of the mixed sample on an outer surface of the ATR crystal (col. 9 lines 17-20).
Claim 30 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 9 of U.S. Patent No. 12,203,849, hereinafter ‘849. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other as outlined below.
Regarding claim 30, ‘849 claims the method of claim 28, as outlined above, and further claims the identifying step comprises deriving a dwell time from the monitored temperature, the dwell time corresponding to an interval of substantially constant temperature as the mixed sample is heated (col. 10 lines 1-5).
Claim 31 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 10 of U.S. Patent No. 12,203,849, hereinafter ‘849. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other as outlined below.
Regarding claim 31, ‘849 claims the method of claim 30, as outlined above, and further claims an end of the dwell time is identified based on a sharp increase in temperature (col. 10 lines 6-7).
Claim 32 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 11 of U.S. Patent No. 12,203,849, hereinafter ‘849. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other as outlined below.
Regarding claim 32, ‘849 claims the method of claim 31, as outlined above, and further claims a slope of an increase in the temperature is monitored to identify an end of the dwell time (col. 10 lines 8-10).
Claim 33 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 13 of U.S. Patent No. 12,203,849, hereinafter ‘849. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other as outlined below.
Regarding claim 33, ‘849 claims the method of claim 28, as outlined above, and further claims the heat is provided by a heat source (col. 10 lines 13-14).
Claim 34 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 14 of U.S. Patent No. 12,203,849, hereinafter ‘849. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other as outlined below.
Regarding claim 34, ‘849 claims the method of claim 28, as outlined above, and further claims the heat is provided by the ambient environment (col. 10 lines 15-16).
Claim 35 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 15 of U.S. Patent No. 12,203,849, hereinafter ‘849. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other as outlined below.
Regarding claim 35, ‘849 claims the method of claim 28, as outlined above, and further claims the step of heating the ATR crystal to drive off the mixed sample following identification of the analyte (col. 10 lines 17-19).
Claim 36 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 12 of U.S. Patent No. 12,203,849, hereinafter ‘849. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other as outlined below.
Regarding claim 36, ‘849 claims the method of claim 30, as outlined above, and further claims the analyte is identified based also on the dwell time (col. 10 lines 11-12).
Claims 20-22 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,203,849, hereinafter ‘849 in view of Mantele et al. (US 2006/0043301 A1), hereinafter Mantele.
Regarding claim 20, ‘849 claims the apparatus of claim 17, as outlined above, but does not claim the controller is configured to initiate sampling.
Mantele, which relates to infrared measurement devices using ATR crystals, teaches a controller configured to initiate sampling (Mantele: Fig. 1 multiplexer 17, paragraph 0081; since the multiplexer controls the light source and detector, it controls when sampling is initiated).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the controller of ‘849 to be configured to initiate sampling, as taught by Mantele, for the benefit of enabling a skilled artisan to selectively choose a sampling period.
Regarding claim 21, ‘849 claims the apparatus of claim 17, as outlined above, but does not claim the controller is configured to control the light source and the detector.
Mantele, which relates to infrared measurement devices using ATR crystals, teaches a controller configured to control the light source and the detector (Mantele: Fig. 1 multiplexer 17, paragraph 0081).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the controller of ‘849 to be configured to control the light source and the detector, as taught by Mantele, for the benefit of increasing the operating selectivity of the apparatus through greater control of illumination and detection parameters (see Mantele paragraphs 0035, 0081).
Regarding claim 22, ‘849 claims the apparatus of claim 17, as outlined above, but does not claim the controller is configured to interpret detector signals.
Mantele, which relates to infrared measurement devices using ATR crystals, teaches a controller configured to interpret detector signals (Mantele: Fig. 1 evaluation unit 7 and multiplexer 17, paragraphs 0079-0081).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the controller of ‘849 to be configured to interpret detector signals, as taught by Mantele, for the benefit of providing an output of the optical signal analysis of the analyte (Mantele: paragraphs 0079-0081).
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.
Claims 17-19, 22-23, 28-29, 33, and 35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maruo (US 2004/0108472 A1, of record) in view of Sailor et al. (US 2013/0114082 A1, of record), hereinafter Sailor.
Regarding claim 17, Maruo teaches apparatus (abstract, Fig. 5-6 and 9) for detecting an analyte in a mixed sample containing the analyte and other analytes (abstract, paragraphs 0027, 0041, 0135; the gas-to-be monitored is a mixed sample that contains multiple analytes and the chemical/pollutant of interest is an analyte), the apparatus comprising:
an attenuated total reflection (ATR) crystal (Fig. 5-6 substrate 10 which corresponds to substrate 26 in Fig. 9, paragraphs 0075-0082) having an outer surface (see Fig. 5-6 and 9, paragraph 0075);
a light source (Fig. 6 infrared light source 20; Fig. 9 infrared source is 44) wherein light from the light source passes through the ATR crystal (see Fig. 6);
a detector (Fig. 6 infrared light detector 22; Fig. 9 infrared detector is 50) that receives the light that has passed through the ATR crystal (see Fig. 6);
a heat source (Fig. 9 heating device 38).
Maruo does not teach a controller configured to monitor a temperature as the mixed sample is heated by the heat source.
Sailor, which relates to identifying analytes in gases and is thus from the same field of endeavor as Maruo, teaches a controller (Sailor: Fig. 1B controller 40) configured to monitor a temperature as the mixed sample is heated by the heat source (Sailor: paragraphs 0024 and 0035).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the apparatus of Maruo to comprise the controller of Sailor which is configured to monitor a temperature as the mixed sample is heated by the heat source, as doing so beneficially improves analyte detection by enabling the optical data collected from the infrared detector of Maruo to be related to temperature information (see Sailor paragraph 0035).
Regarding claim 18, Maruo, as modified by Sailor, teaches the apparatus of claim 17, as outlined above, and further teaches a cooling device (Maruo: Fig. 9 cooling device 30).
Regarding claim 19, Maruo, as modified by Sailor, teaches the apparatus of claim 17, as outlined above, and further teaches a heating device (Maruo: Fig. 9 heating device 38).
Regarding claim 22, Maruo, as modified by Sailor, teaches the apparatus of claim 17, as outlined above, and further teaches the controller is configured to interpret detector signals (Sailor: paragraph 0035; see also Maruo paragraph 0094).
Regarding claim 23, Maruo, as modified by Sailor, teaches the apparatus of claim 17, as outlined above, and further teaches the controller is configured to identify the analyte (see Sailor paragraphs 0024-0025 and 0035; see also Maruo paragraph 0094).
Regarding claim 28, Maruo teaches a method (Maruo: abstract, paragraphs 0001, 0013) of detecting an analyte in a mixed sample containing the analyte and other analytes (abstract, paragraphs 0013, 0027, 0041, 0135; the gas-to-be monitored is a mixed sample that contains multiple analytes and the chemical/pollutant of interest is an analyte), the method comprising using the apparatus of claim 17 (apparatus of claim 17 taught by Maruo, as modified by Sailor, outlined above) to perform the steps of:
heating the mixed sample (see Maruo Fig. 9, paragraphs 0090-0091; since the heating device 38 heats the whole of vessel 36, it heats the gas-to-be monitored);
adsorbing the mixed sample onto an attenuated total reflection (ATR) crystal (Maruo: paragraphs 0075, 0082, 0136; Fig. 5 pollutants 19 are adsorbed onto substrate 10 outer surface; Fig. 5-6 substrate 10, Fig. 8 substrates 25a-b, Fig. 9 substrate 26);
directing light into the ATR crystal (Maruo: paragraph 0013, see also Fig. 6-9);
detecting light from the light source that has passed through the ATR crystal (Maruo: paragraphs 0013 and 0080); and
monitoring a temperature as the mixed sample is heated and, based at least in part on the monitored temperature, identifying the analyte (Sailor: paragraphs 0024-0025, 0031, 0035).
Regarding claim 29, Maruo, as modified by Sailor, teaches the method of claim 28, further comprising the step of cooling the ATR crystal to cause condensation of the mixed sample on an outer surface of the ATR crystal (Maruo: paragraphs 0014, 0106-0110; cooling the substrate to increase the adsorption rate, this adsorption would cause condensation of the gas-to-be monitored on the substrate).
Regarding claim 33, Maruo, as modified by Sailor, teaches the method of claim 28, as outlined above, and further teaches the heat is provided by a heat source (Maruo: Fig. 9 heating device 38; Sailor: Fig. 1A-B heater 18, heat control 42).
Regarding claim 35, Maruo, as modified by Sailor, teaches the method of claim 28, as outlined above, and further teaches the step of heating the ATR crystal to drive off the mixed sample following identification of the analyte (Maruo: paragraphs 0112).
Claims 20 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maruo in view of Sailor as applied to claim 17 above, and further in view of Mantele et al. (US 2006/0043301 A1), hereinafter Mantele.
Regarding claim 20, Maruo, as modified by Sailor, teaches the apparatus of claim 17, as outlined above, but does not teach the controller is configured to initiate sampling.
Mantele, which relates to infrared measurement devices using ATR crystals, teaches a controller configured to initiate sampling (Mantele: Fig. 1 multiplexer 17, paragraph 0081; since the multiplexer controls the light source and detector, it controls when sampling is initiated).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the controller of Maruo (as modified by Sailor) to be configured to initiate sampling, as taught by Mantele, for the benefit of enabling a skilled artisan to selectively choose a sampling period.
Regarding claim 21, Maruo, as modified by Sailor, teaches the apparatus of claim 17, as outlined above, but does not teach the controller is configured to control the light source and the detector.
Mantele, which relates to infrared measurement devices using ATR crystals, teaches a controller configured to control the light source and the detector (Mantele: Fig. 1 multiplexer 17, paragraph 0081).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the controller of Maruo (as modified by Sailor) to be configured to control the light source and the detector, as taught by Mantele, for the benefit of increasing the operating selectivity of the apparatus (see Mantele paragraphs 0035, 0081).
Claim 34 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maruo in view of Sailor as applied to claims 17 and 28 above, and further in view of LaCourse et al. (US 2004/0154414 A1, of record), hereinafter LaCourse.
Regarding claim 34, Maruo, as modified by Sailor, teaches the method of claim 28, as outlined above, but does not teach the heat is provided by the ambient environment.
LaCourse, which is related to identifying constituents in a gas and thus from the same field of endeavor as Maruo and Sailor, teaches heating a gas using heat provided by the ambient environment (LaCourse: paragraphs 0022, 0032).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the method of Maruo (as modified by Sailor) to heat the mixed sample by providing heat from the ambient environment, as taught by LaCourse, for the benefit of ensuring compounds that are volatile at ambient temperatures would not be driven off the substrate of Maruo prior to analysis and identification.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 24-27, 30-32, and 36 are rejected to under 35 U.S.C. § 101 on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting, but would be allowable upon the timely filing of a terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d), and 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:
Regarding claim 24, the prior art of record, taken alone or in combination, neither anticipates nor renders obvious the apparatus of claim 23, wherein the controller is configured to derive a dwell time from the monitored temperature, the dwell time corresponding to an interval of substantially constant temperature as the ATR crystal is heated (emphasis added via bolded words, extra emphasis added via underlined words).
Nieuwenhuis et al. (US 2020/0182894 A1, of record), hereinafter Nieuwenhuis, teaches a processor configured to derive a dwell time from a monitored temperature (Nieuwenhuis: paragraphs 0034, 0043, 0045). However, this dwell time corresponds to an interval of substantially constant temperature of the sample as the sample is heated (see Nieuwenhuis paragraph 0045; paragraphs 0035 and 0044 discuss heating the sample). Therefore, Nieuwenhuis does not teach the dwell time corresponding to an interval of substantially constant temperature as the ATR crystal is heated and, thus, does not remedy the deficiencies of Maruo, as modified by Sailor.
Mosher (US 2016/0369214 A1, of record) teaches an analysis method for analyzing chemical compounds in beer via infrared attenuated total reflectance spectroscopy (see Mosher abstract) which includes heating a beer sample to a certain temperature, over a certain interval, and spectroscopically measuring the beer sample at the constant temperature as the beer is heated (see Mosher paragraphs 0016, 0056-0058). However, the constant temperature of the sample does not correlate to an interval of substantially constant temperature as the IR-ATR cell is heated. Thus, Mosher does not remedy the deficiencies of Maruo, as modified by Sailor, as Mosher does not teach the controller is configured to derive a dwell time from the monitored temperature, the dwell time corresponding to an interval of substantially constant temperature as the ATR crystal is heated.
Therefore, for the reasons outlined above, claim 24 is indicated as having allowable subject matter. Claims 25-27 depend on claim 24 and are therefore also indicated as having allowable subject matter.
Regarding claim 30, the prior art of record, taken alone or in combination, neither anticipates nor renders obvious the method of claim 28, wherein the identifying step comprises deriving a dwell time from the monitored temperature, the dwell time corresponding to an interval of substantially constant temperature as the mixed sample is heated (emphasis added via bolded words, extra emphasis added via underlined words).
Claim 30 recites similar limitations to claim 24.
Therefore, for the same reasons outlined above, claim 30 is indicated as having allowable subject matter. Claims 31-32 and 36 depend on claim 30 and are therefore also indicated as having allowable subject matter.
As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See the references cited on the attached PTO-892 that are not cited above, but are considered relevant to applicant’s disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NOAH J HANEY whose telephone number is (571)270-1282. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-6pm eastern time.
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, Michelle Iacoletti can be reached at (571) 270-5789. 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.
/NOAH J. HANEY/Examiner, Art Unit 2877
/MICHELLE M IACOLETTI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2877
Prosecution Insights