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 .
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.
Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The term “index value” is indefinite. It is unclear what calculations or data is required to obtain an “index value”, as this term is not defined by the specification and does not have a common and accepted meaning in the art. Paragraphs [0056]-[0059] of the printed publication state that the index value may include turbidity, TOC and T-P. Paragraphs [0060]-[0065] describe how the index value is used after it is obtained (“The calculator 12 determines whether the index value detected by the sensor 11 has reached a threshold value…”). However, there is little to no description of what the index value is, how it is defined, and how it is acquired. If obtaining an index value requires more than detecting a singular parameter value at a particular time, then some form of data manipulation is required, and it is therefore unclear how such an index value is attained through only a “detection step” (“a detection step of detecting an index value”). For these reasons, it is unclear what kinds of measurements, data analysis and detection means are contemplated by the terms “detecting an index value” and “sensor configured to detect an index value”.
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.
Claims 1, 2 and 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chowdhury (WO 2011061310) in view of Nakajima (US 20200109063).
With respect to claim 1, Chowdhury discloses a water sampling method comprising a detection step (“In operation, the particle sensor 106 continuously counts particles 116 that flow in the water pipes”) of detecting a value related to an amount of microorganisms in a liquid flowing through a flow channel 301. A determination step (“When the particle count reaches a critical value over a time period, such as well over 50 particles/ml, an alert or water-testing signal 128 is triggered. In general, the particle count should not exceed 20%, or more preferably 10%, more than the normal base count of particles in the water flow”) is then performed to determine whether the value detected in the detection step has reached a threshold value. If the value is found to exceed the threshold value, a water sampling step (“The particle sensor 106 automatically obtains a water sample 126 for further testing and analysis by the operator 114. The diverting pipe may be connected to a valve to divert water from the main water pipe 102 in order to obtain the water sample 126”) is conducted to obtain a water sample in a water sampling flow channel 306. Chowdhury states that the water flowing through the flow channel is evaluated for cloudiness, color, chlorine, pH, transparency, conductivity, coliform, E-coli or any other suitable parameter. Although the values obtained and evaluated are related to data points taken over time, it is unclear if these values are index values.
Nakajima discloses a water quality monitoring method in which a sensor obtains a water quality index value that includes a plurality of parameters, such turbidity and microbial concentration. The measured water quality index value is compared to a threshold value in a determination step. If the index value is found to have exceeded the threshold value, corrective action is taken. This is described in paragraphs [0078]-[0087].
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to ensure that the Chowdhury method involves the detection and evaluation of an index value related to an amount of microorganisms. Nakajima teaches that this would allow one to make sampling decisions based on whether the contaminant concentration is trending upward or downward. Nakajima indicates that it is important to not only make control decisions based on the instant value of a parameter, but also on the activity of that value over time and its predicted future value. It is prima facie obvious to apply a known technique (here, detecting and evaluating an index value) to a known method ready for improvement to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143.
With respect to claim 2, Chowdhury and Nakajima disclose the combination as described above. Chowdhury further states that a water storage step is conducted, wherein liquid sampled in the water sampling step is stored in a water storage tank (Figure 4:115).
With respect to claims 5 and 6, Chowdhury discloses a water sampling device comprising a sensor (Figure 4:106 and Figure 4:309) configured to detect a value related to an amount of microorganisms in a liquid flowing through a flow channel (Figure 4:102). A calculator determines whether the value detected by the sensor has reached a threshold value, and a controller (Figure 4:112) directs water through a water sampling flow channel (Figure 4:306 and Figure 4:104) when the calculator determines that the detected value has reached the threshold. This is described on page 15, line 24 to page 21, line 2. Although the values obtained and evaluated by Chowdhury are related to data points taken over time, it is unclear if these values are index values.
Nakajima discloses a water quality monitoring method in which a sensor obtains a water quality index value that includes a plurality of parameters, such turbidity and microbial concentration. The measured water quality index value is compared to a threshold value in a determination step. If the index value is found to have exceeded the threshold value, corrective action is taken. This is described in paragraphs [0078]-[0087].
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to ensure that the Chowdhury apparatus and system is used to detect and evaluate an index value related to an amount of microorganisms. Nakajima teaches that this would allow one to make sampling decisions based on whether the contaminant concentration is trending upward or downward. Nakajima indicates that it is important to not only make control decisions based on the instant value of a parameter, but also on the activity of that value over time and its predicted future value. It is prima facie obvious to apply a known technique (here, detecting and evaluating an index value) to a known apparatus ready for improvement to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143.
With respect to claim 7, Chowdhury and Nakajima disclose the combination as described above. Chowdhury further states that a water storage tank (Figure 4:115) is configured to store liquid sampled via the water sampling flow channel 104.
Claims 3, 4, 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chowdhury (WO 2011061310) in view of Nakajima (US 20200109063) as applied to claims 1 and 6, and further in view of Luen (GB 2514609).
Chowdhury and Nakajima disclose the combination as described above, however do not expressly state that microorganisms in the sampled liquid are collected by a filter in a collection step and then purified in a concentration step.
Luen discloses a water sampling device and method comprising a sensor (Figure 1:34) configured to detect a value related to an amount of microorganisms in a liquid flowing through a channel (Figure 1:22). A controller (Figure 1:38) directs when a water sample is obtained for measurement. Luen further states that a filter (Figure 1:20) is used to collect microorganism in the liquid sampled (“The filter 20 permits the passage of objects and bacteria/cells having a dimension of less than 50 micrometers”), and that a concentration device (Figure 1:30) is further used to purify a concentrate (“The DEP device 30 operates to supply a sufficiently concentrated sample of the water to the staining device 32, which has a sufficient concentration of bacteria/cells from the water”). Sampled liquid is directed to a water storage tank (Figure 1:26).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to further filter and concentrate microorganisms in Chowdhury’s liquid samples. Luen teaches that this allows individual cells to be analyzed (e.g., differentiating between live and dead cells, obtaining total bacteria numbers, observing specific cellular functions). Luen teaches that downstream filtration and purification steps may be accomplished automatically, inexpensively and within a short period of time.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The Do (FR 3053359) and Chowdhury (WO 2015115995) references teach the state of the art regarding water sampling methods and systems.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATHAN ANDREW BOWERS whose telephone number is (571)272-8613. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7am-5pm.
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, Michael Marcheschi can be reached at (571) 272-1374. 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.
/NATHAN A BOWERS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1799