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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arifin; A. et al., US 20170370828 A1 (hereinafter Arifin), in view Hill, Ryan, et al., US 9441996 B2 (hereinafter Hill), and in further view of Hartman, A. et al., US 9033923 B2 (hereinafter Hartman).
Regarding claim 1, Arifin teaches a method for analysing parameters of a fluid in a hose, comprising the steps of: Calibrating a current of a light source for emitting a light beam (para [0059] lines 1-7) so that the signals resulting from the light beam received by a receiver (the receiver is 116 in fig. 1) arranged behind a hose (the hose is 102, para [0023] lines 1-4) “allow a differentiation between signals received from a multiphase fluid” (fig. 1 para [0023] lines 1-9; phase fraction is the differentiation between signals received from an air-filled hose and a fluid-filled hose); Emitting the light beam by the light source at a defined wavelength (fig. 1 106a-c has its own corresponding wavelength) through the hose wherein the receiver is arranged behind the hose with an angle with respect to the axis of the light beam (fig. 1 shows 0 degree behind pipe 102; fig. 2 is 90 degrees); “Detecting a phase boundary of the multiphase fluid during aspiration of the fluid into the hose by measuring signals with the receiver” (para [0030] lines 17-22); “Determining when the hose is filled with fluid” (fig. 5 “water”, para [0035] lines 5-8; if more ʎ2 is absorbed, it means the pipe is filled with water); “Increasing the current of the light source when the hose is filled with fluid” (para [0059] 1-7; increase the lasers if intensity is dropped); “Measuring absorption of the light and/or scattered light with the receiver” (figs. 1-2 shows the detectors measure the scattered lights); and “Evaluating the amount and intensity of the measured absorbed and/or scattered light” (para [0030] lines 17-22).
However, Arifin fails to teach “an air-filled hose and a fluid-filled hose” and “between air and fluid”.
Hill, from the same field of endeavor as Arifin, teaches “an air-filled hose and a fluid-filled hose” (col 7 lines 51-57; 100% transmittance means fluid-filled hose) and “between air and fluid” (col 7 lines 51-57).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to apply the teaching of Hill to Arifin to have “an air-filled hose and a fluid-filled hose” and “between air and fluid” in order to improve the signal to noise ratios (col 3 lines 58-60).
Arifin, when modified by Hill, does not teach reflecting the light beam by an inner surface of the hose.
Hartman, from the same field of endeavor as Arifin, teaches reflecting the light beam by an inner surface of the hose (the sensor is shown in fig. 10, the detector detects the light by total internal reflection; col 4 lines 13-17; also, see evidentiary reference US 4880971 A, col 2 lines 45-50, wherein if the tube is filled with liquid, the light transmits and there is almost no reflection).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to apply the teaching of Hartman to Arifin, when modified by Hill, to have “reflecting the light beam by an inner surface of the hose” in order to detect air in the tubing (col 1 para 1).
Regarding claim 2, Arifin teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the light source comprises at least one LED (para [0026] lines 1-5).
Regarding claim 3, Arifin teaches the method of claim 1, wherein an additional sensor for detecting a transmitted light beam and its wavelength is used during measuring absorption (fig. 2, the additional sensor is 120).
Regarding claim 4, Arifin teaches the method of claim 1, comprising the step of evaluating the amount of a scattered light beam and comparing the determined amount of the scattered light beam with an amount of the scattered light beam relating to a known concentration of a first compound in the fluid (this is explained in para [0046]).
Regarding claim 6, Arifin teaches the method of claim 1, wherein evaluating the amount of an absorbed light beam comprises comparing the measured absorption with a known absorption relating to a known concentration of a second compound (para [0048] lines 1-5; each phase corresponds to the known absorption relating to a known concentration of a second compound).
Regarding claim 8, Arifin teaches the method of claim 1, wherein measuring the absorbed and/or the scattered light beam is performed with the emitted light beam at different wavelengths (para [0026] lines 5-9).
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arifin, in view of Hill and Hartman, as applied to claim(s) 4 above, and further in view of Keenan, C., et al., US 5447692 A (hereinafter Keenan).
Regarding claim 5, the modified device of Arifin fails to teach the method of claim 4, wherein the first compound is selected from the group comprising magnetic beads, antibodies, proteins, peptides, nucleic acids and synthetic or biological substances.
Keenan, from the same field of endeavor as Arifin, teaches the method of claim 4, wherein the first compound is selected from the group comprising magnetic beads, antibodies, proteins, peptides, nucleic acids (DNA is a nucleic acid, fig. 4 col 5 lines 25-50) and synthetic or biological substances.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to apply the teaching of Keenan to the modified device of Arifin to have the method of claim 4, wherein the first compound is selected from the group comprising magnetic beads, antibodies, proteins, peptides, nucleic acids and synthetic or biological substances in order to reduce the cost of the instrument overall (col 2 lines 12-15).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arifin, in view of Hill and Hartman, as applied to claim(s) 6 above, and further in view of Kleinschmitt, D., US 5960129 A (hereinafter Kleinschmitt).
Regarding claim 7, the modified device of Arifin fails to teach the method of claim 6, wherein the second compound is a dye.
Kleinschmitt, from the same field of endeavor as Arifin, teaches the method of claim 6, wherein the second compound is a dye (col 8 claim 7 line 65).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to apply the teaching of Keenan to the modified device of Arifin to have teaches the method of claim 6, wherein the second compound is a dye in order to detect the location of particular segments in the stream with high accuracy (col 6 lines 65-67).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arifin, in view of Hill, Hartman, and Keenan, as applied to claim(s) 8 above, and further in view of Kramer, D., US 4559454 A (hereinafter Kramer).
Regarding claim 9, the modified device of Arifin does not the method of claim 8, wherein the measurements are performed with the emitted light beam at a wavelength having 660 nm and 500 nm.
Keenan, from the same field of endeavor as Arifin, teaches the method of claim 8, wherein the measurements are performed with the emitted light beam at a wavelength of 500 nm (col 6 lines 16-22).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to apply the teaching of Keenan to the modified device of Arifin to have the method of claim 8, wherein the measurements are performed with the emitted light beam at a wavelength of 500 nm in order to increase the efficiency of detecting the dye DMT in the sample (col 6 lines 16-25).
Arifin, when modified by Hill and Keenan, does not teach a wavelength having 660 nm.
Kramer, from the same field of endeavor as Arifin, teaches a wavelength having 660 nm (col 4 claim 5; its nanometer not manometers).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to apply the teaching of Kramer to Arifin, when modified by Hill and Keenan, to have a wavelength having 660 nm in order to increase the accuracy of detecting the presence of bubbles in the blood (col 1 lines 4-7).
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 ROBERTO FABIAN JR whose telephone number is (571)272-3632. The examiner can normally be reached M-F (8-12, 1-5).
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, Tarifur Chowdhury can be reached at (571) 272-2287. 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.
/ROBERTO FABIAN JR/Examiner, Art Unit 2877
/Kara E. Geisel/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2877
Prosecution Insights