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; the rest is unchanged.
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. Cano et al. is no longer the primary reference. Melanson et al. is now the primary reference. Melanson et al. teach a multi-wavelength continuous photometer comprising a light source, a liquid sample, a translucent light diffusor placed between the sample and the light detectors (see the rejection of claim 9 below). The Stafford and Okayasu reference are currently not relied upon in the present rejection. Two new additional references are now used in the present rejection.
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 Melanson et al. (US 2020/0049707 A1; pub. Feb. 13, 2020) in view of Cano et al. (US 2015/0041682 A1; pub. Feb. 12, 2015) in view of Aylward et al. (US 6,200,740 B1; pub. Mar. 13, 2001) and further in view of Harada et al. (US 2003/0218123 A1; pub. Nov. 27, 2003).
Regarding claim 9, Melanson et al. disclose: A multi-wavelength process photometer for quasi- continuously determining an absorption of a liquid sample, the multi-wavelength process photometer (para. [0022], [0073]-[0074]) comprising:
a light source (fig.1D item 108);
a transparent liquid sample measurement cell which is radiated by the light source; (para. [0028]-[0029], [0087])
at least two different wavelength light detectors (para. [0073]-[0074]);
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 the at least two different wavelength light detectors (fig.1D item 112, para. [0073]-[0074]), for homogenously diffusing the light of the light source coming from the transparent liquid sample measurement cell upon the at least two different wavelength light detectors, the at least two different wavelength-selective light detectors which are arranged behind the translucent light diffusor element (para. [0073]-[0074]).
Melanson et al. are silent about: a continuous-spectrum flashlight source; the translucent light diffusor element comprises a concentration of micro-inclusions of a plurality of micro-bubbles of gas; the at least two different wavelength- selective light detectors having substantially a same distance (X4) to the translucent light diffusor element and lying within a homogeneity cone angle of the light diffusor element.
In a similar field of endeavor Cano et al. disclose: 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 motivated by the benefits for accurate concentration measurement (Cano et al. para. [0062]-[0065]).
In light of the benefits for accurate concentration measurement as taught by Cano 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 Melanson et al. with the teachings of Cano et al.
Cano et al. are silent about: the translucent light diffusor element comprises a concentration of micro-inclusions of a plurality of micro-bubbles of gas; the at least two different wavelength- selective light detectors having substantially a same distance (X4) to the translucent light diffusor element and lying within a homogeneity cone angle of the light diffusor element.
Melanson et al. are silent about: the translucent light diffusor element comprises a concentration of micro-inclusions of a plurality of micro-bubbles gas; the at least two different wavelength- selective light detectors having substantially a same distance (X4) to the translucent light diffusor element and lying within a homogeneity cone angle of the light diffusor element.
In a similar field of endeavor Aylward et al. disclose: the translucent light diffusor comprises a concentration of micro-inclusions of a plurality of micro-bubbles of gas (col.8 L13-31) motivated by the benefits for improved image quality (Aylward et al. col.8 L1-20).
In light of the benefits for improved light transmission as taught by Aylward 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 Melanson et al. and Cano et al. with the teachings of Aylward et al.
Aylward et al. are silent about: light detectors lying within a homogeneity cone angle of the 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 Harada et al. disclose: light detectors lying within a homogeneity cone angle of the light diffusor element (para. [0052]) motivated by the benefits for increasing the amount of light arriving at the detector (Harada et al. para. [0052]).
In light of the benefits for increasing the amount of light arriving at the detector as taught by Harada 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 Aylward et al. with the teachings of Harada et al.
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.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Melanson et al. (US 2020/0049707 A1; pub. Feb. 13, 2020) in view of Cano et al. (US 2015/0041682 A1; pub. Feb. 12, 2015) in view of Aylward et al. (US 6,200,740 B1; pub. Mar. 13, 2001) in view of Harada et al. (US 2003/0218123 A1; pub. Nov. 27, 2003) 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 Melanson et al., Cano et al., Aylward et al. and Harada et al. with the teachings of Kriesel et al.
Claims 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Melanson et al. (US 2020/0049707 A1; pub. Feb. 13, 2020) in view of Cano et al. (US 2015/0041682 A1; pub. Feb. 12, 2015) in view of Aylward et al. (US 6,200,740 B1; pub. Mar. 13, 2001) in view of Harada et al. (US 2003/0218123 A1; pub. Nov. 27, 2003) 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 Melanson et al., Cano et al., Aylward et al. and Harada 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 Melanson et al., Cano et al., Aylward et al. and Harada et al. with the teachings of Durvasula et al.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Melanson et al. (US 2020/0049707 A1; pub. Feb. 13, 2020) in view of Cano et al. (US 2015/0041682 A1; pub. Feb. 12, 2015) in view of Aylward et al. (US 6,200,740 B1; pub. Mar. 13, 2001) in view of Harada et al. (US 2003/0218123 A1; pub. Nov. 27, 2003) 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 Melanson et al., Cano et al., Aylward et al. and Harada et al. with the teachings of Lohmann et al.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Melanson et al. (US 2020/0049707 A1; pub. Feb. 13, 2020) in view of Cano et al. (US 2015/0041682 A1; pub. Feb. 12, 2015) in view of Aylward et al. (US 6,200,740 B1; pub. Mar. 13, 2001) in view of Harada et al. (US 2003/0218123 A1; pub. Nov. 27, 2003) and further in view of Quintel et al. (US 2013/0320223 A1; pub. Dec. 5, 2013).
Regarding claim 15, Melanson et al. disclose: at least three of the at least two different wavelength-selective light detectors are provided (see rejection of claim 9 above). 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 Melanson et al., Cano et al., Aylward et al. and Harada et al. with the teachings of Quintel et al.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Melanson et al. (US 2020/0049707 A1; pub. Feb. 13, 2020) in view of Cano et al. (US 2015/0041682 A1; pub. Feb. 12, 2015) in view of Aylward et al. (US 6,200,740 B1; pub. Mar. 13, 2001) in view of Harada et al. (US 2003/0218123 A1; pub. Nov. 27, 2003) 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 Melanson et al., Cano et al., Aylward et al. and Harada et al. with the teachings of Kathe et al.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MAMADOU FAYE whose telephone number is (571)270-0371. The examiner can normally be reached Mon – Fri 9AM-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
Prosecution Insights