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 .
Remarks
This Office Action fully acknowledges applicant’s remarks filed 06/15/2026. Claims 1-3 and 5-10 are pending. Claims 1 and 6 have been amended. Claims 4 and 11 have been canceled.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
1. Claims 1-3 and 5 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Chinese Patent Application Publication No. CN107047119 Duo et al. in view of German Patent No. DE102005037331B3 to Merz and Wikipedia “Calibration Curve” (https://web.archive.org/web/20230315140518/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calibration_curve, 03/15/20230).
Duo et al. teaches mixing a saline soil sample to be tested with water, obtaining a saline soil leachate and measuring the conductivity of the leachate to determine the (total) soluble salt content. (page 6 of English translation: “(2) measuring the electrical conductivity of soil” “Experimental Methods”)
Duo et al. does not teach measuring the refractive index of the leachate using a calibrated refractometer.
Merz teaches that “Refractometers are also used to determine the salt content of water.” (page 1, second paragraph under “Description,” English translation.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before applicant’ effective filing date to modify Duo et al. to determine the amount of soluble salts in the leachate using a refractometer as taught by Merz, as a matter of using a known measuring instrument for measuring salt content.
Duo et al. in view of Merz does not teach using a standard curve to determine the salt content using the refractive index.
Wikipedia “Calibration Curve” teaches that it is well known to develop calibration curves using a series of standards across a range of concentrations near the expected concentration of an unknown. (“Methods”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Dou et al. in view of Merz to develop a calibration curve to use to determine soluble salt contact as taught by Wikipedia “Calibration Curve” as a matter of using a well-known manner of determining a measured content with a reference calibration curve.
I.) Regarding applicant’s claim 1, as noted above Duo et al. in view of Merz and Wikipedia “Calibration Curve” renders obvious all the elements of claim 1.
Therefore, Duo et al. in view of Merz and Wikipedia “Calibration Curve” renders claim 1 obvious.
II.) Regarding applicant’s claim 2, as noted above Duo et al. in view of Merz and Wikipedia “Calibration Curve” renders claim 1 obvious from which claim 2 depends.
Claim 2 recites that the water is distilled water free of carbon dioxide.
Duo et al. teaches distilled water, but not specifically distilled water free of carbon dioxide. (page 6 of English translation: “(2) measuring the electrical conductivity of soil” “Experimental Methods”)
It would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to modify Duo et al. in view of Merz and Wikipedia “Calibration Curve” to use distilled water that is free of carbon dioxide as a precaution to preclude any substances that would interfere with the salt measurements.
Therefore, Duo et al. in view of Merz and Wikipedia “Calibration Curve” renders claim 2 obvious.
III.) Regarding applicant’s claim 3, as noted above Duo et al. in view of Merz and Wikipedia “Calibration Curve” renders claim 1 obvious from which claim 3 depends.
Claim 3 recites that a mass ratio of the saline soil to be tested to the water is in a range of 1 : (1-5).
Duo et al. teaches 20g of soil to 100g of water. (page 6 of English translation: “(2) measuring the electrical conductivity of soil” “Experimental Methods”)
Therefore, Duo et al. in view of Merz and Wikipedia “Calibration Curve” renders claim 3 obvious.
IV.) Regarding applicant’s claim 5, as noted above Duo et al. in view of Merz and Wikipedia “Calibration Curve” renders claim 1 obvious from which claim 5 depends.
Claim 5 recites that the refractometer is a digital-display probe-type refractometer.
As noted above, Merz teaches using a refractometer
Duo et al. in view of Merz and Wikipedia “Calibration Curve” does not teach that the refractometer is a digital-display probe-type refractometer.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to modify Duo et al. in view of Merz and Wikipedia “Calibration Curve” to use any type of reflectometer including a digital-display probe-type refractometer.
Therefore, Duo et al. in view of Merz and Wikipedia “Calibration Curve” renders claim 5 obvious.
2. Claims 6-10 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being obvious over Duo et al. in view of Merz and Wikipedia “Calibration Curve” as applied to claim 1 and further in view of Chinese Patent Application Publication No. CN 111721725 to Guo et al., Chinese Patent Application Publication No. CN113848309 to Ouyang et al. and Applicant’s Admitted Prior Art found in paragraphs [0004], [0022] and [0023].
I.) Regarding applicant’s claim 6, claim 6 recites determining a total soluble salt content (TSSC) of the saline soil to be tested by the method as claimed in claim 1; adding a barium chloride solution to a saline soil leachate, and determining a sulfate ion content in the saline soil to be tested by using a barium ion electrode-sensing analyzer; determining a chloride ion content in the saline soil to be tested by using a chloride ion electrode-sensing analyzer; calculating a ratio k of the chloride ion content to the sulfate ion content; evaluating the soil type of the saline soil to be tested according to the ratio k, wherein under the condition that the ratio k is greater than 2, the soil type of the saline soil to be tested is chlorine saline soil; under the condition that the ratio k is not less than 1 and not more than 2, the soil type of the saline soil to be tested is sub-chlorine saline soil; under the condition that the ratio k is larger than or equal to 0.3 and less than 1, the soil type of the saline soil to be tested is sulfite saline soil; and under the condition that the ratio k is less than 0.3, the soil type of the saline soil to be tested is sulfate saline soil; and evaluating the salinization degree of the saline soil to be tested with the TSSC and the soil type of the saline soil to be tested according to the "code for highway engineering geological investigation".
Duo et al. in view of Merz and Wikipedia “Calibration Curve” does not teach adding Barium chloride to the leachate and determining sulfate ion and chloride ion content.
Guo teaches a detection method of sulfate ion content in severe salinized soil that involves adding barium chloride to form sulfate ions. (English translation, page 2, last full paragraph)
Ouyang et al. teaches that it is known to use a chlorine-sulfur ratio to evaluate soluble salt in soil, and teaches that the chlorine-sulfur ratio effects conductivity measurements. (Abstract)
In paragraph [0004] applicant teaches “In the prior art, the soil type and salinization degree of the saline soil are mostly evaluated based on the contents of chloride ions and sulfate ions in soluble salts and a total soluble salt content (TSSC).”
In paragraphs [0022] and [0023] applicant discloses determining sulfate ion content and chloride ion content using electrode sensing analyzers.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to modify Duo et al. in view of Merz and Wikipedia “Calibration Curve” and add barium chloride to the leachate to produce sulfate ions as taught by Guo and measure the chlorine-sulfur ratio using conductivity measurements (electrode-sensing analyzers) as taught by Ouyang et al. to determine the degree of salinization of the soil based on the contents of chloride ions and sulfate ions as taught by Applicant’s Admitted Prior art to determine total soluble salt content.
Ouyang et al.’s teaching that the chlorine-sulfur ratio is related to soluble salt in soils renders obvious the determination of the “k” ratios in claim 6.
Therefore, Duo et al. in view of Merz, Wikipedia “Calibration Curve”, Guo et al., Ouyang et al. and Applicant’s Admitted Prior Art renders claim 6 obvious.
II.) Regarding applicant’s claim 7, as noted above Duo et al. in view of Merz, Wikipedia “Calibration Curve,” Guo et al., Ouyang et al. and Applicant’s Admitted Prior Art renders claim 6 obvious from which claim 7 depends.
Claim 7 recites mixing the saline soil to be tested with water, and conducting solid-liquid separation to obtain the saline soil leachate, wherein a mass ratio of the saline soil to be tested to the water is denoted as q; adding 5 to 10 drops of a hydrochloric acid solution into the saline soil leachate with a volume of Vi, heating to boiling, adding a barium chloride solution with a volume of V2 and a molarity of C1 thereto, reheating a resulting mixture to boiling, and allowing to stand and cooling, to obtain a pretreated solution; and measuring a molarity C2 of barium ions in the pretreated solution by using a barium ion electrode-sensing analyzer, and calculating the sulfate ion content in the saline soil to be tested according to Equation 1:
Csuifate ion = 9.6q(V2C1-(V1+V2)C2)/Vi Equation 1; wherein
in Equation 1, Csuifate ion represents the sulfate ion content in the saline soil to be tested, in wt%; q is the mass ratio of the saline soil to be tested to the water, with no unit; Vi is a volume of the saline soil leachate, in mL; V2 is a volume of the barium chloride solution, in mL; C1 is a molarity of the barium chloride solution, in mol/L; and C2 is a molarity of the barium ions in the pretreated solution, in mol/L.
Guo et al. teaches adding hydrochloric acid and boiling the solution in addition to adding barium chloride. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to conduct routine engineering optimization experimentation to determine how much hydrochloric acid to add based on the volume of leachate, and how much barium chloride based on the molarity of the barium chloride. (English translation, page 2, last full paragraph)
Therefore, Duo et al. in view of Merz, Wikipedia “Calibration Curve,” Guo et al., Ouyang et al. and Applicant’s Admitted Prior Art renders obvious adding 5 to 10 drops of a hydrochloric acid solution into the saline soil leachate with a volume of Vi, heating to boiling, adding a barium chloride solution with a volume of V2 and a molarity of C1 thereto, reheating a resulting mixture to boiling, and allowing to stand and cooling.
As to Equation 1 in claim 7, as noted above Guo et al. Ouyang et al. and Applicant’s Admitted Prior Art teaches determining sulfate ion content in soils to be tested. The mass ratio of soil sample to water, volume of leachate, volume and molarity of barium chloride solution and molarity of barium ions in the pretreated solution are all variables one skilled in the art would use to calculate sulfate ion content using the equation recited in claim 7 or an equivalent equation that would determine the sulfate ion content.
Therefore, Duo et al. in view of Merz, Wikipedia “Calibration Curve,” Guo et al., Ouyang et al. and Applicant’s Admitted Prior Art renders claim 7 obvious.
III.) Regarding applicant’s claim 8, as noted above Duo et al. in view of Merz, Wikipedia “Calibration Curve,” Guo et al., Ouyang et al. and Applicant’s Admitted Prior Art renders claim 6 obvious from which claim 8 depends.
Claim 8 recites that determining a chloride ion content in the saline soil to be tested comprises mixing the saline soil to be tested with water, and conducting solid-liquid separation to obtain the saline soil leachate, wherein a mass ratio of the saline soil to be tested to the water is denoted as q; taking the saline soil leachate with a volume of V3, and measuring a molarity C3 of chloride ions in the saline soil leachate by using a chloride ion electrode-sensing analyzer; and calculating the chloride ion content in the saline soil to be tested according to Equation 2:
Cchloride ion = 3.55qC3 Equation 2;
wherein in Equation 2, Cchoride ion represents the chloride ion content in the saline soil to be tested, in wt%; q is the mass ratio of the saline soil to be tested to the water, with no unit; and C3 represents the molarity of the chloride ions measured by the chloride ion electrode-sensing analyzer, in mol/L.
As to Equation 2 in claim 8, as noted above Guo et al. Ouyang et al. and Applicant’s Admitted Prior Art teaches determining chloride ion content in soils to be tested. The mass ratio of soil sample to water and molarity of chloride ions are all variables one skilled in the art would find it obvious to use to calculate chloride ion content using the equation recited in claim 8 or an equivalent equation that would determine the chloride ion content.
Therefore, Duo et al. in view of Merz, Wikipedia “Calibration Curve,” Guo et al., Ouyang et al. and Applicant’s Admitted Prior Art renders claim 8 obvious.
IV.) Regarding applicant’s claim 9, as noted above Duo et al. in view of Merz, Wikipedia “Calibration Curve,” Guo et al., Ouyang et al. and Applicant’s Admitted Prior Art renders claim 6 obvious from which claim 9 depends.
Claim 9 recites that evaluating the salinization degree of the saline soil to be tested comprises (1) under the condition that the saline soil to be tested is taken from a fine-grained soil layer,
1) under the condition that the saline soil to be tested is the chlorine saline soil or the sub-chlorine saline soil, evaluating the saline soil to be tested as weak saline soil under the condition that the TSSC is greater than or equal to 0.3 wt% and less than 1 wt%; evaluating the saline soil to be tested as moderate saline soil under the condition that the TSSC is greater than or equal to 1 wt% and less than 5 wt%; evaluating the saline soil to be tested as strong saline soil under the condition that the TSSC is greater than or equal to 5 wt% and less than 8 wt%; and evaluating the saline soil to be tested as excessive saline soil under the condition that the TSSC is greater than or equal to 8 wt%;
2) under the condition that the saline soil to be tested is the sulfite saline soil or the sulfate saline soil, evaluating the saline soil to be tested as weak saline soil under the condition that the TSSC is greater than or equal to 0.3 wt% and less than 0.5 wt%; evaluating the saline soil to be tested as moderate saline soil under the condition that the TSSC is greater than or equal to 0.5 wt% and less than 2 wt%; evaluating the saline soil to be tested as strong saline soil under the condition that the TSSC is greater than or equal to 2 wt% and less than 5 wt%; and evaluating the saline soil to be tested as excessive saline soil under the condition that the TSSC is greater than or equal to 5 wt%; and
(2) under the condition that the saline soil to be tested is taken from a coarse-grained soil layer,
1) under the condition that the saline soil to be tested is the chlorine saline soil or the sub-chlorine saline soil, evaluating the saline soil to be tested as weak saline soil under the condition that the TSSC is greater than or equal to 2 wt% and less than 5 wt%; evaluating the saline soil to be tested as moderate saline soil under the condition that the TSSC is greater than or equal to 5 wt% and less than 8 wt%; evaluating the saline soil to be tested as strong saline soil under the condition that the TSSC is greater than or equal to 8 wt% and less than 10 wt%; and evaluating the saline soil to be tested as excessive saline soil under the condition that the TSSC is greater than or equal to 10 wt%; and
2) under the condition that the saline soil to be tested is the sulfite saline soil or the sulfate saline soil, evaluating the saline soil to be tested as weak saline soil under the condition that the TSSC is greater than or equal to 0.5 wt% and less than 1.5 wt%; evaluating the saline soil to be tested as moderate saline soil under the condition that the TSSC is greater than or equal to 1.5 wt% and less than 3 wt%; evaluating the saline soil to be tested as strong saline soil under the condition that the TSSC is greater than or equal to 3 wt% and less than 6 wt%; and evaluating the saline soil to be tested as excessive saline soil under the condition that the TSSC is greater than or equal to 6 wt%.
The labeling of a weak saline soil, a moderate saline soil, a strong saline soil and an excessive saline soil based on the total soluble salt content are arbitrary labels that do not limit the method of claim 6 from which claim 9 depends.
Therefore, Duo et al. in view of Merz, Wikipedia “Calibration Curve,” Guo et al., Ouyang et al. and Applicant’s Admitted Prior Art renders claim 9 obvious.
V.) Regarding applicant’s claim 10, as noted above Duo et al. in view of Merz, Wikipedia “Calibration Curve,” Guo et al., Ouyang et al. and Applicant’s Admitted Prior Art renders claim 9 obvious from which claim 10 depends.
Claim 10 recites that the fine-grained soil layer has a particle size of less than or equal to 0.075 mm, and the coarse-grained soil layer has a particle size of greater than 0.075 mm and less than or equal to 60 mm.
The terms “fine-grained” and “course-grained” are relative terms and therefore it would have been obvious to apply fine-grained to a soil layer that has a particle size of less than or equal to 0.075 mm, and apply coarse-grained to a soil layer has a particle size of greater than 0.075 mm and less than or equal to 60 mm.
Therefore, Duo et al. in view of Merz, Wikipedia “Calibration Curve,” Guo et al., Ouyang et al. and Applicant’s Admitted Prior Art renders claim 10 obvious.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-3 and 5-10 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection that relies upon Merz that teaches using refractometers to determine the salt content of water and Wikipedia “Calibration Curve” that teaches that developing calibration curves is known.
Applicant’s arguments that Duo et al. relates to testing soil to which waste supplements have been added is not persuasive since Duo et al. teaches mixing a saline soil sample to be tested with water, obtaining a saline soil leachate and measuring the conductivity of the leachate to determine the (total) soluble salt content. One skilled in the art would understand that this disclosed procedure is not limited to testing soil to which waste supplements have been added, but would be obvious to use to test any salt in soil samples that is leachable.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL S. GZYBOWSKI whose telephone number is (571)270-3487. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5:00.
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, Charles Capozzi can be reached at 571-270-3638. 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.
/MICHAEL STANLEY GZYBOWSKI/ Examiner, Art Unit 1798
Prosecution Insights