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 Amendment
The amended claims filed 11/10/2025 have been entered. Claims 1-20 remain pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 4, 11, and 16 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 § 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, 2, 8, 9, and 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Dewey (US3853407A).
Regarding claim 1, Dewey teaches an optical fluid detection apparatus comprising:
an optical source configured to emit one or more optical test beams (11, Fig. 2);
a first mirror (42, Fig. 2) configured to reflect the one or more optical test beams to a first fluid cell (21, Fig. 2) of a plurality of fluid cells (21, 20, 22, Fig. 2), wherein the first fluid cell of the plurality of fluid cells configured to pass the one or more optical test beams through a first fluid in the first fluid cell (Fig. 1 depicts windows in the fluid cells);
a second mirror (44, Fig. 2) configured to receive and reflect the one or more optical test beams after passing through the first fluid cell;
a third mirror (41, Fig. 2) configured to receive and reflect the one or more optical test beams after reflecting from the second mirror; wherein the first mirror, the second mirror and the third mirror are mechanically coupled with each other (42, 44, and 41 are connected to the rotation shaft, 24. The examiner is interpreting this to be a mechanical coupling), and are configured to rotate by a predetermined angle after a measurement time period, wherein the measurement time period corresponds to a time duration to measure the first fluid, and wherein the rotated first mirror, the second mirror, and the third mirror cause the optical test beam to pass through a second fluid cell to an optical detector (column 2, lines 64-68; column 3, line 68 - column 4, lines 1-13): and the optical detector (26, Fig. 2) configured to receive the one or more optical test beams after reflecting from the third mirror.
Regarding claim 2, Dewey teaches the invention as explained above in claim 1, and further teaches the first mirror, the second mirror, and the third mirror are placed in fixed relative positions with respect to each other (column 5, lines 11-12).
Regarding claim 8, Dewey teaches the invention as explained above in claim 1, and further teaches at each measurement time of the plurality of measurement times, the first mirror is configured to reflect the one or more optical test beams in a direction of a corresponding fluid cell of the plurality of fluid cells, and the second mirror is configured to receive the one or more optical test beams after passing through the corresponding fluid cell (see mirrors 42 and 44 in Fig. 2 - the mirrors are fixed in this arrangement).
Regarding claim 9, Dewey teaches the invention as explained above in claim 8, and further teaches the plurality of fluid cells is arranged radially around the first mirror (see 20, 21, and 22 in Fig. 1), and wherein the first mirror, the second mirror, and the third mirror are configured to rotate around a rotation axis such that at each measurement time of the plurality of measurement times, the first mirror is configured to reflect the one or more optical test beams in the direction of the corresponding fluid cell of the plurality of fluid cells, and the second mirror is configured to receive the one or more optical test beams after passing through the corresponding fluid cell (column 2, lines 64-68; column 3, line 68 - column 4, lines 1-13).
Regarding claim 11, Dewey teaches optical fluid detection apparatus comprising:
an optical source configured to emit one or more optical test beams (11, Fig. 2);
a first mirror (42, Fig. 2) configured to reflect the one or more optical test beams to a first fluid cell (21, Fig. 2) of a plurality of fluid cells (21, 20, 22, Fig. 2), wherein the first fluid cell of the plurality of fluid cells configured to pass the one or more optical test beams through a first fluid in the first fluid cell (Fig. 1 depicts windows in the fluid cells);
a second mirror (44, Fig. 2) configured to receive and reflect the one or more optical test beams after passing through the first fluid cell;
a third mirror (41, Fig. 2) configured to receive and reflect the one or more optical test beams after reflecting from the second mirror;
an optical detector (26, Fig. 2) configured to receive the one or more optical test beams after reflecting from the third mirror;
he first mirror, the second mirror and the third mirror are mechanically coupled with each other (42, 44, and 41 are connected to the rotation shaft, 24. The examiner is interpreting this to be a mechanical coupling), and are configured to rotate by a predetermined angle after a measurement time period, wherein the measurement time period corresponds to a time duration to measure the first fluid, and wherein the rotated first mirror, the second mirror, and the third mirror cause the optical test beam to pass through a second fluid cell to an optical detector (column 2, lines 64-68; column 3, line 68 - column 4, lines 1-13); and
wherein the plurality of fluid cells is arranged radially around the first mirror, and wherein the first mirror and the optical detector are configured to rotate around a rotation axis (See 20, 21, and 22 in Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 12, Dewey teaches the invention as explained above in claim 11, and further teaches the first mirror and the optical detector are mechanically coupled to each other (coupled to each other via the rotation shaft, 24 - column 4, lines 4-6).
Regarding claim 13, Dewey teaches the invention as explained above in claim 11, and further teaches the first mirror and the optical detector are placed in fixed relative positions with respect to each other (column 5, lines 11-12) and are configured to rotate around the rotation axis such that at a measurement time of the plurality of measurement times corresponding to the first fluid cell, the first mirror is configured to reflect the one or more optical test beams in a direction of the first fluid cell, and the optical detector is configured to receive the one or more optical test beams after passing through the first fluid cell (column 2, lines 64-68; column 3, line 68 - column 4, lines 1-13).
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 3-7, 10, 14, and 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dewey (US3853407A) as applied to claims 1 and 13 above, and further in view of Hawes (US3972618A).
Regarding claim 3, Dewey teaches the invention as explained above in claim 1, and further teaches the first fluid cell comprises:
a first window of the first fluid cell configured to receive the one or more optical test beams after reflecting from the first mirror (column 3, lines 63-64);
a second window of the first fluid cell configured to pass the one or more optical test beams after passing through the first fluid cell (column 3, lines 63-64);
Dewey fails to teach an inlet of the first fluid cell configured to pass the first fluid to the first fluid cell; and an outlet of the first fluid cell configured to pass the first fluid out of the first fluid cell.
However, in the same field of endeavor of optical detection of measurement cells, Hawes discloses test cells with an inlet and outlet which allows gas to be added and removed from the cell (column 4, lines 60-63).
Hawes discloses adding an inlet and outlet allows for continuous monitoring (column 4, line 60). Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date would find it obvious to combine the device of Dewey with the inlet and outlet taught in Hawes in order to allow for continuous monitoring without the need to manually place new sample cells.
Regarding claim 4, Dewey as modified by Hawes teaches the invention as explained above in claim 3, and further teaches the first mirror, the second mirror and the third mirror are configured to rotate around a rotation axis such that at a first measurement time, the first mirror and the second mirror are positioned near the two ends of the first fluid cell, and the first mirror is configured to reflect the one or more optical test beams to the first window of the first fluid cell and the second mirror is configured to receive the one or more optical test beams after passing through the first fluid cell from the second window of the first fluid cell and reflect it to the third mirror (Dewey: See mirrors 42, 44, and 41 in Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 5, Dewey as modified by Hawes teaches the invention as explained above in claim 4, and further teaches a second fluid cell wherein the second fluid cell comprises:
a first window of the second fluid cell configured to receive the one or more optical test beams after reflecting from the first mirror (Dewey: column 3, lines 63-64);
a second window of the second fluid cell configured to pass the one or more optical test beams after passing through the second fluid cell (Dewey: column 3, lines 63-64);
an inlet of the second fluid cell configured to pass a second fluid to the second fluid cell (Hawes: column 4, lines 60-63); and
an outlet of the second fluid cell configured to pass the second fluid out of the second fluid cell (Hawes: column 4, lines 60-63).
As discussed above in claim 3, a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date would find it obvious to combine the device of Dewey with the inlet and outlet taught in Hawes in order to allow for continuous monitoring without the need to manually place new sample cells.
Regarding claim 6, Dewey as modified by Hawes teaches the invention as explained above in claim 5, and further teaches at a second measurement time the first mirror and the second mirror are positioned near the two ends of the second fluid cell, and the first mirror is configured to reflect the one or more optical test beams to the first window of the second fluid cell and the second mirror is configured to receive the one or more optical test beams after passing through the second fluid cell from the second window of the second fluid cell and reflect it to the third mirror (Dewey: the configuration of mirrors 42, 44, and 41 in Fig. 2 would remain the same at a second measuring time).
Regarding claim 7, Dewey as modified by Hawes teaches the invention as explained above in claim 6, and further teaches the optical detector is configured to detect a concentration of the first fluid in the first fluid cell during a first measurement time and a concentration of the second fluid in the second fluid cell during the second measurement time (Dewey: eq. 3 describes a concentration measurement), by detecting an interferogram in the received one or more optical test beams (Hawes: column 5, lines 13-14).
The aim of Dewey is to improve a spectrophotometer (column 2, lines 67-68). The interferometer of Hawes is part of a spectrometer (column 2, lines 25-30). Interferometers are well-known in the art to provide high precision and high resolution measurements. Thus, a person having ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to combine the device of Dewey as modified by Hawes with the interferogram taught in Hawes as a way to further improve a spectrophotometer.
Regarding claim 10, Dewey teaches the invention as explained above in claim 8, and further teaches the first mirror is configured to reflect the one or more optical test beams in the direction of the corresponding fluid cell of the plurality of fluid cells, and the second mirror is configured to receive the one or more optical test beams after passing through the corresponding fluid cell (see mirrors 42 and 44 in Fig. 2).
Dewey fails to teach the plurality of fluid cells is arranged linearly, and wherein the first mirror, the second mirror, and the third mirror are configured to move linearly such that at each measurement time of the plurality of measurement times.
However, Hawes teaches a plurality of fluid cells arranged linearly (43 and 45, Fig. 1).
There is nothing in the present application to suggest the use of a linear arrangement and movement of the fluid cells and mirrors has any technical benefit nor would it modify the optical detection operation of the device. Further, nothing in Dewey suggests a rotational movement is the only way to achieve the design goal of an easily aligned system (column 2, line43-48). Therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would find a linear arrangement and consequent movement to be an obvious design choice. It would be obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine the device of Dewey with the linear arrangement taught in Hawes as it is an obvious design choice, depending on the needs of the shape or size device.
Regarding claim 14, Dewey teaches the invention as explained above in claim 13, and further teaches the optical detector is configured to detect a concentration of a fluid in the first fluid cell during the measurement time (eq. 3).
Dewey fails to teach the use of an interferogram.
However, Hawes teaches the use of an interferogram (column 5, lines 13-14).
As discussed above in claim 7, a person having ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to combine the device of Dewey as modified by Hawes with the interferogram taught in Hawes as a way to further improve a spectrophotometer.
Regarding claim 16, Dewey teaches an optical fluid detection apparatus comprising:
an optical source configured to emit one or more optical test beams (11, Fig. 2);
a first mirror (42, Fig. 2) configured to reflect the one or more optical test beams to a first fluid cell (21, Fig. 2) of a plurality of fluid cells (21, 20, 22, Fig. 2), wherein the first fluid cell of the plurality of fluid cells configured to pass the one or more optical test beams through a first fluid in the first fluid cell (Fig. 1 depicts windows in the fluid cells);
a second mirror (44, Fig. 2) configured to receive and reflect the one or more optical test beams after passing through the first fluid cell;
a third mirror (41, Fig. 2) configured to receive and reflect the one or more optical test beams after reflecting from the second mirror; wherein the first mirror, the second mirror and the third mirror are mechanically coupled with each other (42, 44, and 41 are connected to the rotation shaft, 24. The examiner is interpreting this to be a mechanical coupling), and are configured to rotate by a predetermined angle after a measurement time period, wherein the measurement time period corresponds to a time duration to measure the first fluid, and wherein the rotated first mirror, the second mirror, and the third mirror cause the optical test beam to pass through a second fluid cell to an optical detector (column 2, lines 64-68; column 3, line 68 - column 4, lines 1-13); and
optical detector (26, Fig. 2) configured to receive the one or more optical test beams after reflecting from the third mirror.
However, Hawes teaches a plurality of fluid cells arranged linearly (43 and 45, Fig. 1).
There is nothing in the present application to suggest the use of a linear arrangement and movement of the fluid cells and mirrors has any technical benefit nor would it modify the optical detection operation of the device. Further, nothing in Dewey suggests a rotational movement is the only way to achieve the design goal of an easily aligned system (column 2, lines 43-48). Therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would find a linear arrangement and consequent movement to be an obvious design choice. It would be obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine the device of Dewey with the linear arrangement taught in Hawes as it is an obvious design choice, depending on the needs of the shape or size device.
Regarding claim 17, Dewey as modified by Hawes teaches the invention as explained above in claim 16, and further teaches the first mirror and the optical detector are mechanically coupled to each other (Dewey: attached to rotation shaft, 24. The examiner is interpreting this to be a mechanical coupling).
Regarding claim 18, Dewey as modified by Hawes teaches the invention as explained above in claim 16, and further teaches the first mirror and the optical detector are placed in fixed relative positions with respect to each other (Dewey: column 5, lines 11-12) and are configured to move linearly such that at a measurement time of the plurality of measurement times corresponding to the first fluid cell, the first mirror is configured to reflect the one or more optical test beams in a direction of the first fluid cell, and the optical detector is configured to receive the one or more optical test beams after passing through the first fluid cell (Dewey: See Fig. 2: first mirror, 42, reflects light through measurement cell, 21, before being directed to detector, 26).
As discussed above, Hawes teaches a linear configuration of the measurement cells (43 and 45, Fig. 1).
There is nothing in the present application to suggest the use of a linear arrangement and movement of the fluid cells and mirrors has any technical benefit nor would it modify the optical detection operation of the device. Further, nothing in Dewey suggests a rotational movement is the only way to achieve the design goal of an easily aligned system (column 2, lines 43-48). Therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would find a linear movement due to the linear arrangement and consequent movement to be an obvious design choice. It would be obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine the device of Dewey with the linear arrangement taught in Hawes as it is an obvious design choice, depending on the needs of the shape or size device.
Regarding claim 19, Dewey as modified by Hawes teaches the invention as explained above in claim 18, and further teaches the optical detector is configured to detect a concentration of a fluid in the first fluid cell during the measurement time (Dewey: eq. 3) by detecting an interferogram in the received one or more optical test beams after passing through the first fluid cell (Hawes: column 5, lines 13-14).
As discussed above in claim 7, a person having ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to combine the device of Dewey as modified by Hawes with the interferogram taught in Hawes as a way to further improve a spectrophotometer.
Claims 15 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dewey (US3853407A) in view of Hawes (US3972618A) as applied to claims 14 and 19 above, and further in view of Ricard (US20190215067A1).
Regarding claim 15, Dewey as modified by Hawes teaches the invention as explained above in claim 14, but fails to teach the optical detector is configured to transmit detection data to one or more computing devices over a wireless medium or a slip ring, and the optical detector is configured to receive power using a battery or the slip ring.
However, in the same field of endeavor of optical detection, Ricard teaches an optical detector which transmits data wirelessly through a slip ring (paragraph [0001]) which also sends power to the detector (paragraph [0031]).
Ricard discloses the use of slip rings is known in optical detection, and are an inexpensive and simple solution to the problem of transmission degradation (paragraph [0004]). Thus, a person having ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to combine the device of Dewey as modified by Hawes with the slip ring taught in Ricard as slip rings are a simple and inexpensive way of transmitting data and powering detectors.
Regarding claim 20, Dewey as modified by Hawes teaches the invention as explained above in claim 19, but fails to teach the optical detector is configured to transmit detection data to one or more computing devices over a wireless medium or a linear sliding electrical connection, and the optical detector is configured to receive power using a battery or the linear sliding electrical connection.
However, Ricard teaches an optical detector which transmits data wirelessly through a slip ring (paragraph [0001]) which also sends power to the detector (paragraph [0031]).
As discussed above, a person having ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to combine the device of Dewey as modified by Hawes with the slip ring taught in Ricard as slip rings are a simple and inexpensive way of transmitting data and powering detectors.
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 Alexandria Mendoza whose telephone number is (571)272-5282. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Thur 9:00 - 6:00 CDT.
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, Michelle Iacoletti can be reached at (571) 270-5789. 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.
/ALEXANDRIA MENDOZA/Examiner, Art Unit 2877
/MICHELLE M IACOLETTI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2877