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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I in the reply filed on 3/12/2026 is acknowledged. Claims 15-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to nonelected inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
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.
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) 1-4, 6, 7, 9 and 11-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over United States Patent No. 6,113,858, hereinafter Tang in view of United States Patent No. 7,397,547, hereinafter Chiarello.
Regarding claim 1, Tang teaches a fluid concentration measurement system comprising: a sensor device comprising: a sample cavity that is configured for insertion (abstract) into an industrial process stream (column 7, lines 11-17), the sample cavity being configured to obtain a fluid sample from the industrial process stream and to mix a reagent with the fluid sample in the sample cavity to form a mixed sample (column 8, lines 28-35); a light source that is configured to illuminate the mixed sample in the sample cavity (column 8, lines 36-37); an optical sensor that is configured to receive light from the mixed sample and generate sensor data based on the received light (column 8, lines 40-49); and at least one processor that is configured to: obtain the sensor data (column 8, lines 43-49) and determine a concentration of a target analyte (column 8, lines 54-60).
Tang does not teach that the processor is configured to correct the sensor data for at least one attribute of the industrial process stream; and determine a concentration of a target analyte based on the corrected sensor data.
Chiarello teaches correcting sensor data based on an attribute (temperature) of an industrial process stream (Chiarello, column 6, lines 3-6) with a calibration method where the signal processor utilizes a lookup table to translate to liquid concentration (Chiarello, column 11, lines 34-36). The firmware algorithm automatically corrects and compensates for LED brightness changes (Chiarello, column 13, lines 66-67).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to correct sensor data for at least one industrial process stream attribute, such as temperature, as taught by Chiarello because Index of Refraction/IoR measurements are sensitive to the temperature of the liquid under analysis and temperature changes in the sensor housing alter optical properties and create “false” readings that adversely affect concentration measurements (Chiarello, column 10, lines 35-40).
Regarding claim 2, Tang teaches the sample cavity (item 80) comprises a chamber (item 70, figure 1) the chamber being exposed to the industrial process stream when the sensor device is in a first configuration (column 4, lines 18-24) and being closed off from the industrial process stream when the sensor device is in a second configuration (when the valve mechanism is not open).
Regarding claim 3, Tang teaches the chamber (item 70) is exposed to the industrial process stream through at least one orifice/opening 76 (figure 1) when the sensor device is in a first configuration, the at least one orifice being closed when the sensor device is in a second configured (column 4, lines 18-24).
Regarding claim 4, Tang teaches the sample cavity (item 80) comprises a well that is configured for positioning within the industrial process steam (figure 3).
Regarding claim 6, modified Tang teaches the at least one processor is configured to obtain the sensor data, correct the sensor data for the at least one attribute of the industrial process stream and determine the concentration of the target analyte based on the corrected sensor data while the sample cavity is inserted into the industrial process stream (Chiarello, column 6, lines 3-6, column 11, lines 34-36 and column 13, lines 66-67).
Regarding claim 7, modified Tang teaches the at least once processor being configured to correct the sensor data for the at least one attribute of the industrial process stream comprises the at least one processor (column 8, lines 43-49) being configured to: access a look-up-table corresponding to the at least one attribute of the industrial process stream; and correcting the sensor data based at least in part on the look-up-table, a value corresponding to the at least one attribute and the sensor data (Chiarello, column 11, lines 34-39).
Regarding claim 9, Tang teaches the sensor device comprises a reagent supply channel that is configured to supply the reagent to the sample cavity (figure 1).
Regarding claim 11, Tang teaches the sensor device comprises a window (item 94) and window (item 64, figure 1), the window being disposed between the industrial process stream and the light source and optical sensor and configured to seal the light source (figure 7 item 64) and optical sensor (figure 7, item 94) from at least one attribute of the industrial process stream while permitting a transmission of light between the light source and industrial process stream and between the industrial process stream and the optical sensor (column 5, lines 33-35).
Regarding claim 12, Tang, as modified above, teaches all limitations of claim 1; however, Tang, as modified above fails to teach the sensor device comprises a filter.
Chiarello further teaches the sensor device comprises a filter, the filter being selected based at least in part on the target analyte and being disposed between the sample cavity and the optical sensor to filter light received by the optical sensor from the sample cavity (Chiarello, column 2, lines 55-68).
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 sensor device of Tang with the filter taught by Chiarello because Chiarello teaches that the filter serves to pass radiation at the wavelengths produced by the light source to photodetector and such filter eliminates unwanted noise caused by other radiation sources in proximity to the sensor (Chiarello, column 2, lines 56-60).
Regarding claim 13, Tang, as modified above, teaches all lmitaitons of claim 12; however, Tang, as modified above fails to teach the optical sensor comprises a plurality of optical sensors, each optical sensor comprising a corresponding filter.
Chiarello further teaches multiple optical sensors each with their own optical filter (Chiarello, column 2, lines 55-60) are used simultaneously as this allows for each optical sensor to be calibrated to a specific chemical species (Chiarello, column 8, lines 23-29).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have added a plurality of optical sensor each with their own optical filter because it would allow for each optical sensor to be calibrated to a specific chemical species (Chiarello, column 8, lines 23-29).
Claim(s) 5, 10 and 21-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tang and Chiarello as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of United States Application Publication No. 2012/0198921, hereinafter Lundgreen.
Regarding claim 5, Tang and Chiarello teaches all limitations of claim 1; however, they fail to teach the sensor device is configured to be removably coupled to a structure comprising the industrial process stream.
Lundgreen teaches the sensor device is configured to be removably coupled to a structure (paragraph [0043]).
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 device of Tang to be removably coupled because Lundgreen teaches that upon a malfunction due to a component of the cartridge module/sensor head, the cartridge module/sensor head can be exchanged (Lundgreen, paragraph [0042]).
Regarding claim 10, Tang and Chiarello teaches all limitations of claim 1; however, they fail to teach the sample cavity comprises a membrane configured to dispense the reagent.
Lundgreen teaches the sample cavity comprises a membrane that is configured to dispense the reagent (paragraph [0019]).
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 device of Tang with the peristaltic pump membrane of Lundgreen because the mechanism would allow pumping the carrier liquid or reagent in fine doses and is designed so that undesired return flow or leakage flow of carrier liquid or reagent cannot occur (Lundgreen, paragraphs [0036]-[0037]).
Regarding claim 21, Tang and Chiarello teaches all limitations of claim 1; however, they fail to teach the sensor device comprises a membrane disposed in fluid contact with the industrial process stream.
Lundgreen teaches the sensor device comprises a membrane disposed in fluid contact with the industrial process stream (paragraph [0025]).
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 system of Tang to include a membrane disposed in fluid contact with the industrial process stream as taught by Lundgreen because Lundgreen teaches a dialysis membrane positioned in contact with water being analyzed, thereby allowing analyte species to pass into the measurement system while excluding larger contaminants (Lundgreen, paragraph 0038).
Regarding claim 22, Tang and Chiarello teaches all limitations of claim 1; however, they fail to teach the reagent is disposed in a carrying fluid. The carrying fluid being mixed with the fluid sample in the sample cavity to form the mixed sample.
Lundgreen teaches the reagent is disposed in a carrying fluid, the carrying fluid being mixed with the fluid sample in the sample cavity to form the mixed sample (paragraph [0041]).
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 system of Tang to use the carrier fluid as taught by Lundgreen because Lundgreen teaches using a carrier liquid to receive analyte from a process fluid through a membrane and transport the analyte containing sample for optical analysis (Lundgreen, paragraph 0038).
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tang and Chiarello as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of United States Application Publication No. 2020/0145111, hereinafter Franck.
Regarding claim 8, Tang and Chiarello teaches all limitations of claim 7; however, they fail to teach the at least one processor is configured to: obtain an updated look-up-table corresponding to the at least one attribute; and replace the look-up-table with the updated look-up-table.
Franck teaches obtaining updated lookup table information and updating a stored lookup table (paragraph [0064]).
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 processor of Tang, as modified by Chiarello, to obtain and replace a lookup table with an updated lookup table as taught by Franck because Franck teaches that lookup tables with configurable lookup values are used in optical transmitters to compensate for nonlinearities (Franck, paragraph [0003]). Updating correction data to improve measurement accuracy was a known technique in the art. The update of lookup table values would have been routine optimization yielding predictable results.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tang and Chiarello as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of United States Application Publication No. 2007/0205365, hereinafter Smitt.
Regarding claim 14, Tang and Chiarello teaches all limitations of claim 1; however, they fail to teach the sensor device comprises a lens disposed between the optical sensor and the sample cavity, the lens being configured to collimate the light received by the optical sensor from the mixed sample.
Smitt teaches a lens, between the optical source and sample, that is configured to collimate light emitted from the sample (paragraph [0169]).
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 device of Tang, modified by Chiarello, to include the collimating lens taught by Smitt because Smitt teaches that the objective lens module collimates emitted light into a beam such that most of the photons contained in emitted light strike the light-sensing surface of the detector, whereas without the collimating lens a higher percentage of photons would scatter before reaching the detector, thereby detracting from image quality (Smitt, paragraph [0044]).
Claim(s) 23-26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lundgreen in view of Chiarello.
Regarding claim 23, Lundgreen teaches a sensor device comprising: a sensor head that is configured for at least partial insertion into a liquid system (paragraph [0026]), the sensor head comprising a sample cavity (item 114) that is configured to receive a liquid sample based on a liquid of the liquid system (paragraph [0038]); a metering pump that is configured to deliver a carrying fluid comprising a reagent to the sample cavity (paragraph [0041]), the carrying fluid mixing with the liquid sample in the sample cavity to form a mixed sample. The reagent being configured to interact with a target analyte to cause a predetermined optical effect (paragraph [0025]); a light source that is configured to illuminate the mixed sample in the sample cavity; an optical sensor that is configured to receive light from the mixed sample and generate sensor data based on the received light (paragraphs [0030] and [0039]).
Lundgreen does not teach and at least one processor that is configured to: obtain the sensor data; and determine a concentration of the target analyte in the liquid sample based on the sensor data and the predetermined optical effect.
Chiarello teaches a signal processor configured to obtain the sensor data (column 9, lines 60-64); and determine a concentration of the target analyte in the liquid sample based on the sensor data and the predetermined optical effect (column 5, lines 63-65).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the signal processing unit of Chiarello into the sensor system on Lundgreen because Chiarello teaches using a signal processor to process optical measurement data and convert the measured optical response into a concentration value through the use of calibration curves or lookup tables (Chiarello, column 9, lines 60-67).
Regarding claim 24, Lundgreen teaches the sensor device comprises a membrane disposed in fluid contact with the liquid system (paragraph [0025]).
Regarding claim 25, Lundgreen teaches a sensor device comprising: a sensor head that is configured for at least partial insertion into a liquid system (paragraph [0026]), the sensor head comprising a sample cavity (item 114) that is configured to receive a liquid sample based on a liquid of the liquid system (paragraph [0038]); a supply tube connected to the sample cavity (paragraph [0043]); a metering pump that is configured to deliver a carrying fluid comprising a reagent to the sample cavity via the supply tube (paragraph [0041]), the carrying fluid mixing with the liquid sample in the sample cavity to form a mixed sample, the reagent being configured to interact with a target analyte to cause a predetermined optical effect; a membrane disposed in fluid contact with the liquid system, the membrane being fluidly disposed between the supply tube and the liquid system (paragraph [0025]); a light source that is configured to illuminate the mixed sample in the sample cavity; an optical sensor that is configured to receive light from the mixed sample and generate sensor data based on the received light (paragraphs [0030] and [0039]).
Lundgreen does not teach and at least one processor that is configured to: obtain the sensor data; and determine a concentration of the target analyte in the liquid sample based on the sensor data and the predetermined optical effect.
Chiarello teaches a signal processor configured to obtain the sensor data (column 9, lines 60-64); and determine a concentration of the target analyte in the liquid sample based on the sensor data and the predetermined optical effect (column 5, lines 63-65).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the signal processing unit of Chiarello into the sensor system on Lundgreen because Chiarello teaches using a signal processor to process optical measurement data and convert the measured optical response into a concentration value through the use of calibration curves or lookup tables (Chiarello, column 9, lines 60-67).
Regarding claim 26, modified Lundgreen teaches at least one of: a wavelength of the light source is selected based on at least one attribute of the interaction between the reagent and the target analyte; and a transmission wavelength of a filter disposed between the optical sensor and the mixed sample is selected based on the predetermined optical effect (Chiarello, column 2, lines 55-64).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW D KRCHA whose telephone number is (571)270-0386. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 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, Maris Kessel can be reached at (571)270-7698. 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.
/MATTHEW D KRCHA/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1796
Prosecution Insights