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 claims submitted on 12 OCTOBER 2023. The claim set considered is the claim set consisting of four (4) pages. In the claim set, Claims 1-10 are ‘Canceled’; Claims 11-20 are ‘New’. Current pending claims are Claims 11-20 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 31 MARCH 2024 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. Specification The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: There is a period missing at end of [23, 62]. The use of the term DELAVAL CELL COUNTER™ [22, 23, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61], BLUETOOTH™ [27, 46], GOOGLE PLAY® and APPLE®, [53]which is a trade name or a mark used in commerce, has been noted in this application. The term should be accompanied by the generic terminology; furthermore the term should be capitalized wherever it appears or, where appropriate, include a proper symbol indicating use in commerce such as ™, SM , or ® following the term . Although the use of trade names and marks used in commerce (i.e., trademarks, service marks, certification marks, and collective marks) are permissible in patent applications, the proprietary nature of the marks should be respected and every effort made to prevent their use in any manner which might adversely affect their validity as commercial marks. Appropriate correction is required. Drawings The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: Figure 2A, character 113. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance. The drawings are objected to because in Figure 8, the axes are extremely blurry/small and the Examiner is unable to read it/them. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance. Claim Objections Claim s 1 1 and 17 objected to because of the following informalities: In the instant claim, element ii and (d-f), respectively, where it recites ‘the sample’ ; this instance should be ‘the at least one test sample’ to avoid any confusion and to have consistent terminology in the claim and claim set. Appropriate correction is required. Claim 12 objected to because of the following informalities: In the instant claim, where it recites ‘the test strip ; this instance should be ‘the at least colorimetric test strip’ to avoid any confusion and to have consistent terminology in the claim and claim set. Appropriate correction is required. Claims 12 -14 are objected to because of the following informalities: In the instant claim, where it recites ‘the detector’ should be ‘the at least one optical detector’ or ‘the optical detector’ to avoid any confusion and to have consistent terminology in the claim and claim set. Appropriate correction is required. In addition in Claim 13, ‘the detector’ should be ‘the at least one optical detector’ or ‘the optical detector’. In addition in Claim 13, ‘the test analyte’ should be ‘the at least one test analyte’. In addition in Claim 14, ‘the adaptor’ should be ‘the at least one adaptor’; and the ‘concave shaped holder’ should be ‘at least one concave shaped holder’. Claims 16 and 19 objected to because of the following informalities: In the instant claim, element ii, where it recites ‘the sample’ ; this instance should be ‘the at least one test sample’ to avoid any confusion and to have consistent terminology in the claim and claim set. 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 appl icant regards as his invention. Claim s 1 1, 16 and 17 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. Claims 1 1, 16 and 17 recites in the preamble the term ‘ argo -dairy’. This term is unclear since dairy and dairy sample are inherently agricultural ( argo ). This term seems repetitive and unclear. Is it necessary to use both terms? Or are all kinds of agricultural samples includes dairy, meat etc. thereby also making it unclear if the term ‘diary’ unnecessary. Furthermore, the body of the claim (the device, system and method) does not have any language that is specific to agriculture or dairy sample. The term ‘ argo -dairy’ is in the preamble. When reading the preamble in the context of the entire claim, the recitation ‘ argo -dairy’ 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. Dependent Claims 1 2-15 and 18-20 depend directly or indirectly from the independent claim and are also rejected under 112(b). Claim 16 is 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. Claims 16 and 17 recites the limitation "the portable testing device". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. In Claim 15 and 11, the preamble recites ‘portable device’, not a ‘portable testing device’. This is seen in element (a), (b) and in Claim 17. The term “ suitable ” in claim 17 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “ suitable ” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. 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-AIA 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: A ‘networking module for data transfer’ in Claim 1. A module does not connote any particular structure. The specification define the networking module to be a Bluetooth module or a WiFi module or both , [46]. 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-AIA 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-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. 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. Claims 11-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by FILLIN "Insert the prior art relied upon." \d "[ 4 ]" AST, US Patent 10,458,902 B2, submitted on the Information Disclosure Statement on 31 MARCH 2024, US Patent Cite No. 1 . Applicant’s invention is directed towards a device. Regarding Claim 11 , the reference AST discloses portable device for testing agro -dairy based samples, Figure 1 and 2, Column 8 line 29-35, Column 20 line 36-67, comprising: (a) at least one optical detector based on micro-spectroscopy , Claim 14, Column 20 line 36-39, Column 21 line 1-3, Column 22 line 1-3 , the detector being optically aligned with at least one test sample and having sensitivity across a wavelength range encompassing reflectance or transmission wavelength of at least one test analyte of the test sample , Column 8 line 14-21 , Column 22 line 51-65, Figure 13 step 1312 ; (b) at least one adaptor holding: ( i ) at least one colorimetric test strip upon which is placed the at least one test sample comprising the at least one test analyte; (ii) at least one concave shaped holder for holding the at least one test sample, the sample being solid or semi-solid; and (iii) at least one cuvette for holding the at least one test sample further containing at least one test analyte , Column 14 line 64-Column 15 line 5, Column 17 line 45-46, Column 22 line 58-62 ; the adaptors for each of ( i ), (ii) and (iii) fitting into at least one socket on the device , Column 22 line 58-62 ; (c) at least one light emitting diode (LED) light source capable of emitting a range of wavelengths , Column 12 line 36-47, smartphone has camera flash, Column 4 line 13-15 ; (d) a microcontroller for controlling the functioning of electronic components , Column 10 line 46-49 ; and (e) a networking module for data transfer utilizing wireless technology , Column 15 line 15-24, Column 17 line 56-62 Additional Disclosures Included are: Claim 1 2 : wherein the device as claimed in claim 11, wherein the optical detector is optically aligned with a reaction pad located on the test strip, wherein the at least one test analyte reacts with a chemical compound present in the reaction pad to produce a specific color, the detector detecting the reflectance of the color , Column 12 line 36-47, Column 4 line 13-15, Figure 13 . ; Claim 13 : wherein the device as claimed in claim 11, wherein the optical detector is optically aligned with the cuvette to detect a transmission spectrum of the test analyte therein , Column 12 line 4-30.; Claim 14 : wherein the device as claimed in claim 11, wherein the adaptor is fused to the concave shaped holder of (b)(ii) forming a single unit , Column 14 line 64-Column 15 line 5, Column 17 line 45-46, Column 22 line 58-62.; and Claim 15 : wherein the device as claimed in claim 11, further comprising a storage space within the device to store additional adaptors , Column 17 line 15-19. Applicant’s invention is directed towards a system. Regarding Claim 16 , the AST reference discloses a system of testing agro -dairy based samples, Figure 1 and 2, comprising: (a) the portable testing device as claimed in claim 15 , See Rejection to Claims 15 and 11 ; (b) a power source , Column 20 line 10-24 , Column 24 line 1-15 ; and (c) a computing device remotely connected to the portable testing device via the wireless technology of the networking module, the computing device having a computer program for monitoring, recording, storing, or analysis of spectral data, or a combination thereof, wherein the computing device has an electronic processor that executes the computer program to process the spectral data to provide a measurement value for the samples tested , Column 15 line 15-24, Column 17 line 56-62 . Applicant’s invention is directed towards a method. Regarding Claim 17 , the AST reference discloses a method , Figure 13, abstract, Column 22 line 24-Column 23 line 24, of testing agro -dairy based samples using the system as claimed in claim 16, See Rejection of Claim 16, comprising the steps of: (a) powering on the portable testing device and remotely connecting the device to the computing device , Column 20 line 10-24 ; (b) inputting suitable information into the computer program of the computing device to enable the computer program to instruct the portable testing device to calibrate the LED light sources and the corresponding optical detectors in a specific way , Column 8 line 3-13, Column 18 line 2-18 ; (c) introducing the at least one test sample into the at least one cuvette, or onto the at least one colorimetric test strip, or onto the at least one concave holder, and inserting the corresponding adaptors holding the cuvette or the test strip or the concave holder into corresponding sockets on the device , Figure 13, Column 22 line 51-65 ; (d) turning on the LED light sources to direct light towards the samples thereby enabling the corresponding optical detectors to receive light reflected from or transmitted through the sample and communicate the same in the form of spectral data to the computing device via the wireless technology , Figure 13, Column 22 line 66-Column 23 line 3 ; (e) executing the computer program on the computing device to process the spectral data to provide a measurement value for the sample tested , Figure 13 Column 23 line 4-24 ; and (f) reading a display screen on the remotely connected computing device showing the measured output data of reflectance or transmission of the samples tested , Column 8 line 8-13, Figure 1 and 2, display 122 of smartphone 110 . Additional Disclosures Included are: Claim 18 : wherein the method as claimed in claim 17, wherein a reference sample or a blank is run prior to step (c) , Column 4 line 60 – Column 5 line 3, Column 14 line 51-56, Column 19 line 43-46.; Claim 19 : wherein the method as claimed in claim 17, wherein the spectral data obtained corresponds to and is mapped to somatic cell counts or concentrations of fats, solids-not-fats content, lactate dehydrogenase, b-hydroxybutyrate, antibiotic residues and proteins in the sample analyzed , Column 20 line 40-67.; Claim 20 : wherein the method as claimed in claim 17, wherein the samples being analyzed are biological fluids , Column 20 line 36-67. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US Publication No. 2015/0244852 A1 to Erickson discloses a portable device for testing samples, all Figures, comprising: (a) at least one optical detector based on micro-spectroscopy, the detector being optically aligned with at least one test sample and having sensitivity across a wavelength range encompassing reflectance or transmission wavelength of at least one test analyte of the test sample , [0020, 0050, 0051] ; (b) at least one adaptor holding , Figure 3 and 6 : ( i ) at least one colorimetric test strip upon which is placed the at least one test sample comprising the at least one test analyte , [0028, 0066, 0083] ; (ii) at least one shaped holder for holding the at least one test sample, the sample being solid or semi-solid , Figure 3, [0078] ; and (iii) at least one substrate for holding the at least one test sample further containing at least one test analyte , Figure 6 and 7 ; the adaptors for each of ( i ), (ii) and (iii) fitting into at least one socket on the device , Figure 3 and 6 ; (c) at least one light emitting diode (LED) light source capable of emitting a range of wavelengths , [0027, 0046] ; (d) a microcontroller for controlling the functioning of electronic components , [0017], Figure 1 ; and (e) a networking module for data transfer utilizing wireless technology , [0042, 0072] . 18. In addition, a system comprising the device and method for using the device is taught, abstract, Figure 1-3. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT CHRISTINE T MUI whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)270-3243 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT LYLE ALEXANDER can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (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