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 .
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim status: amended claims: 9, 14; the rest is unchanged.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 01/27/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any combination of references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. A new primary and secondary reference are being used in the present rejection.
The 112 rejection is withdrawn in light of the amendment of claim 14.
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.
Claim 9 recites the limitation " the at least two different wavelength-selective light detectors" in L14. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 10 -16 are rejected on the same basis as claim 9 for dependency reasons.
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.
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.
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 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cano et al. (US 2015/0041682 A1; pub. Feb. 12, 2015) in view of Melanson et al. (US Stafford et al. (US 5,014,216; pub. May 7, 1991) and further in view of Okayasu et al. (CN102628969B; pub. Oct. 8, 2014).
Regarding claim 9, Cano et al. disclose: A multi-wavelength process photometer for quasi- continuously determining an absorption of a liquid sample (Abstract, para. [0025]-[0026], para. [0124]), the multi-wavelength process photometer comprising: a continuous-spectrum flashlight source; a transparent liquid sample (fig.1 item 130, para. [0025]-[0026]) measurement cell which is radiated by the continuous-spectrum flashlight source; at least two different wavelength light detectors (para. [0025, fig.1 item 140).
Cano et al. are silent about: a translucent light diffusor element positioned between the transparent liquid sample measurement cell and at least two different wavelength light detectors, for homogenously diffusing the light of the continuous- spectrum flashlight source coming from the transparent liquid sample measurement cell upon the at least two different wavelength light detectors, wherein the translucent light diffusor comprises a concentration of micro-inclusions of a plurality of micro-bubbles; and the at least two different wavelength-selective light detectors which are arranged behind the translucent light diffusor element, the at least two different wavelength- selective light detectors having substantially a same distance (X4) to the translucent light diffusor element.
In a similar field of endeavor Melanson et al. disclose: a translucent light diffusor element (fig.1D item 111, para. [0073]) positioned between the transparent liquid sample measurement cell (fig.1D item 202, para. [0026], [0037], [0064]) and at least two different wavelength light detectors (fig.1D item 112, para. [0073]-[0074]), for homogenously diffusing the light of the source coming from the transparent liquid sample measurement cell upon the at least two different wavelength light detectors (para. [0022], [0073]-[0074]), motivated by the benefits for reduced costs, times, and the opportunity for human error (Melanson et al. para. [0021]).
In light of the benefits for reduced costs, times, and the opportunity for human error as taught by Melanson et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Cano et al. with the teachings of Melanson et al.
Melanson et al. are silent about: the translucent light diffusor comprises a concentration of micro-inclusions of a plurality of micro-bubbles; the at least two different wavelength- selective light detectors having substantially a same distance (X4) to the translucent light diffusor element.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have the at least two different wavelength- selective light detectors having substantially a same distance (X4) to the translucent light diffusor element motivated by the benefits for the relative intensity of the signal detected to be the same thereby isolating the wavelength dependence of the detector.
In a similar field of endeavor, Okayasu et al. disclose: the translucent light diffusor comprises a concentration of micro-inclusions of a plurality of micro-bubbles (para. [0461]) motivated by the benefits for improved light transmission (Okayasu et al. para. [0135]).
In light of the benefits for improved light transmission as taught by Okayasu et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Cano et al. and Melanson et al. with the teachings of Okayasu et al.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cano et al. (US 2015/0041682 A1; pub. Feb. 12, 2015) in view of Melanson et al. (US Stafford et al. (US 5,014,216; pub. May 7, 1991) in view of Okayasu et al. (CN102628969B; pub. Oct. 8, 2014) and further in view Kriesel et al. (US 2005/0257748 A1; pub. Nov. 24, 2005).
Regarding claim 10, the combined references are silent about: a converging lens which is arranged between the continuous-spectrum flashlight source and the transparent liquid sample measurement cell, the converging lens focusing the light of the continuous-spectrum flashlight source at a measuring section of the transparent liquid sample measurement cell.
In a similar field of endeavor, Kriesel et al. disclose: a converging lens which is arranged between the light source and an object, the converging lens focusing the light source at a measuring section of the object (para. [0100]) motivated by the benefits for magnifying the sample.
In light of the benefits for magnifying the sample, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Cano et al., Melanson et al. and Okayasu et al. with the teachings of Kriesel et al.
Claims 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cano et al. (US 2015/0041682 A1; pub. Feb. 12, 2015) in view of Melanson et al. (US Stafford et al. (US 5,014,216; pub. May 7, 1991) in view of Okayasu et al. (CN102628969B; pub. Oct. 8, 2014) and further in view of Durvasula et al. (US 2008/0117630 A1; pub. May 22, 2008).
Regarding claim 11, the combined references are silent about: the translucent light diffusor element is defined by a translucent diffusor body with micro- inclusions of less than 30 um diameter, preferably of less than 8,0 um diameter.
In a similar field of endeavor, Durvasula et al. disclose: the translucent light diffusor element is defined by a translucent diffusor body with micro- inclusions of less than 30 um diameter, preferably of less than 8,0 um diameter (para. [0027]) motivated by the benefits for enhanced overall illumination uniformity (Durvasula et al. para. [0027]).
In light of the benefits for enhanced overall illumination uniformity as taught by Durvasula et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Cano et al., Melanson et al. and Okayasu et al. with the teachings of Durvasula et al.
Regarding claim 12, Durvasula et al. disclose: the translucent light diffusor element is defined by a translucent diffusor body with a concentration of micro-inclusions can be modulated and with an effective optical thickness (W2) of 0.5 to 5.0 mm (para. [0027]).
The combined references are silent about: a concentration of micro-inclusions of more than 100 mio/cm3 and less than 5000 mio/cm3, preferably less than 2500 mio/cm3. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to use the teachings of para. [0027] of Durvasula et al. to have a concentration of micro-inclusions of more than 100 mio/cm3 and less than 5000 mio/cm3, preferably less than 2500 mio/cm3, "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 13, the combined references are silent about: the translucent light diffusor element has a detector-facing surface which has a light scattering surface structure.
In a similar field of endeavor, Durvasula et al. disclose: the translucent light diffusor element has a detector-facing surface which has a light scattering surface structure (para. [0027]) motivated by the benefits for enhanced overall illumination uniformity (Durvasula et al. para. [0027]).
In light of the benefits for enhanced overall illumination uniformity as taught by Durvasula et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Cano et al., Melanson et al. and Okayasu et al. with the teachings of Durvasula et al.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cano et al. (US 2015/0041682 A1; pub. Feb. 12, 2015) in view of Melanson et al. (US Stafford et al. (US 5,014,216; pub. May 7, 1991) in view of Okayasu et al. (CN102628969B; pub. Oct. 8, 2014) and further in view of Lohmann et al. (US 2008/0019887 A1; pub. Jan. 24, 2008).
Regarding claim 14, the combined references are silent about: an electronic photometer control for summarizing measurement signals of the at least two different wavelength-selective light detectors of at least 10 light flashes of the continuous-spectrum flashlight source, wherein the summarizing module integrates the at least 10 light flashes.
In a similar field of endeavor Lohmann et al. disclose: an electronic photometer control for summarizing measurement signals of the at least two different wavelength-selective light detectors of at least 10 light flashes of the continuous-spectrum flashlight source, wherein the summarizing module integrates the at least 10 light flashes (para. [0062], [0089], [0113]) motivated by the benefits for improved signal to noise ratio.
In light of the benefits for improved signal to noise ratio, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Cano et al., Melanson et al. and Okayasu et al. with the teachings of Lohmann et al.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cano et al. (US 2015/0041682 A1; pub. Feb. 12, 2015) in view of Melanson et al. (US Stafford et al. (US 5,014,216; pub. May 7, 1991) in view of Okayasu et al. (CN102628969B; pub. Oct. 8, 2014) and further in view of Quintel et al. (US 2013/0320223 A1; pub. Dec. 5, 2013).
Regarding claim 15, Cano et al. disclose: at least three of the at least two different wavelength-selective light detectors are provided (para. [0025, fig.1 item 140). The combined references are silent about: each of which have a filtering wavelength of between 195 and 240 nm.
In a similar field of endeavor Quintel et al. disclose: each of which have a filtering wavelength of between 195 and 240 nm (para. [0026]-[0027]) motivated by the benefits for efficient quantification of a sample (Quintel et al. para. [0006]).
In light of the benefits for efficient quantification of a sample as taught by Quintel et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Cano et al., Melanson et al. and Okayasu et al. with the teachings of Quintel et al.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cano et al. (US 2015/0041682 A1; pub. Feb. 12, 2015) in view of Melanson et al. (US Stafford et al. (US 5,014,216; pub. May 7, 1991) in view of Okayasu et al. (CN102628969B; pub. Oct. 8, 2014) and further in view of Kathe et al. (US 2020/0182756 A1; pub. Jun. 11, 2020).
Regarding claim 16, the combined references are silent about: A wastewater measurement arrangement comprising an immersion probe which is immersed into wastewater of a wastewater tank, the immersion probe comprising the multi-wavelength process photometer of claim 9.
In a similar field of endeavor, Kathe et al. disclose: A wastewater measurement arrangement comprising an immersion probe which is immersed into wastewater of a wastewater tank, the immersion probe comprising the multi-wavelength process photometer of claim 9 (para. [0016], [0063]) motivated by the benefits for automatic analysis (Kathe et al. para. [0016]).
In light of the benefits for automatic analysis as taught by Kathe et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Cano et al., Melanson et al. and Okayasu et al. with the teachings of Kathe et al.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MAMADOU FAYE whose telephone number is (571)270-0371. The examiner can normally be reached Mon – Fri 9-6PM.
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, Uzma Alam can be reached at 571-272-3995. 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.
/MAMADOU FAYE/Examiner, Art Unit 2884
/UZMA ALAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2884