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 .
Detailed Action
Summary
This is the Non-Final Office action based on the 17/617102 RCE filed 03/11/2026.
Claims 1-28 are pending.
Claims 17-28 have been elected and have been fully considered.
Claims 1-16 are withdrawn.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 03/11/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/11/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The prior 112 rejections were overcome due to amendments dated 03/11/2026.
The examiner has reviewed the Declaration of Dr. Ofer Dahan submitted 03/11/2026. Due to the Declaration, and after further review of the prior art, the examiner was almost convinced with respect to the potential allowability of the instant claims, however a new reference, WEINDORF was found upon further search.
The examiner would like applicant’s (or representatives) opinion/arguments about the WEINDORF reference to appear on record, as this is considered a close piece of prior art after the examiner’s review.
With respect to the PALASSIS and CARSTEA references, the examiner appreciates applicant’s arguments, and again almost finds them convincing, however the WEINDORF refence was found which uses and absorbance measurement system side by side with a fluorescence measurement system as claimed. Applicant argues specifically, in both the response to arguments and the Declaration that “no one before the instant invention has even considered modifying PALASSIS absorbance based technique by combining it with an excitation-emission fluorescence based technique such as the one used by CARSTEA. Again, WENDORF seems to teach of this, but would like to see applicant’s thoughts on this, and specifically with respect to what is being claimed. Applicant need not repeat the arguments about PALASSIS and CARSTEA, nor supply another Declaration- unless they want to. Arguments with respect to WEINDORF would be appreciated.
With Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the combination of references, specifically with the WEINDORF reference, applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
The examiner further notes that there are many pending claims still listed as “withdrawn,” in the instant application. All of these claims are drawn towards a device/system, which is a different statutory category of invention than the claims which have been examined. Further- the withdrawn claims contain many parts which are not required for the instant method (including a flow cells, multiple “illuminators,” and an analysis unit- which is not claimed as configured to or programmed to in any way. These withdrawn claims contain many issues such as facing 112f interpretation and claimed methodical limitations such as, but limited to what is currently claimed as being done by the analysis unit, which would be burdensome for the examiner to address along with the method claims which were examined. Therefore, they would not be rejoined with the method claims, and examination would be stalled a bit if the examiner would need to call applicant’s representative to cancel the withdrawn system claims if the examiner can move forward with the method claims upon response.
All claims remain rejected.
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.
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 17 & 22-28 are rejected under U.S.C. 103 as being obvious by WEINDORF in US 20170122889 in view of PALASSIS in US 20170299511 and further in view of CARSTEA in Continuous fluorescence excitation-emission matrix monitoring of river organic matter.
With respect to Claim 17, WEINDORF teaches of a method of determining one or more properties of a soil sample by scanning a soil sample using a visible near infrared diffuse reflectance diffuse reflectance (VisNIR) spectroradiometer, scanning the soil sample using a x-ray fluorescence (PXRF) spectrometer, receiving a diffuse reflectance spectra from the VisNIR spectroradiometer and an elemental data from the PXRF spectrometer, determining one or more properties of the soil sample using one or more processors and a predictive model that relates the diffuse reflectance spectra and the elemental data to the one or more properties, and providing the one or more properties of the soil sample to one or more input/output interface (abstract).
Specifically, WEINDORF teaches of taking/acquiring the soil samples from water and that the soil samples always include some level of water/moisture (paragraph 0121). WEINDORF further teaches that agricultural field samples are taken (paragraph 0097). They further teach that the soil sample with water in them can be anywhere from 0-5 cm from top of surface, so the non-zero samples read on the claimed sampling “below the surface,” through broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) (paragraph 0064, 0094, 0121, 0126).
WEINDORF further teaches that total carbon (TC) and total nitrogen (TN) content are evaluated using PXRF (portable x-ray fluorescence) and VisNIR (visible near infrared diffuse reflectance spectroscopy) (paragraph 0121-0122, 0006).
WENDORF acknowledges that soil organic carbon (can be considered a measurement of DOC as claimed) can also be performed or linked to these measurements (paragraph 0010, 0011, 0118), and that nitrate measurements are also considered (paragraph 0009).
WEINDORF method teaches of using the VisNIR (which illuminates the sample) in a wavelength range of 350 to 2500 nm, and more specifically of take many readings with the sampling interval being every 2nm (paragraph 0070). The scans at the many different multiple wavelengths give a measure of the level of absorbance (paragraph 0016, 0036, Figure 13 A-13C, 0045, 0112).
WEINDORF even further teaches of using the PXRF (portable x-ray fluorescence), which requires illumination at one wavelength, then emission at another wavelength to work (which is claimed), though doesn’t call this part out in the reference.
WEINDORF teaches of subtraction of spectrums from one other (paragraph 0073, 0072), but does not teach of the specific claimed variable subtractions.
WEINDORF further teaches that the combination of the two methods allows for comprehensive assessment of both organic and inorganic soil contaminants (paragraph 0124), but again doesn’t teach specifically of determination of nitrate content exactly by the claimed specific steps.
PALASSIS and CARSTEA are used to remedy these things.
PALASSIS teaches of a method of detecting nitrate by using an optical sensor system and a method for determining concentration level of nitrate dissolved in a water sample, based upon a first UV optical absorbance of light centered at 229nm and also using information about dissolve organic matter (DOM) sensed in water based upon second UV optical absorbance of light centered in a range of 250nm to 275 nm and then determining a corrected concentration level of nitrate dissolved in water by compensating the concentration of nitrate for the DOM sensed in the water sample based upon a detected signal (abstract).
PALASSIS teaches that dissolved organic matter (DOM) can optically interfere with a nitrate measurement, when the interference is due to the absorbance of the incident UV light that provides the energy transfer that produces the fluorescence (paragraph 0012).
Specifically, PALASSIS teaches of providing a sample of water into a sample chamber of a system (paragraph 0090), then
Illuminating the sample at a first wavelength and a second wavelength with a UV LED first centered at 229 nm (paragraph 0008) and then at 250- 275 nm (paragraph 0012), and further that the DOM absorbance background absorbance measured at 250-275 nm can then be subtracted from the nitrate measurement at 229 nm to provide a background corrected result for nitrate measurement and concentration (paragraph 0012). These optical absorbance measurements of light intensity attenuation, relative to a reference measurement over a fixed distance (paragraph 0007) are absorption measurements as claimed.
PALASSIS further teaches of subtracting the background measurement due to DOM (DOC) from the nitrate measurement to provide a corrected result (paragraph 0012, 0014, 0031, 0035).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant invention to detect nitrate specifically as is done in PALASSIS in the method of WEINDORF due to the advantage that nitrate detection has for prevention of problems due to runoff from land into water supplies which cause death of animal life and dense growth of plant life (PALASSIS, paragraph 0004). Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant invention to subtract measures of organic content and nitrate from each other to determine nitrate content as is done in PALASSIS in the method of WEINDORF due to the advantage this has in compensating for leaves and other organic matter dissolved in the water and soil that can optically interfere with nitrate measurement (PALASSIS, paragraphs 0031-0032).
PALASSIS teaches that the interference due to absorbance of the incident UV light produces fluorescence, but does not teach specifically of detecting a signal or measuring DOC being proportional to intensity of fluorescence/measurement of fluorescence intensity emission signal nor does it teach of detecting dissolved organic carbon instead of the dissolved organic matter of PALASSIS. Since PALASSIS and WEINDORF do not teach of the specific fluorescence illumination and emission as claimed, CARSTEA is used to remedy this.
CARSTEA teaches of a method of measuring and monitoring river (water) organic matter using continuous fluorescence excitation-emission, and specifically of analyzing the fluorescence for dissolved organic carbon (title and abstract). CARSTEA teaches that the samples taken are measured for absorbance and dissolved organic carbon (Page 5361 column 1, paragraph 2).
CARSTEA further teaches of subjecting the samples to fluorescence excitation-emission matrices (illumination/emission) (3.2 & Figure 3) and subjecting the sample to this and recording EEMs by using a spectroflurometer (2.2). CARSTEA teaches that the excitation wavelength is in a range of 225-400nm and the emission wavelength is in the range of 280-500nm (Page 5358, column 1, lines 1-4). CARSTEA further teaches that the intensity of fluorescence between real-time and control samples is monitored (abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to detect dissolved organic carbon by fluorescence intensity emission as is done in CARSTEA in the methods of WEINDORF and PALASSIS due to the problems with prior methods of analyzing and measuring dissolved organic matter and carbon in water samples and due to the advantages of the continuous fluorescence measurement system of CARSTEA in that it offers robust pattern recognition (Page 5357, column 1, whole paragraph 2).
With respect to Claim 22, WEINDORF teaches of the invention as shown above and further teaches of measuring absorbance at multiple wavelengths (paragraph 0016, 0036, Figure 13 A-13C, 0045, 0112). PALASSIS also teaches that the method can use more than the two correction wavelengths specifically called out (paragraph 0021, 0015). PALASSIS does not teach of identifying a specific type of DOC (DOM). CARSTEA teaches that the excitation wavelength is in a range of 225-400nm and of measuring emission wavelengths in the range of 280-500nm (Page 5358, column 1, lines 1-4), and further teach of identifying the specific products and of identifying each component (Page 5360, column 2, paragraph 2, Page 5356, column 1, paragraph 1).
With respect to Claim 23, WEINDORF teaches of the invention as shown above. PALASSIS teaches of the invention as shown above for Claim 1 and further teaches of making calculations from the measurements of absorbances for the DOM And nitrate using logorithms and polynomial coefficients and corrections (paragraph 0009, 0014, 0035, 0082, 0083). PALASSIS further teaches that the interference due to absorbance of the incident UV light produces fluorescence, but does not teach specifically of detecting a signal or measuring DOC being proportional to intensity of fluorescence/measurement of fluorescence intensity emission signal nor does it teach of detecting dissolved organic carbon instead of the dissolved organic matter of PALASSIS.
WEINDORF and PALASSIS do not call out the claimed formula/model.
CARSTEA teaches of analyzing the signals using mathematical modeling (Page 5365, column 1, last paragraph) using self-organizing maps, which are supervised neural networks (machine learning) which allows for the SOM algorithm to explore the input fluorescence data and find and extract fluorescence data features (Page 5357, column 1, paragraphs 2-3, Column 2, paragraphs 1-2). CARSTEA still does not teach of the exact same model claimed. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use machine learning/SOM to develop a model as is done in CARSTEA in the methods of WENDORF and PALASSIS due to the advantage SOM/modeling has for robust pattern recognition (Page 5357, column 1, paragraph 2, lines 3 & 4 from bottom).
With respect to Claim 24, WEINDORF method teaches of using the VisNIR (which illuminates the sample) in a wavelength range of 350 to 2500 nm, and more specifically of take many readings with the sampling interval being every 2nm (paragraph 0070). So, WEINDORF does not teach that the first bands are the ones selected as claimed. PALASSIS teaches that the first wavelength is 229, which falls into the claimed range/band of 220-250 nm (abstract). It would have been obvious to use the band as is done in PALASSIS in the method of WEINDORF, due to the advantage this has in showing nitrate content (PALASSIS, abstract).
With respect to Claim 25, WEINDORF method teaches of using the VisNIR (which illuminates the sample) in a wavelength range of 350 to 2500 nm, and more specifically of take many readings with the sampling interval being every 2nm (paragraph 0070). So, WEINDORF does not teach that the second bands are the ones selected as claimed. PALASSIS teaches that the second wavelength is selected from a band of 250nm -275 nm, which falls into the claimed range/band of 225-400 nm (abstract, paragraph 0008). It would have been obvious to use the band as is done in PALASSIS in the method of WEINDORF, due to the advantage this has in showing nitrate content (PALASSIS, abstract).
With respect to Claim 26, WEINDORF method teaches of using the VisNIR (which illuminates the sample) in a wavelength range of 350 to 2500 nm, and more specifically of take many readings with the sampling interval being every 2nm (paragraph 0070). So, WEINDORF does not teach that the third bands are the ones selected as claimed.
PALASSIS teaches of the claimed invention as shown above for Claim 17. WEINDORF and PALASSIS do not teach of the third fluorescent emission wavelength band exactly as claimed.
CARSTEA is used to remedy this and teaches that the excitation wavelength is in a range of 225-400nm and the emission wavelength is in the range of 280-500nm (Page 5358, column 1, lines 1-4), which falls into the claimed range.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of applicant’s invention to detect fluorescence intensity emission as is done in CARSTEA in the methods of WEINDORF and PALASSIS due to the problems with prior methods of analyzing and measuring dissolved organic matter and carbon in water samples and due to the advantages of the continuous fluorescence measurement system of CARSTEA in that it offers robust pattern recognition (Page 5357, column 1, whole paragraph 2).
With respect to Claim 27, WEINDORF teaches of taking a natural soil and water sample from agricultural fields, which can be considered a water reservoir (paragraph 0097, 0061). PALASSIS also teaches of taking a natural water sample which has soil in it (paragraph 0012, 0031).
With respect to Claim 28, WEINDORF teaches of using machine computing devices (paragraph 0155). They do not call out the claimed machine learning. PALASSIS (and CARSTEA) teaches of the claimed invention and making the claimed multiple measurements as shown above for Claim 17. WEINDORF and PALASSIS does not teach of the use of machine learning as claimed.
CARSTEA is used to remedy this. CARSTEA teaches of performing continuous fluorescence measurements and generating a plurality of measurements, then performing peak picking on the measurements and using self-organizing maps (SOM’s) (can be a deep learning network) which are supervised neural networks (machine learning) which allows for the SOM algorithm to explore the input fluorescence data and find and extract/choose/select fluorescence data features and an algorithm (Page 5357, column 1, paragraphs 2-3, Column 2, paragraphs 1-2). CARSTEA further teaches of training the SOM (Page 5358, column 1, paragraph 2 & Column 2). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the machine learning/SOM as is done in CARSTEA in the method of PALASSIS due to the advantage SOM has for robust pattern recognition (Page 5357, column 1, paragraph 2, lines 3 & 4 from bottom).
Claims 18-21 are rejected under U.S.C. 103 as being obvious by WEINDORF in US 20170122889 in view of PALASSIS in US 20170299511 in view of CARSTEA in Continuous fluorescence excitation-emission matrix monitoring of river organic matter and further in view of KOLODNY in US 20110284475.
With respect to Claim 18, WEINDORF teaches of the invention as shown above. PALASSIS teaches of comparison to the optical absorbance measurements to reference measurements (paragraph 0007-0014) for both DOM and nitrate (paragraph 0029, 0035). CARSTEA teaches of the invention as shown above. Utilizing reference values for a simple comparison is the same as using a look- up table, however since the words look-up table are not used by WENSDORF, PALASSIS or CARSTEA, KOLODNY is used to remedy this.
KOLODNY teaches of a method for detection and treatment of a contaminated water sample (abstract). KOLODNY further teaches of detecting total organic content, including carbon and carbonate species in the water and also nitrate (paragraph 0036). KOLODY further teaches of using look-up tables for comparisons of the values (paragraph 0037-0038, 0044, 0015, Table 1). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a look-up table for comparisons and calculations as is done in KOLODNY in the methods of WEINDORF, PALASSIS and CARSTEA due to the advantage look-up tables have for establishing relationships between the chemical and or electro chemical properties and the acoustic wave parameters (KOLODY, Table 1 heading).
With respect to Claim 19, WEINDORF teaches the method as shown above. PALASSIS teaches of comparison to the optical absorbance measurements to reference measurements (paragraph 0007-0014) for both DOM and nitrate (paragraph 0029, 0035). CARSTEA teaches of the invention as shown above. Utilizing reference values for a simple comparison is the same as using a look- up table, however since the words look-up table are not used by WEINDORF, PALASSIS or CARSTEA, KOLODNY is used to remedy this.
KOLODNY teaches of a method for detection and treatment of a contaminated water sample (abstract). KOLODNY further teaches of detecting total organic content, including carbon and carbonate species in the water and also nitrate (paragraph 0036). KOLODY further teaches of using look-up tables for comparisons of the values (paragraph 0037-0038, 0044, 0015, Table 1). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a look-up table for comparisons and calculations as is done in KOLODNY in the methods of WEINDORF, PALASSIS and CARSTEA due to the advantage look-up tables have for establishing relationships between the chemical and or electro chemical properties and the acoustic wave parameters (KOLODY, Table 1 heading).
With respect to Claim 20, WEINDORF teaches the method as shown above. PALASSIS teaches of comparison to the optical absorbance measurements to reference measurements (paragraph 0007-0014) for both DOM and nitrate (paragraph 0029, 0035). CARSTEA teaches of the invention as shown above. Utilizing reference values for a simple comparison is the same as using a look- up table, however since the words look-up table are not used by WEINDORF, PALASSIS or CARSTEA, KOLODNY is used to remedy this.
KOLODNY teaches of a method for detection and treatment of a contaminated water sample (abstract). KOLODNY further teaches of detecting total organic content, including carbon and carbonate species in the water and also nitrate (paragraph 0036). KOLODY further teaches of using look-up tables for comparisons of the values (paragraph 0037-0038, 0044, 0015, Table 1). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a look-up table for comparisons and calculations as is done in KOLODNY in the methods of WENDORF, PALASSIS and CARSTEA due to the advantage look-up tables have for establishing relationships between the chemical and or electro chemical properties and the acoustic wave parameters (KOLODY, Table 1 heading).
With respect to Claim 21, WEINDORF teaches the method above. PALASSIS teaches of determining the concentration of nitrate by a mathematical algorithm based on the measured absorbances (paragraph 0035).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
CAUSSE in Direct DOC and nitrate determination in water using dual pathlength and second derivative UV spectroscopy.
CAUSSE teaches the measurement/ estimation of specific and aggregate parameters such as nitrate and dissolved organic carbon (DOC) by UV spectra exploitation, with 2 to multi wavelengths calibration. However, if nitrate determination from UV absorbance is known, major optical interferences linked to the presence of suspended solids, colloids or dissolved organic matter limit the relevance of UV measurement for DOC assessment. A new method based on UV spectrophotometric measurement of raw samples (without filtration) coupling a dual pathlength for spectra acquisition and the second derivative exploitation of the signal is proposed in this work. The determination of nitrate concentration is carried out from the second derivative of the absorbance at 226 nm corresponding at the inflexion point of nitrate signal decrease. A short optical pathlength can be used considering the strong absorption of nitrate ion around 210 nm. For DOC concentration determination the second derivative absorbance at 295 nm is proposed after nitrate correction. Organic matter absorbing slightly in the 270e330 nm window, a long optical pathlength must be selected in order to increase the sensitivity. The method was tested on several hundred of samples from small rivers of two agricultural watersheds located in Brittany, France, taken during dry and wet periods. The comparison between the proposed method and the standardised procedures for nitrate and DOC measurement gave a good adjustment for both parameters for ranges of 2e100 mg/L NO3 and 1 e30 mg/L DOC (abstract).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to REBECCA M FRITCHMAN whose telephone number is (303)297-4344. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30-4:30 MT Monday-Friday.
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, Maris Kessel can be reached on 571-270-7698. 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.
/REBECCA M FRITCHMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1758
Prosecution Insights