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 Amendment
The Amendment filed 12/22/2025 has been entered. Claims 1-2, 4-5, 7, 10-12, 14-17, 61-68 are pending in the present application. Claims 3, 6, 8 - 9, 13, and 18 - 19 are canceled. Claims 1, 12, and 14 - 15 are currently amended. Claims 61 - 68 are newly added. Claim 1 is amended to incorporate the subject matter from dependent claims 6, 9, and 13 as well as the limitation “a cassette disposed in an internal cavity of the sample probe,” which was not previously presented in the claims.
Status of Objections and Rejections
The objection to the claim 12 has been withdrawn in view of Applicant's amendment.
The rejection of claims 3, 6, 8 - 9, 13, and 18 - 19, are obviated by Applicant's cancellation.
The rejection of claims 1-5 under 35 USC 102 are withdrawn in view of Applicant's amendment.
The rejection of claims 7, 10-12, 14-17 under 35 U.S.C. 103 is maintained.
New grounds of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) are necessitated by the amendments.
New grounds of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 are necessitated by the amendments.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-2, 4-5, 7, 10-12, 14-17 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the combination of references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Shalon is no longer relied upon to teach the cassette and has been replaced with reference Grey due to the amendment of “a cassette disposed in an internal cavity of the sample probe,” which was not previously presented in the claims.
Claim Objections
Claims 4-5 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 4, ll. 3-4 recite “an analyte”. It is unclear whether this analyte is the same “at least one analyte” in independent claim 1 or a new analyte. Applicant may amend the claim to recite “the at least one analyte”.
Claim 5 is objected to based on dependency of all of the limitations of claim 4.
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 61, 63-68 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.
Regarding claim 61, ll. 7-8 recite “an analyte”. It is unclear whether this analyte is the same “at least one analyte” in independent claim 1 or a new analyte. Applicant may amend the claim to recite “the at least one analyte”.
Regarding claim 63, l. 13, recites “the water sample chamber”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Applicant may amend the claim by omitting “chamber” to read “the water sample”.
Claims 64-68 are rejected based on dependency of all of the limitations of claim 63.
Regarding claim 63, l. 13 recites “an analyte”. It is unclear whether this analyte is the same “at least one analyte” in l. 5 or a new analyte. Applicant may amend the claim to recite “the at least one analyte”.
Claims 64-68 are rejected based on dependency of all of the limitations of claim 63.
Regarding claim 64, l. 7 recites “the analyte”. It is unclear whether this analyte is the same “at least one analyte” in independent claim 63 or a new analyte. Applicant may amend the claim to recite “the at least one analyte”.
Claims 65-66 are rejected based on dependency of all of the limitations of claim 63.
Regarding claim 65, ll. 19, 22 recite “the analyte”. It is unclear whether this analyte is the same “at least one analyte” in independent claim 63 or a new analyte. Applicant may amend the claim to recite “the at least one analyte”.
Claims 66-68 are rejected based on dependency of all of the limitations of claim 63.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-2, 4-5, 7, 15, and 61 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Frey (US 20140165713 A1) in view of Grey et al. (US 5246862 A).
Regarding claim 1, Frey teaches a system (the field sampling device 100; [0055]; Fig. 1) for collecting and analyzing soil water samples (a measurement unit coupled to the sample collection unit and configured to analyze the soil pore water samples; [0012]) comprising:
a sample probe (a sample collection unit 102 [0055]) comprising a filter media (vents 110; [0058]; Fig. 1) arranged to contact the soil when embedded therein (“The walls of the collection chambers 108 include one or more holes, openings or vents 110 along the length and circumference of the sample collection unit 102,” wherein “the openings are configured such that water may flow into the collection chambers 108, while soil, rock and other solid material does not pass through”; [0058]; Fig 1), the sample probe configured for collecting a water sample from the soil (a sample collection unit configured to collect soil pore water samples at one or more depths in a soil environment; [0012]); and
a sample processing sub-system (measurement unit 104; [0055]; Fig. 1) located proximately to the sample probe (When co-located, the sample water collection unit 102 is connected to the measurement unit 104; [0055]), the processing system operably coupled to the sample probe and configured to extract and analyze the water sample for at least one analyte (“a measurement unit coupled to the sample collection unit and configured to analyze the soil pore water samples to determine the level of at least either one nutrient,” and also “aligns the mechanical components so that soil pore water samples can be extracted from the sample water collection unit 102”; [0012],[0055]).
Frey fails to teach:
a cassette disposed in an internal cavity of the sample probe; and
a tape for collecting the sample, the tape movably disposed in the cassette, the tape comprising an active testing portion that lies external to the cassette and inside the internal cavity of the sample probe, the active testing portion positioned for exposure to the soil through a window the sample probe.
Grey teaches a cassette (penetrometer 30; col. 3, l. 27; Fig. 1)(Under broadest reasonable interpretation, the Examiner understands that a cassette can be defined as at least of spool within a housing which is satisfied by Grey in teaching “The tape 14 is threaded through the tape guide 50 around a pulley (or smooth bearing surface) 52 mounted in the lower housing 44,” wherein the pulley is a spool; col. 3, ll. 32-35; Fig. 1) and
a tape (indicator tape 14; column 2, line 68; Fig. 1) for collecting a sample (“The tape 14 also includes one or more porous outer layers 20. The outer layer 20 has micropores 22 (e.g., 3-6 microns) which allows for the diffusion of contaminants 11 into the fabric 16 for reaction with the reagents 18,” and therefore collects a sample; column 3, lines 8-12),
the tape movably disposed in the cassette (The tape 14 is threaded through the tape guide 50 around a pulley (or smooth bearing surface) 52 mounted in the lower housing 44; col. 3, ll. 32-35; Fig. 1),
the tape comprising an active testing portion that lies external to the cassette, and an active testing portion of the tape positioned for exposure to the soil of a sample probe (“The tape 14 remains stationary with respect to the soil 12 and is deployed externally of the penetrometer 30 as it moves downwardly in the soil,” wherein the active testing portion is a liquid reagent, solid or semi-solid reagent that may or may not be encapsulated, or a permeable membrane covering at least one surface of the tape in contact with the soil sample during tape deployment; col. 3, ll. 42-45; col. 2, ll. 3-13; Figs. 1 and 4).
Grey is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of endeavor for in-situ soil water collection and analysis systems (Title). Frey teaches sampling lines 118 within collection chambers 108 that pull water samples flowing through openings 110 into sampling reservoirs 124 where they are tested electrochemically using ion-selective electrodes (ISEs) ([0056]-[0059]). Grey teaches a soil penetrometer equipped with indicator tape (14), carrying optically sensible reagents (18), that is advanced by rollers (52) to expose fresh regions of tape to the soil for water testing (col. 4, ll. 7-28; Fig. 1). The results are then determined using colorimetry (Grey, col. 6, lines 49-65). Both the penetrometer of Grey and the sampling probe taught by Frey must penetrate the soil to a desired depth before carrying out the analysis (Frey, [0056]-[0058]). Grey relies upon this friction with the soil to advance the indicator tape, but alternatively can advance it via pinch rollers (Grey, col. 1, ll. 55-57, claim 6). It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the in situ probe system taught by Frey by incorporating Grey’s penetrometer into Frey’s collection chambers because determining and measuring the concentration of chemical contaminants in soil “without removing the sample from the ground site” (Grey, col. 2, ll. 46-49) would improve the efficiency of the system and provide multiple detection modalities (analysis via ISE and colorimetry). This involves a combination of known elements providing predictable beneficial results since the openings in the collection tubes would still provide the test strips access to the soil (See MPEP 2143(I)(A)).
Regarding claim 2, Modified Frey teaches the system according to claim 1, wherein the sample processing sub-system includes a processor-based probe controller (microprocessor units 130; Frey, [0099]), the probe controller configured to direct operation of the sub-system (“microprocessor units 130…housed in the measurement unit 104…programmed to operate the unit in the manner shown in the flowchart illustrated in FIG. 7; Frey, [0099]; See microprocessor 130 within measurement unit of Fig. 1 ).
Regarding claim 4, Modified Frey teaches the system according to claim 2, wherein the sample processing sub-system includes a vacuum device (micropumps 119; Frey, See micropumps 119 within measurement unit of Fig. 1; Frey, [0060]) configured for generating a vacuum in the sample probe to extract a water sample from the soil (Micropumps are used to extract soil pore water from the sample collection lines; 704 in Fig. 7; Frey, [0113]), and
a water sample analysis device (“ion selective electrodes (ISEs),” which include “sensor tips”; Frey, [0118]; See ISE sample measurement 710 in Fig. 7) configured for measuring a concentration of an analyte in the water sample (the ability of the sensor to return the same measurement for a given concentration of an analyte; Frey [0118]).
Regarding claim 5, Modified Frey teaches the system according to claim 4, wherein the water sample analysis device is selected from the group consisting of a colorimeter, ion selective electrodes (ion selective electrodes (ISEs); Frey, [0118]), and ion exchange resins.
Regarding claim 7, Modified Frey teaches the system according to claim 1, wherein the tape (tape 14; Grey, column 2, line 1; Grey, Fig. 2) further comprises a test pad (“a woven or non-woven fabric layer 16 which carries a reagent 18; column 2, lines 1-2; Grey, Fig. 2) which collects the sample (diffusion of contaminants 11 into the fabric 16 for reaction with the reagents 18; Grey, column 2, lines 10-12; Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 15, Modified Frey teaches the system according to claim 1, further comprising a colorimeter (a sensing instrument 38 such as, for example, a spectrophotometer or a fluorometer; Grey, column 3, lines 23-25; Fig. 1) disposed to analyze the soil sample on the tape (Optical means is coupled to the optical port for optically sensing the reaction in the tape strip as the penetrometer moves relative to the soil sample; Grey, col. 1, ll. 59-62).
Regarding claim 61, Modified Frey teaches the system according to claim 1, wherein the tape further comprises a test pad which collects the sample (“a woven or non-woven fabric layer 16 which carries a reagent 18; column 2, lines 1-2; Grey, Fig. 2) which collects the sample (diffusion of contaminants 11 into the fabric 16 for reaction with the reagents 18; Grey, column 2, lines 10-12; Fig. 2), and wherein the sample processing sub-system further comprises:
a processor-based probe controller (microprocessor units 130; Frey, [0099]), the probe controller configured to direct operation of the sub-system (“microprocessor units 130…housed in the measurement unit 104…programmed to operate the unit in the manner shown in the flowchart illustrated in FIG. 7; Frey, [0099]; See microprocessor 130 within measurement unit of Fig. 1 );
a vacuum device configured for generating a vacuum in the sample probe to extract a water sample from the soil (“sampling pump is turned on and a low vacuum is pulled across all sampling chambers…sensors will be used to detect fluid fill levels in the collection chambers (108) to ensure positive flow into the sampling chamber,” wherein nearby soil moisture sensors actively monitor the sampling; Frey, [0103]); and
a water sample analysis device (ion selective electrodes (ISEs); Frey, [0118]; ISE sensors 126 in Fig. 1) configured for measuring a concentration of an analyte in the water sample (“The ISE sensors are configured to receive the soil pore water samples,” wherein “the ability of the sensor to return the same measurement for a given concentration of an analyte”; Frey, [0118]; [0015]).
Claims 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Frey (US 20140165713 A1) in view of Grey et al. (US 5246862 A, 1993), as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Shalon et al. (US 20180112430 A1).
Regarding claim 10, Modified Frey teaches the system according to claim 1.
Modified Frey fails to teach the cassette comprises a tape drive mechanism operable to dispense the tape.
Shalon teaches a cassette (cartridge 224; [0073]; Fig. 2) comprising a tape drive mechanism (motor 218; [0073]; Fig. 2) operable to dispense tape (“A motor 218 controls the movement of the spool 202 and/or spool 203,” wherein “The strip 216 is unwound from a bottom spool 203 onto a top pickup spool 202”; [0073]; Fig. 2).
The teachings of Shalon are pertinent to the particular problem of providing a mechanism to continuously provide a reagent test strip to an environment for testing water. Grey relies upon friction with the soil to advance the indicator tape but alternatively can advance it via pinch rollers (Grey, col. 1, ll. 55-57, claim 6). Shalon provides a motor that facilitates the movement of a test strip. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the in situ probe system taught by Frey in view of Grey by incorporating the motor taught by Shalon because automating the system by providing an additional force to advance the test strip would improve the efficiency. This involves a combination of known elements that would yield predictable beneficial results (See MPEP 2143(I)(A)).
Regarding claim 11, Modified Frey teaches the system according to claim 10, and a drive spindle (the tape 14 is threaded through the tape guide 50 around a pulley (or smooth bearing surface) 52; Grey, col 3, ll. 33-35; Fig. 1) operably coupled to the drive mechanism (“A motor 218 controls the movement of the spool 202 and/or spool 203,” wherein the spool would be the pulley or pinch rollers of Grey; Shalon, [0073]; Fig. 2).
Modified Frey fails to teach that the tape is wound around an idler spindle and the drive mechanism operable to feed a continuous length of the tape from the drive spindle to the idler spindle
Shalon teaches tape that is wound around an idler spindle (bottom spool 203; Shalon, [0073]; Fig. 2) and a drive mechanism (A motor 218 controls the movement of the spool 202 and/or spool 203; Shalon, [0073]; Fig. 2) operable to feed a continuous length of the tape (the continuous strip of packets; Shalon, [0076]) from a drive spindle (top pickup spool 202; [0073]; Fig. 2) to the idler spindle (pulling the strip 201 through the platen 207 as described above exposes one pad at a time. The pickup spool 202 in the disposable cartridge 224 is driven from its center by a shaft driven by a gear motor 218; [0076]; Shalon, Fig. 2).
The teachings of Shalon are pertinent to the particular problem of providing a mechanism to continuously provide a reagent test strip to an environment for testing water. Grey relies upon one drive spindle (pulley) to feed fresh test strip portions from the cartridge and into contact with the soil. Shalon uses two spindles, one for providing fresh test pads to the environment and one for collecting used test pads ([0075]). It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the in situ probe system taught by Frey in view of Grey and Shalon by further incorporating the idler spindle taught by Shalon because neatly winding used portions of the test strip into a roll would prevent interference with subsequent measurements and improve the efficiency of the system. This involves a combination of known elements that would yield predictable beneficial results (See MPEP 2143(I)(A)).
Regarding claim 12, Modified Frey teaches the system according to claim 10.
Modified Frey fails to teach the active testing portion of the tape is movably guided around a pair of guide spindles arranged inside the sampling probe when the drive mechanism is operated.
Shalon teaches an active testing portion of a tape (“colorimetric pads,” or “test areas”; Shalon, [0073]) is movably guided around a pair a guide spindles (The strip 216 is unwound from a bottom spool 203 onto a top pickup spool 202 in a manner that exposes the pads 201 and any other test areas; [0073]; Shalon, Fig. 2) arranged inside the sampling probe (buoyancy device 222; Shalon, [0073; Fig. 2) when the drive mechanism is operated (A motor 218 controls the movement of the spool 202 and/or spool 203; Shalon, [0073]; Fig. 2).
The teachings of Shalon are pertinent to the particular problem of providing a mechanism to continuously provide a reagent test strip to an environment for testing water. Grey relies upon one drive spindle (pulley) to feed fresh test strip portions from the cartridge and into contact with the soil. Shalon uses two spindles, one for providing fresh test pads to the environment and one for collecting used test pads ([0075]). It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the in situ probe system taught by Frey in view of Grey and Shalon by further incorporating a second idler spindle taught by Shalon because neatly winding fresh and used portions of the test strip into a roll would prevent interference with subsequent measurements and improve the efficiency of the system. This involves a combination of known elements that would yield predictable beneficial results (See MPEP 2143(I)(A)).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Frey (US 20140165713 A1) in view of Grey et al. (US 5246862 A), and in further view of Nenninger et al. (US 4372682 A).
Regarding claim 14, Modified Frey teaches the system according to claim 1.
Modified Frey fails to teach a piston configured to move the tape into a window in the sample probe.
Nenninger teaches a piston (a pressure piston 9; column 5, lines 62-63) configured to move the tape into a window (“the pressing mechanism is adapted to move into a pressing position in which it presses the test strip against the window,” wherein “the window in the reception opening has to be an open frame (e.g. to allow air to be in contact with the test piece)”; Abstract; col. 1, 63-65).
The teachings of Nenninger are pertinent to the particular problem of providing a mechanism to expose a reagent test strip to an environment for testing. Frey teaches collection chambers 108 with openings 110 that serve as sampling windows for soil pore water collection and analysis. Grey relies upon friction with the soil to advance an indicator tape and activate the reagent, but alternatively can advance it via pinch rollers (col. 1, ll. 55-57, claim 6; col. 2, ll. 5-7). Nenninger teaches “positioning and firmly holding a test strip for optical [[the]] measuring,” and that the “results depend in most cases heavily on the strength of the force by which the test zone is pressed against the window”; column 2, lines 14-15, 2-5). It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the in situ probe system taught by Frey in view of Grey by incorporating the piston taught by Nenninger into the cassette for accurate positioning of the reagent tape into the collection tube openings because applying more pressure to the tape allows better contact with the soil, ensuring proper reagent activation and improving the accuracy of the test results. This involves a combination of known elements that would yield predictable beneficial results (See MPEP 2143(I)(A)).
Claims 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Frey (US 20140165713 A1) in view of Grey et al. (US 5246862 A, 1993), as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Strook et al. (US 20120079876 A1).
Regarding claim 16, Modified Frey teaches the system according to claim 1, further comprising:
a water system (“irrigation system,” wherein “irrigation water 402 [is] delivered to the field”; [0049][0082]; Frey, Fig. 4), the water system configured to wet the soil surrounding the probe (a wetting event is defined as irrigation…that provides sufficient soil moisture to be retained for extraction; Frey, [0058]).
Modified Frey fails to teach a tank containing sampling water located proximate to the sample probe.
Modified Frey instead teaches “an external water source (such as the irrigation supply)” (Frey, [0059]).
Stroock teaches a tank containing sampling water (the reservoir 136 is configured to hold approximately 10 microliters of water; [0038]; Fig. 3) located proximate to a sample probe (The microtensiometer sensor 130 further includes an enclosed liquid reservoir 136; [0038]; See proximity of the reservoir to the sensor in Fig. 3).
Stroock is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of endeavor for in-situ soil sensors (Abstract). It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the sample collection unit taught by Frey in view of Grey by incorporating the teachings of Strook to include a tank proximate to the sample probe. The modification represents one of a finite number of predictable design options of tank locations to predictably solve the recognized problem of lack of “sufficient soil moisture to be retained for extraction” (Frey, [0058])(See MPEP 2143(I)(E)).
Regarding claim 17, Modified Frey teaches the system according to claim 16, wherein the water system comprises a dispensing tube (irrigation supply line; Frey, [0075]) fluidly coupled to the tank (The irrigation water supply can enter the manifold through the irrigation water supply intake 207 using sample line tubing connected to the irrigation supply line; Frey, [0075]; Fig. 2) the dispensing tube configured to dispense the sampling water in a vicinity of the soil adjacent to the filter media (the sampling lines 118 lead to the vents 110 of the collection unit 102, and therefore the irrigation supply line is functionally capable of dispensing the sampling water in a vicinity of the soil adjacent to the filter media; See Fig. 1 of Frey).
Claims 62-63, and 68 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Frey (US 20140165713 A1) in view of Koch et al. (US 20180124992 A1).
Regarding claim 62, Frey teaches a system (the field sampling device 100; [0055]; Fig. 1) for collecting and analyzing soil water samples (a measurement unit coupled to the sample collection unit and configured to analyze the soil pore water samples; [0012]) comprising:
a sample probe (a sample collection unit 102 [0055]) configured to contact the soil when embedded therein (“The walls of the collection chambers 108 include one or more holes, openings or vents 110 along the length and circumference of the sample collection unit 102,” wherein “the openings are configured such that water may flow into the collection chambers 108, while soil, rock and other solid material does not pass through”; [0058]; Fig 1), the sample probe configured to collect a water sample from the soil (a sample collection unit configured to collect soil pore water samples at one or more depths in a soil environment; [0012]); and
a sample processing sub-system (measurement unit 104; [0055]; Fig. 1) operably coupled to the sample probe and configured to extract and analyze the water sample for at least one analyte (“a measurement unit coupled to the sample collection unit and configured to analyze the soil pore water samples to determine the level of at least either one nutrient,” and also “aligns the mechanical components so that soil pore water samples can be extracted from the sample water collection unit 102”; [0012];[0055]), the sample processing sub-system comprising:
a chamber fluidly coupled to the sample probe (sampling reservoir 124; [0060]; Fig. 1);
a vacuum device (micropumps 119; [006]; Fig. 1) configured to generate a vacuum in the sample probe to extract a water sample from the soil and deposit the water sample in the chamber (“at least one of said sampling lines 118 extends into each of the collection chambers 108 to draw soil pore water samples from each of the collection chambers up through the manifold 116 via valves 122 and into a sampling reservoir 124; Frey, [0060]; Fig. 1).
Frey fails to teach the sample processing sub-system is configured to flow the water sample from the chamber through a remainder of the sample processing sub-system via gravity induced flow.
Koch teaches a sample processing sub-system (separator system 1200 and test strip apparatus 1300 or ISE sensors; See paragraphs [0149],[0152] and Fig. 23A) is configured to flow a sample from the chamber through a remainder of the sample processing sub-system (test strip apparatus 1300 or ISE sensors is the remainder; See [0152] and Fig. 23A) via gravity induced flow (“Liquid is expelled through mesh wall 1202 into collection chamber 1212 and then drains into collection container 121,” wherein “the test strip holder 1306 [is] to be placed in test sample 61”; [0145];[0149; Figs. 22, 23A)(In this embodiment, the collection container and the test container are the same container since the sample was separated first and then analyzed).
Koch is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of endeavor for automatic sampling and analysis of soil nutrients (Abstract). In order to achieve the claimed use of gravity induced flow (See paragraphs [0082]-[0083] and Fig. 1 of instant publication US 20220364998 A1) using Frey as the reference, the flow of the sample from the collection chamber(s) 108 to measurement unit 104 would have to be in a downward direction leading to the ISE sensor(s). Frey instead uses micropumps 119 coupled to the manifold 116 to pull extracted soil pore water from the distal end 120 of sampling line 118 up into the sampling reservoir 124 which is also coupled to the ISE sensors ([0060]). It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the layout of Frey’s system to disperse the sample from the collection chamber(s) to the ISE sensor(s) via gravity induced flow. The rearrangement of parts is an obvious matter of design choice and would not have modified the operation of the device. (See MPEP 2144.04(VI)(C)).
Regarding claim 63, Frey teaches a system (the field sampling device 100; [0055]; Fig. 1) for collecting and analyzing soil water samples (a measurement unit coupled to the sample collection unit and configured to analyze the soil pore water samples; [0012]) comprising:
a sample probe (a sample collection unit 102 [0055]) configured to contact the soil when embedded therein(“The walls of the collection chambers 108 include one or more holes, openings or vents 110 along the length and circumference of the sample collection unit 102,” wherein “the openings are configured such that water may flow into the collection chambers 108, while soil, rock and other solid material does not pass through”; [0058]; Fig 1), the sample probe configured to collect a water sample from the soil (a sample collection unit configured to collect soil pore water samples at one or more depths in a soil environment; [0012]); and
a sample processing sub-system (measurement unit 104; [0055]; Fig. 1) operably coupled to the sample probe and configured to extract and analyze the water sample for at least one analyte (“a measurement unit coupled to the sample collection unit and configured to analyze the soil pore water samples to determine the level of at least either one nutrient,” and also “aligns the mechanical components so that soil pore water samples can be extracted from the sample water collection unit 102”; [0012],[0055]), the sample processing sub-system comprising:
a collection chamber (sampling reservoir 124; [0060]; Fig. 1) fluidly coupled to the sample probe (See Fig. 1), the collection chamber configured to receive the water sample from the sample probe (draw soil pore water samples from each of the collection chambers up through the manifold 116 via valves 122 and into a sampling reservoir 124; [0060]; Fig. 1);
a vacuum device (sampling pump; [0103]) fluidly coupled to the collection chamber and configured to generate a vacuum in the sample probe to extract the water sample from the soil and deposit the water sample in the collection chamber (“sampling pump is turned on and a low vacuum is pulled across all sampling chambers…sensors will be used to detect fluid fill levels in the collection chambers (108) to ensure positive flow into the sampling chamber” wherein nearby soil moisture sensors actively monitor the sampling; [0103]); and
a water sample analysis device (ISE sensor(s); [0059] item 126 in Fig. 1) fluidly coupled to the collection chamber (See ISE sensor chamber 126 in sampling reservoir 124 in Fig. 1) configured to measure a concentration of an analyte in the water sample chamber (the ability of the sensor to return the same measurement for a given concentration of an analyte; [0118]), the water sample analysis device configured to receive the water sample from the collection chamber (Once samples have been drawn up into the sampling reservoir 124, detection of one or more nutrients in the samples using one or more ISE sensors housed in an ISE sensor chamber 126 may begin; [0060]).
Frey fails to teach the water sample analysis device (ISE sensor(s)) is configured to receive the water sample from the collection chamber via gravity induced flow (Emphasis added).
Koch teaches the water sample analysis device (test strip apparatus 1300 or ISE sensors; See paragraphs [0149],[0152] and Fig. 23A) configured to receive the water sample via gravity induced flow from the collection chamber (“Liquid is expelled through mesh wall 1202 into collection chamber 1212 and then drains into collection container 121,” and wherein “the test strip holder 1306 [is] to be placed in test sample 61”; [0145];[0149]; Figs. 22, 23A)(In this embodiment, the collection container and the test container are the same container since the sample was separated first and then analyzed).
Koch is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of endeavor for automatic sampling and analysis of soil nutrients (Abstract). In order to achieve the claimed use of gravity induced flow (See paragraphs [0082]-[0083] and Fig. 1 of instant publication US 20220364998 A1) using Frey as the reference, the flow of the sample from the sampling reservoir 124 would have to be in a downward direction leading to the ISE sensor(s). Frey instead uses micropumps 119 coupled to the manifold 116 to pull extracted soil pore water from the distal end 120 of sampling line 118 up into the sampling reservoir 124 which contains the ISE sensor(s) ([0060]; Fig. 1). It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the layout of Frey’s system to disperse the sample from the sampling reservoir 124 to the ISE sensor(s) via gravity induced flow. The rearrangement of parts is an obvious matter of design choice and would not have modified the operation of the device. (See MPEP 2144.04(VI)(C)).
Regarding claim 68, Modified Frey teaches the system according to claim 63 wherein the water sample analysis device is selected from the group consisting of a colorimeter, ion selective electrodes (“ion selective electrodes (ISEs); Frey; [0015]; Item 710 in Fig. 7), and ion exchange resins.
Claims 64 and 67 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Frey (US 20140165713 A1) in view of Koch et al. (US 20180124992 A1), as applied to claim 63 above, and in further view of Wilson et al. (US 4319884 A; 1982).
Regarding claim 64, Modified Frey teaches the system according to claim 63.
Modified Frey fails to teach the system further comprises:
a mixing chamber fluidly coupled to the collection chamber and the water sample analysis device; and
at least one reagent chamber containing a reagent, the at least one reagent chamber fluidly coupled to the mixing chamber;
wherein the mixing chamber is configured to receive the water sample from the collection chamber via gravity induced flow and mix the reagent with the analyte in the water sample.
Koch teaches:
a mixing chamber test container 60 can be a blender; [0126; Fig. 17); and
at least one reagent chamber containing a reagent (the extractant is contained in extractant container 701; [0127]; Fig. 17), the at least one reagent chamber fluidly coupled to the mixing chamber (the extractant flows through fluid conduit 702… to test container 60; [0127]; Fig. 17);
wherein the mixing chamber is configured to mix the reagent with the analyte in the water sample (“An extractant and the sample are added to test container 60 and mixed with a mixer,” wherein the sample contains an analyte; [0126]).
Koch is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of endeavor for automatic sampling and analysis of soil nutrients (Abstract). Frey uses ISE sensor(s)) as a water sample analysis device to “assess the total available nitrogen lost” within the soil ([0011]). Koch also uses an ISE sensor for nitrogen testing to provide information about the nutrients in soil ([0152];[0077]). It is well-known technique in the art to mix reagents with a test sample to block interference anions such as chlorides when using an ISE nitrate sensor. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the field sampling system taught by Frey by fluidly incorporating Koch’s mixing and reagent containers within the sample path flow between the sample collection container (collection chambers 108; Fig. 1) and the water sample analysis device (ISE sensor(s) 126; Fig. 1). Doing so would yield the predictable benefit of a more accurate assessment of the total available nitrogen lost in the soil with each element functioning the same as it would separately (See MPEP 2143(I)(A)).
Modified Frey fails to teach the mixing chamber is configured to receive the water sample from the collection chamber via gravity induced flow.
Wilson teaches a mixing chamber is configured to receive a water sample via gravity induced flow (“The timer then causes a third solenoid valve 6 to open automatically, thereby admitting a liquid sample through a line 5 and the diptube 7 to the mixing chamber 8,” wherein “The sample enters the mixing chamber 8 with sufficient force to provide very efficient mixing, by turbulence,” and is therefore induced by gravity as consistent with the vertical flow path from the inlet valve 6 and mixing chamber 8; col. 2, ll. 43-55; Fig. 1).
The teachings of Wilson are pertinent to the particular problem of efficient and automated mixing of a sample and reagent for analysis in a fluidic system. Modified Frey already teaches that “an extractant and the sample are added to test container 60 and mixed with a mixer” (Koch, [0126]). It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the probe system taught by Frey in view of Koch by incorporating the teachings of Wilson and configuring mixing chamber to receive a water sample via gravity induced flow. There are only a finite number of identified predictable potential solutions for the sample to reach the mixing chamber and it would have been obvious to try gravity flow from Frey’s sampling reservoir with a reasonable expectation of success (See MPEP 2143(I)(E)).
Regarding claim 67, Modified Frey teaches the system according to claim 64 wherein the mixing chamber comprises an electrically driven mixing blade assembly configured to mix the water sample with the reagent to induce a chemical reaction (An extractant and the sample are added to test container 60 and mixed with a mixer. The mixer is in communication with CPU 2820 to receive signals to mix…the test container 60 can be a blender,” wherein a blender is electrically driven with a mixing blade; Koch; [0126]).
Claims 65-66 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Frey (US 20140165713 A1) in view of Koch et al. (US 20180124992 A1) and Wilson et al. (US 4319884 A; 1982), as applied to claim 64 above, and in further view of Zakinov (US 20180328844 A1).
Regarding claim 65, Modified Frey teaches the system according to claim 64 wherein the sample processing subsystem further comprises:
a vacuum device valve (Sampling line valves 122; [0060]; Frey; Fig. 1) between the vacuum device and the collection chamber (the sampling line valves are opened; and the sampling pump is turned on and a low vacuum is pulled across all sampling chambers; [0103]; Frey, See Fig. 1)
at least one reagent valve between the mixing chamber and the at least one reagent chamber (See valve 705 between extractant container 701 and test container 60 in Fig. 17 of Koch);
a processor-based probe controller (microprocessor units 130; See Fig. 1 of Frey), the probe controller configured to operably control sample processing subsystem (The field sampling device 100 is controlled and operated by one or more microprocessor units 130 which is preferably, but not necessarily, housed in the measurement unit 104; Frey, [0099]) to perform the following sequence:
open the vacuum device valve (sampling line valves are opened; See valves 122 in Fig. 1 of Frey; [0103]) to flow the water sample from the sample probe to the collection chamber (This open distal end 120 of at least one of said sampling lines 118 extends into each of the collection chambers 108 to draw soil pore water samples from each of the collection chambers up through the manifold 116 via valves 122 and into a sampling reservoir 124; Frey, [0060]; Fig. 1)(Valve controls are managed by the measurement unit microprocessor; Frey, [0064]);
open the mixing chamber inlet valve (valve 6; Wilson; col. 2; l. 43) and close the vacuum device valve (sampling line valves are all closed; Frey, [0104])(Valve controls are managed by the measurement unit microprocessor; Frey, [0064]) to flow the water sample from the collection chamber to the mixing chamber via gravity induced flow (“The timer then causes a third solenoid valve 6 to open automatically, thereby admitting a liquid sample through a line 5 and the diptube 7 to the mixing chamber 8,” wherein “The sample enters the mixing chamber 8 with sufficient force to provide very efficient mixing, by turbulence,” and is therefore induced by gravity as consistent with the vertical flow path from the inlet valve 6 and mixing chamber 8; Wilson, col. 2; ll. 43-55; Fig. 1);
open the at least one reagent chamber to allow the water sample to mix with reagent from the at least one reagent chamber via gravity induced flow (Paragraph [0127] of Koch states that a CPU opens and closes the valve 705 between the reagent chamber and the mixing chamber to mix a known amount of reagent with a known amount of sample and Fig. 17 shows a vertical fluid conduit 702 which would induce gravity flow; Koch, See Fig. 17);
close the at least one reagent valve (Paragraph [0127] Koch states that a CPU opens and closes the valve 705) and mix the water sample and the reagent in the mixing chamber with the analyte in the water sample (“An extractant and the sample are added to test container 60 and mixed with a mixer. The mixer is in communication with CPU 2820 to receive signals to mix,” wherein there is naturally an analyte (nutrient) in the soil water sample; Koch, [0126]);
Modified Frey fails to teach:
a mixing chamber inlet valve between the collection chamber and the mixing chamber;
a mixing chamber outlet valve between the mixing chamber and the water sample analysis device;
a drain line fluidly coupled to the water sample analysis device;
The controller configured to:
close the mixing chamber inlet valve;
open the mixing chamber outlet valve to flow the water sample through the water sample analysis device to allow the water sample analysis device to measure the concentration of the analyte in the water sample;
flow the water sample from the water sample analysis device to drain line via gravity induced flow.
Wilson teaches:
a mixing chamber inlet valve between the sample inlet and the mixing chamber (See valve 6 between sample inlet and mixing chamber 8 in Fig. 1);
a mixing chamber outlet valve (See valve 12 downstream of the mixing chamber 8 in Fig. 1)
The controller (The entire sequence of operations is automatically controlled by the electronic timer; col. 3, ll. 20-21) configured to:
close the mixing chamber inlet valve (When the required amount of sample has discharged into the mixing chamber 8, the timer automatically causes the valve 6 to close; col. 1; ll. 43-55; Fig. 1).
open the mixing chamber outlet valve (The solenoid valves…12 are electronically actuated to open; col. 1, ll. 12-13; Fig. 1).
The teachings of Wilson are pertinent to the particular problem of efficient and automated mixing of a sample and reagent for analysis in a fluidic system. Modified Frey aims to “create the test sample with a known amount of sample per extractant to then provide a concentration of extracted chemical in the extractant” (Koch, [0127]) and controls the reagent quantity using a valve. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the probe system taught by Frey in view of Koch by incorporating the teachings of Wilson and adding inlet and outlet valves onto Koch’s mixing device and further programming Frey’s microprocessor to open and close them. Doing so would create a more accurate sample analysis method by automating a specific amount of reagent and sample to be deposited into the mixing chamber and preventing the mixture from exiting the chamber before completely mixing. (See MPEP 2143(I)(A) and MPEP 2144.04(III)).
Modified Frey fails to teach:
a drain line fluidly coupled to the water sample analysis device;
The controller configured to:
flow the water sample from the water sample analysis device to drain line via gravity induced flow.
Zakinov teaches a drain line (drain pipe 124; [0055]; Fig. 1) fluidly coupled to a water sample analysis device and a controller (controller assembly 126; [0055]; Fig. 1)
configured to:
flow a water sample from the water sample analysis device to drain line via gravity induced flow. (CTC measurement module 110 is also configured to output liquid contained therewithin, such as analyzed samples of liquid…via a drain pipe 124; [0054]; Fig. 1)(See the vertical flow path of CTC measurement module 110 through drain pipe 124 Fig. 1 which would thereby induce liquid flow via gravity);
The teachings of Zakinov are pertinent to the particular problem of efficient and automated analysis of a liquid sample using reagent injection in a fluidic system. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the field sampling system taught by Frey in view of Koch and Wilson by connecting Zakinov’s automated drain line to Frey’s ISE sensor chamber. Doing so would enable a continuous process of sample analysis without cross-contamination between each sample collection. Modified Frey teaches that the “test sample 61 can be drained to the ground” after analysis with the water sample analysis device (Test strip apparatus 1300) (Koch, [0153]) and that the ISE sensors are maintained by delivering fluids for cleaning and calibration (Frey, [0024]). A person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that drain lines from analysis devices are well-known in the art and adding this feature to an existing device would yield the predictable result of a more streamlined process (See MPEP 2143(I)(A)).
Regarding claim 66, Modified Frey teaches the system according to claim 65 wherein the processor-based probe controller (The field sampling device 100 is controlled and operated by one or more microprocessor units 130 which is preferably, but not necessarily, housed in the measurement unit 104; [0099]) is configured to communicate with a remote electronic device defining a central controller (Paragraph [0110] of Frey explains that the microprocessor unit (130) sends data to the remote servers via communication unit (734) as illustrated in Fig. 7)(Control of the operation of the measurement unit, including all mechanical and electrical systems, is performed by a microprocessor control board 209 where resident software is used to deliver the control logic for operation of the overall system; Frey, [0077]).
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 VALERIE SIMMONS whose telephone number is (703)756-1361. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-4:00.
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.
/V.S./Examiner, Art Unit 1758
/REBECCA M FRITCHMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1758
Prosecution Insights