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
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2-19-2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant discusses Tang and the disclosure that Tang demonstrates that the type of flow (i.e. droplet or slug) can be dictated by the flow rate. The applicant then goes on to state, “Tang is completely silent with respect to the factors that are considered in adjusting a flow rate to ensure phase entrainment to appear as one or more droplets in a squeezing and non- turbulent form within the liquid as the liquid flows within the transparent container and from the one end to the other end of the transparent container, as claimed. More specifically, nowhere does Tang teach or suggest that a flow rate of the liquid is adjusted based on dynamic viscosity of the liquid, interfacial tensions, density of the liquid, capillary number, Reynolds number, and a shape of the transparent container to ensure phase entrainment to appear as one or more droplets in a squeezing and non- turbulent form within the liquid as the liquid flows within the transparent container and from the one end to the another end of the transparent container, as claimed.” However, the examiner first notes that the claims are apparatus claims and thus any functions recited the apparatus merely needs to be capable of performing. A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
Further, as the claim is limited, the required function is adjusting the flow rate to produce phase entrainment to appear as one or more droplets in a squeezing and non-turbulent form within the liquid as it flows which as the applicant has discussed Tang shows. As the examiner states in the rejection, dynamic viscosity of the liquid, interfacial tensions, density of the liquid, capillary number, Reynolds number, and a shape of the transparent container are physical factors that would inherently be involved in the process of creating the desired phase entrainment. Still further, the applicant’s invention as they arguing is basing their adjustment of the flow rate of the liquid on these inherent physical parameters which is purely functional and automatically done if one is trying to come up with droplet flow as being described.
Thus, these arguments are not sufficient to overcome the rejection and the rejection will be maintained.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5, 6, 8-10, & 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arifin et al (PGPub 2017/0370896) (Arifin) in view of Tang et al (Jing Tang, Xubin Zhang, Wangfeng Cai, Fumin Wang, Liquid–liquid extraction based on droplet flow in a vertical microchannel, Experimental Thermal and Fluid Science, Volume 49, 2013, Pages 185-192, ISSN 0894-1777, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.expthermflusci.2013.04.017.) (Tang)
Regarding Claim 1, Arifin discloses a phase reaction measurement system (Figs. 1 & 2), comprising:
a light source configured to emit light (106a-d);
a transparent container (102, 104) configured to flow liquid from one end of the transparent container to another end of the transparent container (Paragraphs 23 & 25),
wherein the liquid comprises a first component and a second component (Paragraph 23), and
wherein phase entrainment appears as one or more droplets (124, fig. 2, Paragraph 51) within the liquid based on a shape of the transparent container as the liquid flows containing the second component are formed within the transparent container as the liquid flows and from the one end to the another end of the transparent container (Inherently the shape of the container will affect the droplet appearance in the phase entrainment);
a detector (116) configured to measure light intensities from the transparent container being illuminated by the light source (Paragraph 51),
wherein the one or more droplets cast one or more shadows on the detector (Paragraph 51), and
wherein a light intensity associated with a portion of the liquid that includes the one or more droplets is different from a second light intensity associated with another portion of the liquid that does not include the one or more droplets (Paragraph 51). The droplets and other such objects affect the transmission of the light thus this is met; and
a processor coupled to the detector and configured to process the measured light intensities to determine phase entrainment metrics associated with the liquid (Paragraph 30). The phase fractions is a phase entrainment measurement;
Arifin fails to explicitly disclose wherein a flow rate of the liquid is adjusted based on dynamic viscosity of the liquid, interfacial tensions, density of the liquid, capillary number, Reynolds number, and a shape of the transparent container to ensure phase entrainment to appear as one or more droplets in a squeezing and non-turbulent form within the liquid as the liquid flows within the transparent container from one to another end of the transparent container;
However, Tang teaches adjusting the flow rate to create a phase entrainment as one or more droplets in a squeezing and non-turbulent form (Section 3.1 Flow patterns, Figs. 3-5);
Further, dynamic viscosity of the liquid, interfacial tensions, density of the liquid, capillary number, Reynolds number, and a shape of the transparent container are physical factors that would inherently be involved in the process of creating the desired phase entrainment;
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time the invention was filed to modify Arifin with wherein a flow rate of the liquid is adjusted based on dynamic viscosity of the liquid, interfacial tensions, density of the liquid, capillary number, Reynolds number, and a shape of the transparent container to ensure phase entrainment to appear as of one or more droplets in a squeezing and non-turbulent form within the liquid as the liquid flows within the transparent container from one to another end of the transparent container because such a flow would make monitoring the phase entrainment metrics easier by constraining the droplets to a smaller area and in a more regular arrangement.
Regarding Claim 2, Arifin discloses the aforementioned. Further, Arifin discloses wherein the phase entrainment metrics include one or more of number of phase entrainments, bulk phase presence, and concentration associated with the first component and the second component (Paragraph 2). The phase fraction is a concentration of each of the different components in the system.
Regarding Claim 3, Arifin discloses the aforementioned. Further, Arifin discloses wherein the processor is configured to determine the number of phase entrainments based on a number of light intensities that form a peak in comparison to a remainder of the light intensities (Paragraphs 2, 30, & 36, Fig. 5).
Regarding Claim 5, Arifin discloses the aforementioned. Further, Arifin discloses wherein the processor is configured to compare the measured light intensities to a generated model to identify a match between the measured light intensities and a light intensity of the generated model, wherein the matched light intensity is associated with a refractive index that corresponds to a particular concentration associated with the first component and the second component (Paragraphs 51 & 52). The light fluctuation over time due to the phase composition of the multiphase fluid is in part due to a change of refractive index between the different phases.
Regarding Claim 6, Arifin discloses the aforementioned. Further, the limitation, “wherein the first component and the second component are each liquid or the first component is a liquid solvent and the second component is a solute,” however, this is a limitation drawn upon the article worked upon by the apparatus and thus is met since the apparatus is capable of working upon this material. Claim analysis is highly fact-dependent. A claim is only limited by positively recited elements. Thus, "[i]nclusion of the material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims." In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963); see also In re Young, 75 F.2d 996, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935).
Regarding Claim 8, Arifin discloses the aforementioned. Further, Arifin discloses
wherein the light source includes one or more of a light emitting diode (LED), a white light source, and a laser light source (106a-d, figs. 1 & 2).
Regarding Claim 9, Arifin discloses the aforementioned. Further, Arifin discloses a polarizer coupled to the light source configured to polarize the light (Paragraph 29).
Regarding Claim 11, Arifin discloses the aforementioned. Further, Arifin discloses wherein the transparent container includes a cylindrical tubing (Paragraph 25).
Regarding Claim 10, Arifin discloses the aforementioned but fails to explicitly disclose wherein the detector includes one or more of a linear complementary metal-oxide-semiconductor (CMOS) array and a linear charged coupled detector (CCD) array;
However, the examiner takes official notice this would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art;
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time the invention was filed to modify Arifin with wherein the detector includes one or more of a linear complementary metal-oxide-semiconductor (CMOS) array and a linear charged coupled detector (CCD) array because these are common detector systems which would be chosen based upon availability and cost.
Claim(s) 12-14, 16, & 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arifin in view of Tang and further in view of Cypes et al (PGPub 2007/0017291) (Cypes).
Regarding Claim 12, Arifin discloses a phase reaction measurement system (Figs. 1 & 2), comprising:
a light source configured to emit light (106a-d);
a transparent container (102, 104) configured to flow liquid from one end of the transparent container to another end of the transparent container (Paragraphs 23 & 25),
wherein the liquid comprises a first component and a second component (Paragraph 23), and
wherein phase entrainment appears as one or more droplets (124, fig. 2, Paragraph 51) within the liquid based on a shape of the transparent container as the liquid flows containing the second component are formed within the transparent container as the liquid flows and from the one end to the another end of the transparent container. Inherently the shape of the container will affect the droplet appearance in the phase entrainment;
a detector (116) configured to measure light intensities from the transparent container being illuminated by the light source (Paragraph 51),
wherein the one or more droplets cast one or more shadows on the detector (Paragraph 51), and
wherein a light intensity associated with a portion of the liquid that includes the one or more droplets is different from a second light intensity associated with another portion of the liquid that does not include the one or more droplets (Paragraph 51). The droplets and other such objects affect the transmission of the light thus this is met; and
a processor coupled to the detector and configured to process the measured light intensities to determine phase entrainment metrics associated with the liquid (Paragraph 30). The phase fractions is a phase entrainment measurement;
Arifin fails to explicitly disclose the transparent container is in a liquid-liquid extraction system;
However, Cypes teaches a liquid-liquid extraction system (Paragraph 79) with refractive index sensor (10D, Paragraph 142) for monitoring the phase entrainment of a system (Paragraph 115);
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time the invention was filed to modify Arifin with the transparent container is in a liquid-liquid extraction system because the detector of Arifin is functionally equivalent to the sensors of Cypes and would be chosen based upon factors such as cost, availability, and performance;
Arifin as modified by Cypes still fails to explicitly disclose wherein a flow rate of the liquid is adjusted based on dynamic viscosity of the liquid, interfacial tensions, density of the liquid, capillary number, Reynolds number, and a shape of the transparent container to ensure phase entrainment to appear as one or more droplets in a squeezing and non-turbulent form within the liquid mixture as the liquid flows within the transparent container from one to another end of the transparent container;
However, Tang teaches adjusting the flow rate to create a phase entrainment as on or more droplets in a squeezing and non-turbulent form (Section 3.1 Flow patterns, Figs. 3-5);
Further, dynamic viscosity of the liquid, interfacial tensions, density of the liquid, capillary number, Reynolds number, and a shape of the transparent container are physical factors that would inherently be involved in the process of creating the desired phase entrainment;
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time the invention was filed to modify Arifin as modified by Cypes with wherein a flow rate of the liquid is adjusted based on dynamic viscosity of the liquid, interfacial tensions, density of the liquid, capillary number, Reynolds number, and a shape of the transparent container to ensure phase entrainment to appear as of one or more droplets in a squeezing and non-turbulent form within the liquid as the liquid flows within the transparent container from one to another end of the transparent container because such a flow would make monitoring the phase entrainment metrics easier by constraining the droplets to a smaller area and in a more regular arrangement.
Regarding Claim 13, Arifin as modified by Tang and Cypes discloses the aforementioned. Further, Arifin discloses wherein the phase entrainment metrics include one or more of number of phase entrainments, bulk phase presence, and concentration associated with the first component and the second component (Paragraph 2). The phase fraction is a concentration of each of the different components in the system.
Regarding Claim 14, Arifin as modified by Tang and Cypes discloses the aforementioned. Further, Arifin discloses wherein the processor is configured to determine the number of phase entrainments based on a number of light intensities that form a peak in comparison to a remainder of the light intensities (Paragraphs 2, 30, & 36, Fig. 5).
Regarding Claim 16, Arifin as modified by Tang and Cypes discloses the aforementioned. Further, Arifin discloses wherein the processor is configured to compare the measured light intensities to a generated model to identify a match between the measured light intensities and a light intensity of the generated model, wherein the matched light intensity is associated with a refractive index that corresponds to a particular concentration associated with the first component and the second component (Paragraphs 51 & 52). The light fluctuation over time due to the phase composition of the multiphase fluid is in part due to a change of refractive index between the different phases.
Regarding Claim 18, Arifin as modified by Tang and Cypes discloses the aforementioned. Further, Arifin discloses wherein the light source includes one or more of a light emitting diode (LED), a white light source, and a laser light source (106a-d, figs. 1 & 2).
Regarding Claim 19, Arifin as modified by Tang and Cypes discloses the aforementioned. Further, Arifin discloses a polarizer coupled to the light source configured to polarize the light (Paragraph 29).
Regarding Claim 20, Arifin as modified by Tang and Cypes discloses the aforementioned but fails to explicitly disclose wherein the detector includes one or more of a linear complementary metal-oxide-semiconductor (CMOS) array and a linear charged coupled detector (CCD) array;
However, the examiner takes official notice this would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art;
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time the invention was filed to modify Arifin as modified by Tang and Cypes with wherein the detector includes one or more of a linear complementary metal-oxide-semiconductor (CMOS) array and a linear charged coupled detector (CCD) array because these are common detector systems which would be chosen based upon availability and cost.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4, 7, 15, & 17 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
As to Claim 4 the prior art of record, taken alone or in combination, fails to disclose or render obvious wherein the processor is configured to determine a ratio of a light intensity associated with the one or more droplets to a light intensity associated with liquid in absence of the one or more droplets, wherein the ratio is associated with the bulk phase presence, in combination with the rest of the limitations of the claim.
As to Claim 7 the prior art of record, taken alone or in combination, fails to disclose or render obvious a diffuser coupled to the light source configured to homogenize the light, in combination with the rest of the limitations of the claim.
While the use of a diffuser coupled to a light source is well-known in the art of optical measurement the applicant’s arguments that it would not be used with the measurement device of Arifin were valid. Further, a device that also performed the claimed measurements of phase entrainment metrics that would work with a diffuser was not found in an updated search. Therefore, the combination of the use of a diffuser with the limitations of claim 1 is what is considered allowable.
As to Claim 15 the prior art of record, taken alone or in combination, fails to disclose or render obvious wherein the processor is configured to determine a ratio of a light intensity associated with the one or more droplets to a light intensity associated with liquid in absence of the one or more droplets, wherein the ratio is associated with the bulk phase presence, in combination with the rest of the limitations of the claim.
As to Claim 17 the prior art of record, taken alone or in combination, fails to disclose or render obvious a diffuser coupled to the light source configured to homogenize the light, in combination with the rest of the limitations of the claim.
While the use of a diffuser coupled to a light source is well-known in the art of optical measurement the applicant’s arguments that it would not be used with the measurement device of Arifin were valid. Further, a device that also performed the claimed measurements of phase entrainment metrics that would work with a diffuser was not found in an updated search. Therefore, the combination of the use of a diffuser with the limitations of claim 12 is what is considered allowable.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US PAT 12,235,262 discloses and shows controlling the flow rate to based upon hydrodynamic forces, fluid properties, and geometric parameters (Fig. 4, Column 62, lines 40-49 & Column 64, lines 47-54).
PGPub 20220080424 discloses droplet generation through a container with one of the parameters being flow rate (Paragraphs 150 & 151)
PGPub 20140200164 discusses flow rate and other parameters to consider in droplet formation (Paragraph 182).
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 JONATHON COOK whose telephone number is (571)270-1323. The examiner can normally be reached 11am-7pm.
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, Kara Geisel can be reached at 571-272-2416. 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.
/JONATHON COOK/Examiner, Art Unit 2877 June 2, 2026
/Kara E. Geisel/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2877
Prosecution Insights