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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 01/08/206 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 01/08/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s argument:
Coates fails to disclose the limitation such as, “ the insertion probe is configured to be operable when the insertion probe is remotely located from the measurement optics.” because The Office goes on to state that because Coates teaches the use of disposable tips, that this reads on the insertion probe being configured to be remotely located from the measurement optics. The Applicant is of the opinion that this is an overly broad view of Coates, because a person of skill in the art would know that if the tip of Coates was removed from the sample area, that tip would be useless to perform its duties as an insertion probe. Therefore, claim 1 has been amended to make it clear that the insertion probe of the present invention is capable of being operable, even when remotely located from the measurement optics. What the Office cites to as being the insertion probe in Coates is not operable if it has been disposed and removed from the measurement optics of Coates.
Examiner’s response:
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification, “operable when the insertion probe is remotely located from the measurement optics” does not require the probe to be independently functional without the measurement optics; rather, it requires that the probe can perform sampling and optical coupling while being spatially separated from the emitter/detector package during operation. The claim further positively recites the presence of a coupling apparatus to couple light from the emitter to the probe and a fiber optic cable to return light to the detector system—i.e., operability as part of an optical link while the probe is remote, not stand-alone functionality.
Coates discloses a sampling interface that is separable from, and spatially offset relative to, the source/detector package and that is configured for insertion/dipping and surface measurements, including embodiments where the sample enters through apertures/slots in a dip tip. See, e.g., Coates: FIG. 6 and FIG. 13 (insertion/dip tip 28 for immersion and surface measurements);¶[0044] (light pipes/light guides coupling the source/detector to the sample measurement cavity, noting alternative configurations where the light guides can be optical fibers); ¶[0045]-[0047] (removable tips/samplers; dip configuration; two-part construction with the measurement module separate from the sample transfer; immersion/dip tip operation).
These disclosures teach that the sampling “insertion probe” is operable as a probe at the point of sample contact while the optics package resides in the handheld unit, i.e., it operates when located away from (not co-located with) the measurement optics.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AlA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “insertion probe,” “coupling apparatus,” “detector system” in claims 1 and 19 directly, as well as their dependents.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AlA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AlA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1 and 19 are is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nguyen, USPAT 7,385,692.
As to claim 1, Nguyen discloses and shows, a remote sampling sensor for determining characteristics of a sample (abstract; Fig. 1) comprising:
measurement optics comprising a light emitter (140) and a detector system (160);
an insertion probe (see the annotated Figure below) configured to permit the sample to enter the insertion probe (col. 2, lines 57-61);
a coupling apparatus (125) configured to couple light emitted from the light emitter (140) to the insertion probe (col. 2, lines 57-64); and
a fiber optic cable (see the annotated Figure below) configured to return the light to the detector system (160) and wherein the insertion probe is configured to be operable when the insertion probe is remotely located from the measurement optics. (evident from Fig,. 1; col. 7, lines 28-33; col. 10, lines 45-46)
[AltContent: textbox (insertion )][AltContent: textbox (Fiber optic cable)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image1.png
578
850
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (Annotated Fig. 1)]
As to claim 19, Nguyen discloses and shows, a remote sampling sensor for determining characteristics of a sample (abstract; Fig. 1) comprising:
measurement optics comprising a light emitter (140) and a detector system (160) wherein the measurement optics are remote and isolated from the sample (evident from Fig. 1);
an insertion probe (see the annotated Figure below) configured to permit the sample to enter the insertion probe (col. 2, lines 57-61), the insertion probe configured to be operable when the insertion probe is remotely located from the measurement optics, (evident from Fig. 1; col. 7, lines 28-33; col. 10, lines 45-46
a coupling apparatus (125) configured to couple light emitted from the light emitter (140) to the insertion probe (col. 2, lines 57-64); and
a fiber optic cable (see the annotated Figure below) configured to return the light to the detector system (160).
Accordingly, claims 1 and 19 are anticipated.
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.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Coates (US 20070084990 A1).
Regarding Independent Claim 1, Coates discloses a remote sampling sensor for determining characteristics of a sample (abstract, [0003], [0005], [0020], Figs 1-13), comprising:
measurement optics comprising a light emitter and a detector system (Coates discloses an integrated source and a spectrally selective detector system; See Fig. 1, elements 10, 12, and 13, or Figs. 4-6, elements 19 and 20; ¶¶[0039]-[0041].);
an insertion probe configured to permit the sample to enter the insertion probe (Coates discloses multiple insertion/dip tips and flow/dip tips that admit sample into an internal chamber. See Figs. 6 (dip tip 28); Fig. 7 (sampler with bellows and optical chamber); Fig. 13 (removable tip for immersion/surface measurements; ¶¶[0044] –[0047])
a coupling apparatus configured to couple light emitted from the light emitter to the insertion probe (Coates discloses light guides/light pipes/optical conduits between the source/detector and the sample chamber. See ¶[0044] (“light guides can be in the form of optical fibers” as an alternative configuration), and the folded optical path with retroreflectors (24a/24b/25) in Figs. 5-7; and
a fiber optic cable configured to return the light to the detector system ([0008], [0044]), (while Coates primarily implements molded light guides/light pipes, Coates expressly recognizes the alternate use of optical fibers as the coupling medium. See ¶[0044] (“In alternative configuration, the light guide can be in the form of optical fibers”). Substituting optical fiber for the discloses light guides to return the signal to the detector is a known, predictable design choice. and
Coates does not explicitly disclose the limitation such as, “wherein the insertion probe is configured to be operable when the insertion probe is remotely located from the measurement optics.
However, the examiners’ take official notice that it is well known in the art to use fiber-optic dip probes to locate a sampling head remotely from a source/detector package. Further, Coates acknowledges the widespread use of fiber optics in small-format instruments for flexible sample interfacing (see¶[0008])), and explicitly contemplates alternative configuration using optical fibers for the source/sample/detector coupling (¶[0044]). Applicant’s own disclosure further admits for measurements in tanks, feed lines, and “alien” or elevated temperature environments (e.g., Applicant’s ¶[0060], ¶[0074]). These provide a clear rationale under KSR to implement Coates’ removable/dip tip sampling interface as a remote insertion probe linked by optical fiber, to achieve predictable results-namely, the same spectral measurements with increased standoff distance and environmental isolation.
Therefore, replacing Coates’ molded light guides/light pipes with optical fiber to carry excitation and return collect light is a routine substitution of known equivalents in optical instrumentation, yielding no unpredictable result. Coates’ architecture already provides the emitter/detector, the coupling interfaces, and the removable/dip sampling head. The use of fiber to extend the probe from the handheld unit merely increases the separation (remotely located) while preserving the optical function.
Further, it should be noted that the claim do not require the probe to be operable independent of any connection to the measurement optics. They require that the probe be operable when it is remotely located from the measurement optics, i.e., during operation the probe is spatially remote and coupled via the claimed optical path. Coates’ dip/immersion tips are designed to function at the sampling point while the optics reside in the handheld body, satisfying the limitation of “ operable when …remotely located” language under broadest reasonable interpretation when combined with the obvious fiber-optic coupling noted above.
Therefore, it would have at least been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the insertion probe being configured to be operable when the insertion probe is remotely located from the measurement optics to meet the known need for remote sampling while preserving measurements performance, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding Claim 2, Coates discloses the remote sampling sensor of claim 1, wherein the insertion probe comprises:
a chamber (24), the chamber being configured to permit the sample to enter the chamber (Fig. 1, 11, [0038], Figs. 5-7, 24, [0044], also visible in Figs. 11-13, [0048)):
an insertion tip at a distal end of the insertion probe (Figs. 6-8 and 11-12, 27, 28, or 29, Fig. 10, tip, [0045]-[0047], [0049], the sample is introduced via the tip); and
a retro-reflective optic adjacent the insertion tip, the retro-reflective optic being configured to return the light from the measurement optics through the chamber to the measurement optics (shown in Figs 5-8, 25, [0015], [0044)).
Regarding Claim 3, Coates discloses the remote sampling sensor of claim 2, wherein the chamber is an adjustable measurement chamber (elements removable, i.e., adjustable, [0045]).
Regarding Claim 4, Coates discloses the remote sampling sensor of claim 1, wherein the insertion tip is disposable and is replaceable with another disposable insertion tip to permit measurement of a sample without contamination from a previous measurement (sample area is integrated within a disposable sampler, and can be similar in concept to disposable pipettes or to the disposable tips used for micropipette systems. [0012], the sampler has a common construction to a disposable pipette with a bellows (or bulb) style pumping (suction), [0045], disposable component- a tip Figs. 11 and 13, or a sampler Fig. 12, [0049]).
Regarding Claim 5, Coates discloses the remote sampling sensor of claim 1, wherein the measurement optics further comprise a light guide configured to transmit the light to the chamber, wherein the light guide is solid ([0044]).
Regarding Claim 6, Coates discloses the remote sampling sensor of claim 1, wherein the measurement optics further comprise a light guide configured to transmit the light to the chamber, wherein the light guide comprises a hollow conduit ([0044]).
Regarding Claim 7, Coates discloses the remote sampling sensor of claim 1, wherein the detector system includes an optical filter (12) configured to detect a pre-
determined wavelength intensity of radiation transmitted through the sample by the light emitter ([0011], [0039]-[0040], Claim 18, optically selective channels can be used).
Regarding Claim 8, Coates discloses the remote sampling sensor of claim 1, wherein the light emitter comprises a broadband light source (energy source 10 and 19, which can be either a broadband or narrowband source, [0048)).
Regarding Claim 9, Coates discloses the remote sampling sensor of claim 1, wherein the detector system is configured to have multi-wavelength detection (abstract, [0011], Fig. 14).
Regarding Claim 10, Coates discloses the remote sampling sensor of claim 1, wherein the light emitter is configured to emit a wavelength between about 10 nm and about 26000 nm (broadband sources are used for NIR and visible absorption, narrowband sources are used for turbidity and fluorescence). White LEDs, LED arrays and tungsten bulbs are used as example broadband sources, and individual LEDs and semiconductor laser devices are used as narrowband sources, [0048]).
Regarding Claim 11, Coates discloses the remote sampling sensor of claim 1, wherein the detector system has a plurality of detector elements, each element having a unique optical filter configured to detect a unique wavelength intensity of radiation transmitted through the sample by the light emitter ([0011], [0038], [0040)).
Regarding Claim 12, Coates discloses the remote sampling sensor of claim 1, configured for sensing a property of milk (The patentability of an apparatus claim depends only on the claimed structure, not on the use or purpose of that structure, Catalina Mktg. Int’l, Inc. v. Coolsavings.com, Inc., 289 F.3d 801, 809 (Fed. Cir. 2002), or the function or result of that structure. In re Danly, 263 F.2d 844, 848
(CCPA 1959), sensed information is converted into meaningful information in the form of concentrations of specified species and for the composition or properties of mixtures and composite materials, [0003], chemical composition or properties, [0013], spectral changes can be readily correlated with both composition and key chemical and/or physical properties, [0042], i.e., applies to properties of milk).
Regarding Claim 13, Coates discloses the remote sampling sensor of claim 1, configured for sensing a property of dairy products (The patentability of an apparatus claim depends only on the claimed structure, not on the use or purpose of that structure, Catalina Mktg. Int’l, Inc. v. Coolsavings.com, Inc., 289 F.3d 801, 809 (Fed. Cir. 2002), or the function or result of that structure. In re Danly, 263 F.2d 844, 848 (CCPA 1959), sensed information is converted into meaningful information in the form of concentrations of specified species and for the composition or properties of mixtures and composite materials, [0003], chemical composition or properties, [0013], spectral changes can be readily correlated with both composition and key chemical and/or physical properties, [0042], i.e., applies to dairy products).
Regarding Claim 14, Coates discloses the remote sampling sensor of claim 1, configured for sensing a property of an oil (The patentability of an apparatus claim depends only on the claimed structure, not on the use or purpose of that structure, Catalina Mktg. Int’l, Inc. v. Coolsavings.com, Inc., 289 F.3d 801, 809 (Fed. Cir. 2002), or the function or result of that structure. In re Danly, 263 F.2d 844, 848 (CCPA 1959), sensed information is converted into meaningful information in the form of concentrations of specified species and for the composition or properties of mixtures and composite materials, [0003], chemical composition or properties, [0013], spectral
changes can be readily correlated with both composition and key chemical and/or physical properties, [0042], i.e., applies to properties of oils).
Regarding Claim 15, Coates discloses the remote sampling sensor of claim 1, configured for sensing a property of a seed oil or a vegetable oil (The patentability of an apparatus claim depends only on the claimed structure, not on the use or purpose of that structure, Catalina Mktg. Int’l, Inc. v. Coolsavings.com, Inc., 289 F.3d 801, 809 (Fed. Cir. 2002), or the function or result of that structure. /In re Danly, 263 F.2d 844, 848 (CCPA 1959), sensed information is converted into meaningful information in the form of concentrations of specified species and for the composition or properties of mixtures and composite materials, [0003], chemical composition or properties, [0013], spectral changes can be readily correlated with both composition and key chemical and/or physical properties, [0042], i.e., applies to properties of one of seed oils and vegetable oils).
Regarding Claim 16, Coates discloses the remote sampling sensor of claim 1, configured for sensing a property of olive oil (The patentability of an apparatus claim depends only on the claimed structure, not on the use or purpose of that structure, Catalina Mktg. Int’l, Inc. v. Coolsavings.com, Inc., 289 F.3d 801, 809 (Fed. Cir. 2002), or the function or result of that structure. In re Danly, 263 F.2d 844, 848 (CCPA 1959), sensed information is converted into meaningful information in the form of concentrations of specified species and for the composition or properties of mixtures and composite materials, [0003], chemical composition or properties, [0013], spectral changes can be readily correlated with both composition and key chemical and/or physical properties, [0042], i.e., applies to properties of olive oils).
Regarding Claim 17, Coates discloses the remote sampling sensor of claim 1, configured for sensing a property of alcohol (The patentability of an apparatus claim depends only on the claimed structure, not on the use or purpose of that structure, Catalina Mktg. Int’l, Inc. v. Coolsavings.com, Inc., 289 F.3d 801, 809 (Fed. Cir. 2002), or the function or result of that structure. In re Danly, 263 F.2d 844, 848 (CCPA 1959), sensed information is converted into meaningful information in the form of concentrations of specified species and for the composition or properties of mixtures and composite materials, [0003], chemical composition or properties, [0013], spectral changes can be readily correlated with both composition and key chemical and/or physical properties, [0042], i.e., applies to properties of alcohol).
Regarding Claim 18, Coates discloses the remote sampling sensor of claim 1, configured for sensing a property of a drug (The patentability of an apparatus claim depends only on the claimed structure, not on the use or purpose of that structure, Catalina Mktg. Int’l, Inc. v. Coolsavings.com, Inc., 289 F.3d 801, 809 (Fed. Cir. 2002), or the function or result of that structure. In re Danly, 263 F.2d 844, 848 (CCPA 1959), sensed information is converted into meaningful information in the form of concentrations of specified species and for the composition or properties of mixtures and composite materials, [0003], chemical composition or properties, [0013], spectral changes can be readily correlated with both composition and key chemical and/or physical properties, [0042], i.e., applies to properties of drugs).
Regarding Independent Claim 19, Coates discloses a remote sampling sensor for determining characteristics of a sample (abstract, [0003], [0005], [0020], Figs 1-13), comprising:
measurement optics comprising a light emitter and a detector system (Fig. 1, elements 10, 12, and 13, or Figs. 4-6, elements 19 and 20), wherein the measurement optics are remote and isolated from the sample (see Fig. 6, [0043]-[0045));
an insertion probe configured to permit the sample to enter the insertion probe (Coates discloses multiple insertion/dip tips and flow/dip tips that admit sample into an internal chamber. See Figs. 6 (dip tip 28); Fig. 7 (sampler with bellows and optical chamber); Fig. 13 (removable tip for immersion/surface measurements; ¶¶[0044] –[0047])
a coupling apparatus configured to couple light emitted from the light emitter to the insertion probe (Coates discloses light guides/light pipes/optical conduits between the source/detector and the sample chamber. See ¶[0044] (“light guides can be in the form of optical fibers” as an alternative configuration), and the folded optical path with retroreflectors (24a/24b/25) in Figs. 5-7; and
a fiber optic cable configured to return the light to the detector system ([0008], [0044]), (while Coates primarily implements molded light guides/light pipes, Coates expressly recognizes the alternate use of optical fibers as the coupling medium. See ¶[0044] (“In alternative configuration, the light guide can be in the form of optical fibers”). Substituting optical fiber for the discloses light guides to return the signal to the detector is a known, predictable design choice. and
Coates does not explicitly disclose the limitation such as, “ the insertion probe configured to be operable when the insertion probe is remotely located from the measurement optics.”
However, the examiners’ take official notice that it is well known in the art to use fiber-optic dip probes to locate a sampling head remotely from a source/detector package. Further, Coates acknowledges the widespread use of fiber optics in small-format instruments for flexible sample interfacing (see¶[0008])), and explicitly contemplates alternative configuration using optical fibers for the source/sample/detector coupling (¶[0044]). Applicant’s own disclosure further admits for measurements in tanks, feed lines, and “alien” or elevated temperature environments (e.g., Applicant’s ¶[0060], ¶[0074]). These provide a clear rationale under KSR to implement Coates’ removable/dip tip sampling interface as a remote insertion probe linked by optical fiber, to achieve predictable results-namely, the same spectral measurements with increased standoff distance and environmental isolation.
Therefore, replacing Coates’ molded light guides/light pipes with optical fiber to carry excitation and return collect light is a routine substitution of known equivalents in optical instrumentation, yielding no unpredictable result. Coates’ architecture already provides the emitter/detector, the coupling interfaces, and the removable/dip sampling head. The use of fiber to extend the probe from the handheld unit merely increases the separation (remotely located) while preserving the optical function.
Further, it should be noted that the claim do not require the probe to be operable independent of any connection to the measurement optics. They require that the probe be operable when it is remotely located from the measurement optics, i.e., during operation the probe is spatially remote and coupled via the claimed optical path. Coates’ dip/immersion tips are designed to function at the sampling point while the optics reside in the handheld body, satisfying the limitation of “ operable when …remotely located” language under broadest reasonable interpretation when combined with the obvious fiber-optic coupling noted above.
Therefore, it would have at least been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the insertion probe being configured to be operable when the insertion probe is remotely located from the measurement optics to meet the known need for remote sampling while preserving measurements performance, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding Claim 20, Coates discloses the remote sampling sensor of claim 19, wherein the insertion probe comprises:
an insertion tip at a distal end of the insertion probe (Figs. 6-8 and 11-12, 27, 28, or 29, Fig. 10, tip, [0045]-[0047], [0049], the sample is introduced via the tip);
a retro-reflective optic, the retro-reflective optic being proximal of the insertion tip and being configured to return the light from the measurement optics to the measurement optics (shown in Figs 5-8, 25, [0015], [0044]); and
a chamber (24), the chamber being proximal of the retro-reflective optic and being configured to permit the sample to passively move through the chamber (Fig. 1, 11, [0038], Figs. 5-7, 24, [0044], also visible in Figs. 11-13, [0048)).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TARIFUR RASHID CHOWDHURY whose telephone number is (571)272-2287. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8 am-5 pm.
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, Allana L. Bidder can be reached at (571)2725560. 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.
/TARIFUR R CHOWDHURY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2877