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 .
Status of Claims
There are three (3) sets of claim filed on 09 FEBRAURY 2023. The claim set considered is the claim set consisting of four (4) pages and the claims have status identifiers.
In the claim set, Claims 1-8 are ‘Canceled’; Claims 9-22 are ‘New’.
Current pending claims are Claims 9-22 and are considered on the merits below.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 09 FEBRUARY 2023 was filed. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 13 and 20 are objected to because of the following informalities: In the instance of ‘;≥10 ppm and <20 ppm; ≥20 ppm’; there should be an ‘and’ between the last two ranges so it reads ‘‘;≥10 ppm and <20 ppm; and ≥20 ppm’ . Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 9, 14, 16 and 21 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.
In the instant claim, where it read ‘wherein the assessment’; it is unclear which assessment step it is referring to; the assessed iron concentration, the assessing molybdate concentration, assessment of the molybdate concentration based on the assessed iron concentration? Or all assessment steps?
The phrase ‘the assessment’ is also seen in Claims 14 and 21.
Claims 10-15 and 17-22 are also rejected under 112(b) as being dependent upon a rejected base claim.
Claims 13 and 20 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.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, Claims 13 and 20 recites the broad recitation <5 ppm and ≥20 ppm, and the claim also recites ≥ 5 ppm and <10 ppm ;≥10 ppm and <20 ppm which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Based on the ranges claimed in the instant claims, the entire ranges from 0 ppm to anything greater than or equal (≥) to 20 ppm is claimed. It is interpreted that there is no specific range claimed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 9 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites using a first colour-change dip test to test for a concentration of iron in the central heating and/or cooling system water, and comparing a colour of the first colour-change dip test to an iron testing reference to assess an iron concentration; and using a second colour-change dip test to test for the concentration of molybdate in the central heating and/or cooling system water, and comparing a colour of the second colour- change dip test to a molybdate testing reference, and assessing a molybdate concentration based on the comparison of the second colour-change dip test to the molybdate testing reference and based on the assessed iron concentration; wherein the molybdate testing reference comprises a plurality of colour reference scales, a colour reference scale being selected from the plurality of colour reference scales and used in an assessment of the molybdate concentration based on the assessed iron concentration; and wherein the assessment is carried out by image processing software based on a photograph of the first and second colour-change dip tests alongside the plurality of colour reference scales as well as a non-transitory medium for performing the steps above.
The limitation of using colour changes and comparing the colour changes to a reference recites a judicial exception (an abstract idea that falls within the mathematical concept and mental process groupings in the 2019 PEG, and a law of nature). This claim identifies the recited exception as an abstract idea. Assessing and comparing are both abstract ideas in the form of mental processes. These steps are data gathering to be used in the abstract idea and are insignificant extra solution activity. Once the colour changes is used/determined, nothing else is done. Using the colour changes and comparing, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of the non-transitory medium this is generic computer components. This limitation sets forth a judicial exception and can be performed by a human using metal steps or basic critical thinking, which is an abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.040(a)(2)(III). That is, other than reciting “by a processor,” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “executed on a computer processor” language, “assessing” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually assessing the colour changes on each pad. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites one additional element – using a processor to perform both the assessment. The processor in both steps is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of ranking information based on a determined amount of use) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a processor to perform assessment and comparing steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept.
This does not appear to have ‘significantly’ more; all steps in the method are WURC. In analytical method with colour comparison, what is claim is WURC in concentration determination . Further, the steps is recited at a high level of generality such that it amounts to insignificant presolution activity, e.g. mere data gathering step is necessary to use the comparison. Since it is claimed at high level of generality , there is no meaningful limitation, such as particular or unconventional machine or transformation of a particular article.
The claim is not patent eligible.
Claims 10-12, 14, 17-19 and 21 further defines physical element of where the method and processing is to be performed and in analytical measurements this is well-understood routine and conventional.
Claims 13 and 20 defines the reference scale at a particular concentration of the molybdate which is WURC.
Claims 15 and 22 defines how the image processing software is to acquire photographs, using a camera which is well-understood routine and conventional.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 9-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by HARDIE, GB 2574942 A, submitted on the Information Disclosure Statement on 09 FEBRUARY 2023; Foreign Patent Documents Cite No. 1.
The applied reference has a common assignee with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2). This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B) if the same invention is not being claimed; or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed in the reference and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement.
Applicant’s invention is directed towards a method.
Regarding Claim 9, the ADEY reference discloses a method of testing central heating and/or cooling system water for a concentration of molybdate, abstract, page 1, line 1-4, the method comprising the steps of:
using a first colour-change dip test to test for a concentration of iron in the central heating and/or cooling system water, and comparing a colour of the first colour-change dip test to an iron testing reference to assess an iron concentration, page 1 line 27 – page 2 line 24; and
using a second colour-change dip test to test for the concentration of molybdate in the central heating and/or cooling system water, and comparing a colour of the second colour- change dip test to a molybdate testing reference, and assessing a molybdate concentration based on the comparison of the second colour-change dip test to the molybdate testing reference and based on the assessed iron concentration, page 1 line 27 – page 2 line 24;
wherein the molybdate testing reference comprises a plurality of colour reference scales, page 2 line 18-24, Table on pages 8-9, page 10 line 16-26, a colour reference scale being selected from the plurality of colour reference scales and used in an assessment of the molybdate concentration based on the assessed iron concentration, Table on pages 8-9, page 10 line 16-26; and
wherein the assessment is carried out by image processing software based on a photograph of the first and second colour-change dip tests alongside the plurality of colour reference scales, page 1 line 27 – page 2 line 24.
Additional Disclosures Included are: Claim 10: wherein the method of Claim 9, wherein the first colour-change dip test and the second colour-change dip test are provided as first and second reagent-impregnated pads on a single carrier, page 10 line 16-26, Figure 1. It should be noted that the instant claim does not further define the method itself, but rather define structural feature of where the method is taking place on. The instant claim does not add any additional method steps. ; Claim 11: wherein the method of Claim 10, wherein an absorbent buffer pad is provided between the first and second reagent-impregnated pads, Figure 1, page 10 line 16-30, at least five pads. It should be noted that the instant claim does not further define the method itself, but rather define structural feature of where the method is taking place on. The instant claim does not add any additional method steps. ; Claim 12: wherein the method of Claim 9, wherein the iron testing reference and the molybdate testing reference are provided on a single reference card, Figure 1 card 12, page 10 line 16-23. It should be noted that the instant claim does not further define the method itself, but rather define structural feature of where the method is taking place on. The instant claim does not add any additional method steps. ; Claim 13: wherein the method of Claim 9, wherein the colour reference scale for the assessment of the molybdate concentration is selected based on the assessed iron concentration being one of: <5 ppm; ≥ 5 ppm and <10 ppm ;≥10 ppm and <20 ppm;≥20 ppm, page 5 line 26-page 6 line 2, Table pages 8-9. ; Claim 14: wherein the method of Claim 9, wherein the plurality of colour reference scales does not include numbers or other references, and the image processing software includes reference information allowing colour comparison for the assessment, Figure 1, color reference gradients 18a-f, page 11 line 1-3. It should be noted that the instant claim does not further define the method itself, but rather define structural feature of where the method is taking place on. The instant claim does not add any additional method steps. ; and Claim 15: wherein the method of Claim 9, wherein the image processing software is adapted to acquire the photograph using a camera built into a device on which the image processing software is running, page 6 line 25-page 7 line 7.
Applicant’s invention is directed toward a computer readable medium.
Regarding Claim 16 , the ADEY reference discloses a non-transient computer readable medium having instructions to be executed on a computer processor, Claim 22-25, page 1 line 19-20, page 6 line 25-page 8 line 15, the instructions including a method of testing central heating and/or cooling system water for a concentration of molybdate, page 1 line 27 – page 2 line 24, Table on pages 8-9, the method comprising the steps of:
using a first colour-change dip test to test for a concentration of iron in the central heating and/or cooling system water, and comparing a colour of the first colour-change dip test to an iron testing reference to assess an iron concentration, page 1 line 27 – page 2 line 24; and
using a second colour-change dip test to test for the concentration of molybdate in the central heating and/or cooling system water, and comparing a colour of the second colour- change dip test to a molybdate testing reference, and assessing a molybdate concentration based on the comparison of the second colour-change dip test to the molybdate testing reference and based on the assessed iron concentration, page 1 line 27 – page 2 line 24;
wherein the molybdate testing reference comprises a plurality of colour reference scales, page 2 line 18-24, Table on pages 8-9, page 10 line 16-26, a colour reference scale being selected from the plurality of colour reference scales and used in an assessment of the molybdate concentration based on the assessed iron concentration, Table on pages 8-9, page 10 line 16-26; and wherein the assessment is carried out by image processing software based on a photograph of the first and second colour-change dip tests alongside the plurality of colour reference scales, page 1 line 27 – page 2 line 24.
11. Additional Disclosures Included are: Claim 17: wherein the non-transient computer readable medium of Claim 16, wherein the first colour- change dip test and the second colour-change dip test are provided as first and second reagent- impregnated pads on a single carrier, page 10 line 16-26, Figure 1. It should be noted that the instant claim does not further define the method itself, but rather define structural feature of where the method is taking place on. The instant claim does not add any additional method steps. ; Claim 18: wherein the non-transient computer readable medium of Claim 17, wherein an absorbent buffer pad is provided between the first and second reagent-impregnated pads, Figure 1, page 10 line 16-30, at least five pads. It should be noted that the instant claim does not further define the method itself, but rather define structural feature of where the method is taking place on. The instant claim does not add any additional method steps. ; Claim 19: wherein the non-transient computer readable medium of Claim 16, wherein the iron testing reference and the molybdate testing reference are provided on a single reference card, Figure 1 card 12, page 10 line 16-23. It should be noted that the instant claim does not further define the method itself, but rather define structural feature of where the method is taking place on. The instant claim does not add any additional method steps. ; Claim 20: wherein the non-transient computer readable medium of Claim 16, wherein the colour reference scale for the assessment of the molybdate concentration is selected based on the assessed iron concentration being one of: <5 ppm; ≥ 5 ppm and <10 ppm ;≥10 ppm and <20 ppm;≥20 ppm, page 5 line 26-page 6 line 2, Table pages 8-9.; Claim 21: wherein the non-transient computer readable medium of Claim 16, wherein the plurality of colour reference scales does not include numbers or other references, and the image processing software includes reference information allowing colour comparison for the assessment, , Figure 1, color reference gradients 18a-f, page 11 line 1-3. ; and Claim 22: wherein the non-transient computer readable medium of Claim 16, wherein the image processing software is adapted to acquire the photograph using a camera built into a device on which the image processing software is running, page 6 line 25-page 7 line 7.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
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 9-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over HARRIS, WO 2018/106415 A1, in view of WACHTELL, US Publication No. 2013/0136347 A1, and further in view of BACON, US Publication No. 6,413,473 B1.
Applicant’s invention is directed towards a method.
Regarding Claim 9, the HARRIS reference discloses a method of testing for a concentration of a second marker, [0003, 0004, 0062], the method comprising the steps of:
using a first colour-change dip test to test for a concentration of a first marker in a sample, and comparing a colour of the first colour-change dip test to a first testing reference to assess a first concentration, [0009, 0010, 0054-0056, 0059]; and
using a second colour-change dip test to test for the concentration of a second marker in a sample, and comparing a colour of the second colour- change dip test to a second testing reference, and assessing a second concentration based on the comparison of the second colour-change dip test to the second testing reference and based on the assessed first concentration, [0009, 0010, 0054-0056, 0059];
wherein the second testing reference comprises a plurality of colour reference scales, [0059], a colour reference scale being selected from the plurality of colour reference scales and used in an assessment of the second concentration based on the assessed first concentration, [0054-0056, 0059]; and
wherein the assessment is carried out by image processing software based on a photograph of the first and second colour-change dip tests alongside the plurality of colour reference scales, [0009, 0010].
The HARRIS reference discloses the claimed invention, but is silent in regards to the preamble of the invention, wherein the method is for testing central heating and/or cooling system water for a concentration of molybdate and iron.
It should be noted that the limitation in the preamble, testing central heating and/or cooling system water for a concentration of molybdate, is not limiting because the body of the claim describes a complete invention and the language recited solely in the preamble does not provide any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention' s limitations. Thus, the preamble of the claim(s) is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction. See Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 182 F.3d 1298, 1305, 51 USPQ2d 1161, 1165 (Fed. Cir. 1999). See MPEP § 2111.02.
The WACHTELL discloses a method for determining a concentration of certain markers in a water system, abstract, [0009-0011, 0030, 0031, 0034], the method comprising the steps of:
using a first colour-change dip test to test for a concentration of a first marker in the central heating and/or cooling system water, and comparing a colour of the first colour-change dip test to an first marker testing reference to assess a first marker concentration, Figure 6, [0033, 0034, 0036, 0037], patches 578, 580, 582, Figure 2, step 257, 258; and
using a second colour-change dip test to test for the concentration of a second marker in the central heating and/or cooling system water, and comparing a colour of the second colour- change dip test to a second marker testing reference, and assessing a second marker concentration based on the comparison of the second colour-change dip test to the second marker testing reference and based on the assessed first marker concentration, Figure 6, [0033, 0034, 0036, 0037], patches 578, 580, 582, Figure 2, step 257, 258;
wherein the second marker testing reference comprises a plurality of colour reference scales, Figure 5, color scales 572, 574, 576, [0036, 0037, 0047], a colour reference scale being selected from the plurality of colour reference scales and used in an assessment of the second marker concentration based on the assessed first marker concentration, Figure 2, 5 and 6, step 258, and color scales 572, 574, 576, [0036, 0037, 0047] ; and wherein the assessment is carried out by image processing software based on a photograph of the first and second colour-change dip tests alongside the plurality of colour reference scales, [0035, 0038], image captured by camera, [0041], software instructions, [0044, 0047], Figure 10.
Therefore, it would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the method HARRIS to be used in a central heating and/or cooling system and to quantify particular markers in the water system to quickly and efficiently determined with the naked eye the conditions of the system, which includes the pH, sanitation of solutions or testing for the presence or concentration of certain health markers, WACHTELL [0030, 0031].
The combination of HARRIS and WACHTELL suggests the claimed invention, but does not specifically teach a central heating and/or cooling system and wherein the concentration of iron and molybdate are assessed.
However, the BACON reference discloses a method of testing central heating and/or cooling system water, abstract, Claim 8, Column 17 line 26-32, for a concentration of an analyte, which includes corrosion inhibitors, Column 17 line 18-51, Figure 2, the method comprising the steps of:
using a first colour-change dip test to test for a concentration of iron in the central heating and/or cooling system water, Column 3 line 47-50, Column 17 line 18-51, Claim 7, Figure 2, Column 5 line 21-57, and comparing a colour of the first colour-change dip test to an iron testing reference to assess an iron concentration, Figure 2, Column 5 line 21-57; and
using a second colour-change dip test to test for the concentration of second marker, which includes a corrosion inhibitor, in the central heating and/or cooling system water, Column 3 line 47-50, Column 17 line 18-51, Claim 7, Figure 2, Column 5 line 21-57, Column 6 line 12-20, Column 8 line 12-31, and comparing a colour of the second colour- change dip test to a second marker testing reference, and assessing a second marker concentration based on the comparison of the second colour-change dip test to the second marker testing reference and based on the assessed iron concentration, Figure 2, Column 5 line 21-57, Colum 8 line 18-31;
wherein the second marker testing reference comprises a plurality of colour reference scales, a colour reference scale being selected from the plurality of colour reference scales and used in an assessment of the second marker concentration based on the assessed iron concentration, Figure 2, Column 5 line 21-57; and
wherein the assessment is carried out by the naked eye, Column 2 line 6-24, based on the first and second colour-change dip tests alongside the plurality of colour reference scales, Figure 2.
While BACON discloses the detection of iron in a cooling system, it is silent in regards to the detection of molybdate, however, a list of numerous analytes are listed on Column 17 line 26-51, including well known corrosion inhibitors, which include benzotriazole and tolytriazole, as well as organic acids and silicate, Column 17 line 26-51.
It would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the analyte detect in BACON in combination with HARRIS in view of WACHTELL to be another well-known corrosion inhibitor in cooling system, which include molybdate to increase the longevity and efficiency of the cooling water system.
Additional Disclosures Included are: Claim 10: wherein the method of Claim 9, wherein the first colour-change dip test and the second colour-change dip test are provided as first and second reagent-impregnated pads on a single carrier, Figure 2 and 3, card 10 with pad/strip 22, 24, [0024], BACON, Column 8 line 18-31. It should be noted that the instant claim does not further define the method itself, but rather define structural feature of where the method is taking place on. The instant claim does not add any additional method steps. ; Claim 11: wherein the method of Claim 10, wherein an absorbent buffer pad is provided between the first and second reagent-impregnated pads, Figure 2 and 3, card 10 with pad/strip 22, 24, [0024], BACON, Figure 1A, 1B, 2. ; Claim 12: wherein the method of Claim 9, wherein the first testing reference and the second testing reference are provided on a single reference card, Figure 2 and 3, imaging key 30 on test card 10, [0025, 0026], BACON, Figure 2. It should be noted that the instant claim does not further define the method itself, but rather define structural feature of where the method is taking place on. The instant claim does not add any additional method steps. ; Claim 14: wherein the method of Claim 9, wherein the plurality of colour reference scales does not include numbers or other references, and the image processing software includes reference information allowing colour comparison for the assessment, Figure 2 and 3, [0009, 0010, 0026]. ; and Claim 15: wherein the method of Claim 9, wherein the image processing software is adapted to acquire the photograph using a camera built into a device on which the image processing software is running, [0022, 0027, 0038, 0040, 0041, 0046].
Applicant’s invention is directed toward a computer readable medium.
Regarding Claim 16 , the HARRIS reference discloses a non-transient computer readable medium having instructions to be executed on a computer processor, [0038, 0040, 0041, 0063], the instructions including a method of diagnosis, [0004], the method comprising the steps of:
using a first colour-change dip test to test for a concentration of a marker in a sample, and comparing a colour of the first colour-change dip test to a first testing reference to assess a first concentration, [0009, 0010, 0054-0056, 0059]; and
using a second colour-change dip test to test for the concentration of a second marker in a sample, and comparing a colour of the second colour- change dip test to a second testing reference, and assessing a second concentration based on the comparison of the second colour-change dip test to the second testing reference and based on the assessed first concentration, [0009, 0010, 0054-0056, 0059];
wherein the second testing reference comprises a plurality of colour reference scales, [0059], a colour reference scale being selected from the plurality of colour reference scales and used in an assessment of the second concentration based on the assessed first concentration, [0054-0056, 0059]; and
wherein the assessment is carried out by image processing software based on a photograph of the first and second colour-change dip tests alongside the plurality of colour reference scales, [0009, 0010].
The HARRIS reference discloses the claimed invention, but is silent in regards to wherein the preamble of the invention, wherein the method is for testing central heating and/or cooling system water for a concentration of molybdate and iron.
It should be noted that the limitation in the preamble, testing central heating and/or cooling system water for a concentration of molybdate, is not limiting because the body of the claim describes a complete invention and the language recited solely in the preamble does not provide any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention' s limitations. Thus, the preamble of the claim(s) is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction. See Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 182 F.3d 1298, 1305, 51 USPQ2d 1161, 1165 (Fed. Cir. 1999). See MPEP § 2111.02.
The WACHTELL discloses a method for determining a concentration of certain markers in a water system, abstract, [0009-0011, 0030, 0031, 0034], the method comprising the steps of:
using a first colour-change dip test to test for a concentration of a first marker in the central heating and/or cooling system water, and comparing a colour of the first colour-change dip test to an first marker testing reference to assess a first marker concentration, Figure 6, [0033, 0034, 0036, 0037], patches 578, 580, 582, Figure 2, step 257, 258; and
using a second colour-change dip test to test for the concentration of a second marker in the central heating and/or cooling system water, and comparing a colour of the second colour- change dip test to a second marker testing reference, and assessing a second marker concentration based on the comparison of the second colour-change dip test to the second marker testing reference and based on the assessed first marker concentration, Figure 6, [0033, 0034, 0036, 0037], patches 578, 580, 582, Figure 2, step 257, 258;
wherein the second marker testing reference comprises a plurality of colour reference scales, Figure 5, color scales 572, 574, 576, [0036, 0037, 0047], a colour reference scale being selected from the plurality of colour reference scales and used in an assessment of the second marker concentration based on the assessed first marker concentration, Figure 2, 5 and 6, step 258, and color scales 572, 574, 576, [0036, 0037, 0047] ; and wherein the assessment is carried out by image processing software based on a photograph of the first and second colour-change dip tests alongside the plurality of colour reference scales, [0035, 0038], image captured by camera, [0041], software instructions, [0044, 0047], Figure 10.
Therefore, it would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the method HARRIS to be used in a water system and to quantify particular markers in the water system to quickly and efficiently determined with the naked eye the conditions of the system, which includes the pH, sanitation of solutions or testing for the presence or concentration of certain health markers, WACHTELL [0030, 0031].
The combination of HARRIS and WACHTELL suggests the claimed invention, but does not specifically teach a central heating and/or cooling system and wherein the concentration of iron and molybdate are assessed.
However, BACON discloses a method of testing central heating and/or cooling system water, abstract, Claim 8, Column 17 line 26-32, for a concentration of a second marker, Column 17 line 18-51, Figure 2, the method comprising the steps of:
using a first colour-change dip test to test for a concentration of iron in the central heating and/or cooling system water, Column 3 line 47-50, Column 17 line 18-51, Claim 7, Figure 2, Column 5 line 21-57, and comparing a colour of the first colour-change dip test to an iron testing reference to assess an iron concentration, Figure 2, Column 5 line 21-57; and
using a second colour-change dip test to test for the concentration of the second marker in the central heating and/or cooling system water, Column 3 line 47-50, Column 17 line 18-51, Claim 7, Figure 2, Column 5 line 21-57, Column 6 line 12-20, Column 8 line 12-31, and comparing a colour of the second colour- change dip test to a second marker testing reference, and assessing a second marker concentration based on the comparison of the second colour-change dip test to the second marker testing reference and based on the assessed iron concentration, Figure 2, Column 5 line 21-57, Colum 8 line 18-31;
wherein the second marker testing reference comprises a plurality of colour reference scales, a colour reference scale being selected from the plurality of colour reference scales and used in an assessment of the second marker concentration based on the assessed iron concentration, Figure 2, Column 5 line 21-57; and
wherein the assessment is carried out by the naked eye, Column 2 line 6-24, based on the first and second colour-change dip tests alongside the plurality of colour reference scales, Figure 2.
While BACON discloses the detection of iron in a cooling system, it is silent in regards to the detection of molybdate, however, a list of numerous analytes/markers are listed on Column 17 line 26-51, including well-known corrosion inhibitors, which include benzotriazole and tolytriazole, as well as organic acids and silicate, Column 17 line 26-51.
It would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the analyte/marker detected in BACON in combination with HARRIS in view of WACHTELL to be another well-known corrosion inhibitor in cooling system, which include molybdate to increase the longevity and efficiency of the cooling water system.
Additional Disclosures Included are: Claim 17: wherein the non-transient computer readable medium of Claim 16, wherein the first colour- change dip test and the second colour-change dip test are provided as first and second reagent- impregnated pads on a single carrier, Figure 2 and 3, card 10 with pad/strip 22, 24, [0024], BACON, Column 8 line 18-31. ; Claim 18: wherein the non-transient computer readable medium of Claim 17, wherein an absorbent buffer pad is provided between the first and second reagent-impregnated pads, Figure 2 and 3, card 10 with pad/strip 22, 24, [0024], BACON, Column 8 line 18-31. ; Claim 19: wherein the non-transient computer readable medium of Claim 16, wherein the iron testing reference and the molybdate testing reference are provided on a single reference card, Figure 2 and 3, imaging key 30 on test card 10, [0025, 0026], BACON Figure 1A, 1B, 2.; Claim 21: wherein the non-transient computer readable medium of Claim 16, wherein the plurality of colour reference scales does not include numbers or other references, and the image processing software includes reference information allowing colour comparison for the assessment, Figure 2 and 3, [0009, 0010, 0026]. ; and Claim 22: wherein the non-transient computer readable medium of Claim 16, wherein the image processing software is adapted to acquire the photograph using a camera built into a device on which the image processing software is running, [0022, 0027, 0038, 0040, 0041, 0046].
Regarding Claims 13 and 20, the combination of HARRIS in view of WACHTELL and further in view of BACON suggests the claimed invention, including the presence and analyte of well-known corrosion inhibitors in systems such as cooling system, Column 17 line 26-51, Claim 8.
However, the combination does not teach the wherein the colour reference scale for the assessment of the molybdate concentration is selected based on the assessed iron concentration being one of: <5 ppm; ≥ 5 ppm and <10 ppm ;≥10 ppm and <20 ppm; and ≥20 ppm.
BACON teaches the system and method of is designed to determine the effect of changing the concentration of a given reactant in said liquid sample, by a defined amount, on the analyte of interest. In Figure 1A, the test strip 10 includes at least one test pad 11 that yields a detectable signal indicative of a specific concentration or range of concentration of the analyte of interest. The remaining test pads 12, 14, 13 and 15 may represent the effect of reagents which increase and decrease, respectively, analyte concentration by 100 ppm. It will be clear that the pads may be arranged in any order that is convenient to the end user, Column 4 line 45-Column 5 line 20, 100 ppm is ≥20 ppm.
Therefore, it would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the combination above so that wherein the colour reference scale for the assessment of the molybdate concentration is selected based on the assessed iron concentration being one of: <5 ppm; ≥ 5 ppm and <10 ppm ;≥10 ppm and <20 ppm;≥20 ppm to most accurately determine the levels with the water system for user comfort, cost considerations as well as safety, BACON, Column 2 line 59-Column 3 line 6.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTINE T MUI whose telephone number is (571)270-3243. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 5:30 -15:30 EST.
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, LYLE ALEXANDER can be reached at (571) 272-1254. 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.
CTM
/CHRISTINE T MUI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1797