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 .
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure.
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives.
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps.
Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length.
See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the abstract is not a concise statement describing what is new or an improvement to the art it pertains. Currently, the abstract discloses a modular flow-cell unit, however the abstract does not disclose an improvement made by the unit to the art. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The following title is suggested: Flow-Cell Assembly Including a Modular Flow-Cell Unit.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. The claim recites “the flow cell assembly according to claim 9”, however the limitations of “the flow cell assembly” aren’t introduced until claim 10. It would appear claim 11 should be dependent from claim 10 and not claim 9. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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 1 and 4-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Endress Hauser Conducta GMBH CO KG US11366053 (hereinafter “Endress”).
Regarding claim 1, Endress discloses a modular flow-cell unit (Flow cell-10 includes Modular flow cells-10.1, Fig 2), comprising: a mechanical fixing interface (Fig 2 shows the module flow cells-10.1 interconnected with fluid conduits, sensors and other devices) configured for receiving a further modular flow-cell unit (See Fig 2); and a fluid interface (Fig 2 shows the module flow cells-10.1 interconnected with fluid conduits, sensors and other devices) configured for receiving fluid from the further modular flow-cell unit or for transferring fluid to the further modular flow-cell unit. (Col 3 line 60- Col 4 line 9)
Regarding claim 4, Endress discloses a sample inlet (fluid inlet-11.1) configured to be connectable to a sample outlet (Fluid outlet 11.2) of the further modular flow-cell unit and a sample outlet configured to be connectable to a sample inlet of the further modular flow-cell unit (See fig 2), and/or an electrical interface to a further modular flow-cell unit (See Fig 2). (Col 3 line 60- Col 4 line 9)
Regarding claim 5, Endress discloses the modular flow-cell unit (Flow cell-10) is a sensor flow-cell unit (Trasnducer-40 connected to sensors-20) comprising a fitting that is configured to receive a sensor (See Fig 2 showing the sensors in a fitting on the top of the cells-10.1).
Regarding claim 6, Endress discloses the sensor flow-cell unit (Trasnducer-40 connected to sensors-20) comprises a sensor for sensing one of: a pH concentration, an Oxidation-Reduction Potential, a chlorine concentration, or a dissolved oxygen concentration. (Col 3 line 60- Col 4 line 9)
Regarding claim 7, Endress discloses the modular flow-cell unit (Trasnducer-40 connected to sensors-20) is a flow control module comprising a flow control arrangement or a sensor module. (Command interface-41 transmits and sends data including commands from a remote control center.) (Col 3 line 20 -42)
Regarding claim 8, Endress discloses the flow control arrangement (Command interface-41 transmits and sends data including commands from a remote control center.) comprises: a control valve; a grab sample port; and an out-of-sample float switch. (Col 4 line 40-67)
Regarding claim 9, Endress discloses the modular flow-cell unit (Flow cell-10 includes Modular flow cells-10.1, Fig 2) is one of: a verification unit configured to calibrate and check an optical sensor (illumination unit-30 connected to signal lamp-31). (Col 3 line 43-59, Fig 2)
Regarding claim 10, Endress discloses a flow-cell assembly (Measuring station-1), comprising: a first modular flow-cell unit (Modules-10.1); and a second modular flow-cell unit (Modules-10.1); wherein the first modular flow-cell unit and the second modular flow-cell unit are connectable to each other for providing a common flow of a sample through the first modular flow-cell unit and the second modular flow-cell (See Fig 2, Col 3 line 60- Col 4 line 9).
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.
Claims 2-3 and 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Endress Hauser Conducta GMBH CO KG US11366053 (hereinafter “Endress”) in view of UNIV Mainz Johannes Gutenberg CA3200697 (hereinafter “UNIV)
Regarding claim 2, Endress discloses the modular flow-cell unit according to claim 1.
Endress fails to disclose the mechanical fixing interface comprises a lateral plate enclosed with a protruding edge into which a connection element is insertable. UNIV discloses the mechanical fixing interface (support plate-10) comprises a lateral plate enclosed with a protruding edge ( latching receptacles-44) into which a connection element is insertable. (Page 13 line 11-29, Fig 6-10)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include the design of UNIV into Endress for the purpose of creating a more secure connection. The modification would allow for ensuring fluid transferring accuracy is maintained.
Regarding claim 3, Endress discloses the modular flow-cell unit according to claim 2.
Endress fails to disclose the lateral plate has at least two narrow sides, and wherein one of the two narrow sides of the lateral plate comprises a spring-loaded pin configured for fixing a connection element to the modular flow-cell unit. UNIV discloses the lateral plate (support plate-10) has at least two narrow sides (See Fig 6-10), and wherein one of the two narrow sides of the lateral plate comprises a spring-loaded pin (latching lugs-42) configured for fixing a connection element to the modular flow-cell unit. (Page 13 line 11-29, Fig 6-10)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include the design of UNIV into Endress for the purpose of creating a more secure connection. The modification would allow for ensuring fluid transferring accuracy is maintained.
Regarding claim 11, Endress discloses the assembly according to claim 9.
Endress fails to disclose the flow-cell assembly further comprises a connection element for mechanically fixing the first and second modular flow-cell units together. UNIV discloses the flow-cell assembly further comprises a connection element (latching lug-42 and latching receptacles-44) for mechanically fixing the first and second modular flow-cell units together. (Page 13 line 11-29, Fig 6-10)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include the design of UNIV into Endress for the purpose of creating a more secure connection. The modification would allow for ensuring fluid transferring accuracy is maintained.
Regarding claim 12, Endress discloses the assembly according to claim 11.
Endress fails to disclose the connection element is a U-shaped bracket comprising grooves for receiving protruding edges of plates of the first and second modular flow-cell units and grooves recesses or holes on opposite sides of the “U” for receiving load springs. Endress discloses the connection element (latching lug-42 and latching receptacles-44) is a U-shaped bracket comprising grooves for receiving protruding edges of plates of the first and second modular flow-cell units and grooves recesses or holes on opposite sides of the “U” for receiving load springs. (Page 13 line 11-29, Fig 6-10)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include the design of UNIV into Endress for the purpose of creating a more secure connection. The modification would allow for ensuring fluid transferring accuracy is maintained.
Regarding claim 13, Endress discloses the assembly according to claim 11.
Endress fails to disclose the connection element has a keyhole shaped mounting hole for attaching removable the flow-cell assembly to a wall. UNIV discloses the connection element (latching lug-42 and latching receptacles-44) has a keyhole shaped mounting hole for attaching removable the flow-cell assembly to a wall (holding device-50 holds the flow-cell assembly). (Page 13 line 11-29, Fig 6-10)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include the design of UNIV into Endress for the purpose of creating a more secure connection. The modification would allow for ensuring fluid transferring accuracy is maintained.
Regarding claim 14, Endress discloses the assembly according to claim 11.
Endress fails to disclose the connection element comprises a slot allowing the connection element to slide over the mechanical fixing interface of two adjacent flow control units to hold two modular flow-cell units together. UNIV discloses the connection element (latching lug-42 and latching receptacles-44) comprises a slot allowing the connection element to slide over the mechanical fixing interface of two adjacent flow control units to hold two modular flow-cell units together (holding device-50 holds the flow-cell assembly). (Page 13 line 11-29, Fig 6-10).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include the design of UNIV into Endress for the purpose of creating a more secure connection. The modification would allow for ensuring fluid transferring accuracy is maintained.
Conclusion
The prior art as cited on the PTO-892 is made of record and not relied upon but considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NIGEL H PLUMB whose telephone number is (571)272-8886. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 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 advised 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, John Breene can be reached at 571-272-4107. 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 (USA or CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/NIGEL H PLUMB/Examiner, Art Unit 2855
/Eric S. McCall/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855