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. Double Patenting The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg , 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman , 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi , 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum , 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel , 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington , 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969). A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b). The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13. The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA/25, or PTO/AIA/26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer . Claim s 1 , 7, 12, 15, and 16 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 , 8 -12, and 19 of copending Application No. 18/767,034 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the subject matter of claims 1 of the current application is also claimed in copending Application No. 18/767,034. Regarding claim 1, see claim 1 (regarding “on an optical fiber,” it’s noted that the claim doesn’t recite the optical fiber, and even if it did, it would be obvious [e.g. see the prior art in the prior art rejection]) Regarding claim 7, see claim 12. Regarding claim 12, see claims 1 and 11. Regarding claim 15, see claim 8. Regarding claim 16, see claims 1 and 19. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b): (b ) CONCLUSION.— The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph: The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the appl icant regards as his invention. Claims 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention . Claims 3-4 further limit the optical fiber of the parent claim 1, however, the parent claim 1 doesn’t explicitly claim the optical fiber as a component of the claimed system. Therefore, it’s unclear whether the limitations described on the optical fiber in claims 3-4 only further limit the tunable laser spectrometer and the reference photodetector (for example, by requiring the tunable laser spectrometer to be capable of transmitting the signal on a polarizing maintaining fiber) or whether they require the monitoring system to comprise a polarization maintaining fiber. For the sake of examination, claim 3 is interpreted as requiring the monitoring system to comprise a polarization maintaining fiber (and claim 4 is interpreted similarly). 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. (a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by Hagans (US 5550636 A ; cited by Applicant ) . Regarding claim 1 , Hagans teaches a monitoring system comprising: a tunable laser spectrometer (figure 3) for generating a swept wavelength signal (column 6, lines 15-30; column 8, lines 60-67) for transmission on an optical fiber (figure 3; column 8, lines 1-5; column 9, lines 10-15) ; a reference photodetector (15 and 12) for detecting the swept wavelength signal from the tunable laser spectrometer after transmission on the optical fiber (column 8, lines 1-5) ; a sample photodetector (13) for detecting the swept wavelength signal after transmission through a sample detection region (figure 3) . 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. 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. Claims 1, 7-10, 12 -13 , and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hassell (US 20210088433) in view of Hagans . Regarding claim 1 , Hassell teaches a monitoring system comprising: a tunable laser (201), optical fiber (124), swept wavelength (Paragraph 15), absorption spectra (paragraph 87), bioreactor (paragraph 87). a tunable laser spectrometer (201) for generating a swept wavelength signal (paragraph 15) for transmission on an optical fiber (124) ; a sample photodetector for detecting the swept wavelength signal after transmission through a sample detection region (paragraphs 61 and 65) . Hassell doesn’t explicitly teach a reference photodetector for detecting the swept wavelength signal from the tunable laser spectrometer after transmission on the optical fiber . Like Hassell (and like the instant application), Hagans is directed to a laser spectrometer and absorption spectroscopy and teaches a tunable laser spectrometer (figure 3) for generating a swept wavelength signal (column 6, lines 15-30; column 8, lines 60-67) for transmission on an optical fiber (figure 3; column 8, lines 1-5; column 9, lines 10-15) ; a reference photodetector (15 and 12) for detecting the swept wavelength signal from the tunable laser spectrometer after transmission on the optical fiber (column 8, lines 1-5) ; a sample photodetector (13) for detecting the swept wavelength signal after transmission through a sample detection region (figure 3) . Additionally, Hagans teaches that having a reference photodetector provides the benefit of cancelling out noise generated by the laser or optical delivery system (column 9, lines 15-25). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hassell such that it comprises a reference photodetector for detecting the swept wavelength signal from the tunable laser spectrometer after transmission on the optical fiber in order to reduce noise and ensure more accurate measurements. Regarding claim 7 , Hassell teaches the tunable laser spectrometer sweeps its wavelength in a spectral band including 2.3 micrometers and/or 6.5 micrometers (paragraph 88) . Regarding claim 8 , Hassell teaches the tunable laser spectrometer sweeps through greater than 100 nanometers (paragraph 88) . Regarding claim 9 , Hassell teaches the tunable laser spectrometer sweeps its wavelength from about 2.2 to 2.4 micrometers in wavelength (paragraph 88) . Regarding claim 10 , Hassell teaches the monitoring system includes a probe that is inserted into a bioreactor (paragraph 60) . Regarding claim 12 , the above combination a controller that monitors a response of the sample photodetector and the reference photodetector to resolve an absorption spectra of a sample in the sample detection region (Hassell, paragraph 67; Hagans, figure 3) . Regarding claim 13 , in the above combination the controller compensates for noise associated with ripple from the optical fiber (this is because, as explained in Hagans, column 9, lines 10-30 and figure 3, the beamsplitter siphons off the beam right before it reaches the sample, and this siphoned beam is sent to a reference detector [12] which detects the noise generated by intensity fluctuations because it directly detects the intensity as a function of time; further, Hagans explains this noise is compensated [cancelled out]; the claimed “noise associated with ripple” encompasses intensity fluctuations, and since the controller of the combination normalizes the sample measured intensity using the reference intensity, which includes the intensity fluctuations, it compensates for them]). Regarding claim 15 , in the above combination no optical fiber is provided after the reference detector to the sample photodetector (Hagans, figure 3 and column 9, lines 10-25) . Claims 2 and 16 -18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hassell and Hagans , as applied to claim 1, above, and further in view of Yalin ( US 20170336320 A1 ) . Regarding claim 2 , Hassell doesn’t explicitly teach a polarizer for improving a polarization of the swept wavelength signal prior to the reference photodetector. Like Hassell (and like the instant application), Yalin is directed to absorption spectroscopy with a laser and teaches a polarizer (240; paragraph 37) for improving a polarization of the swept wavelength signal (paragraph 27) immediately after the light source provides the benefit of reducing noise (paragraph 37). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the above combination by adding a polarizer for improving a polarization of the swept wavelength signal immediately after the light source (and therefore signal prior to the reference photodetector ) in order to reduce noise. Regarding claim 16 , Hassell teaches a monitoring system comprising: a tunable laser spectrometer (201) for generating a swept wavelength signal (paragraph 15) ; a sample photodetector for detecting the swept wavelength signal after transmission through a sample detection region (paragraphs 61 and 65) . Hassell doesn’t explicitly teach a reference photodetector for detecting the swept wavelength signal from the tunable laser spectrometer ; a polarizer for improving a polarization of the swept wavelength signal prior to the reference photodetector . Like Hassell (and like the instant application), Hagans is directed to absorption spectroscopy with a laser and teaches a tunable laser spectrometer (figure 3) for generating a swept wavelength signal (column 6, lines 15-30; column 8, lines 60-67) for transmission on an optical fiber (figure 3; column 8, lines 1-5; column 9, lines 10-15) ; a reference photodetector (15 and 12) for detecting the swept wavelength signal from the tunable laser spectrometer after transmission on the optical fiber (column 8, lines 1-5) ; a sample photodetector (13) for detecting the swept wavelength signal after transmission through a sample detection region (figure 3) . Additionally, Hagans teaches that having a reference photodetector provides the benefit of cancelling out noise generated by the laser or optical delivery system (column 9, lines 15-25). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hassell such that it comprises a reference photodetector for detecting the swept wavelength signal from the tunable laser spectrometer after transmission on the optical fiber in order to reduce noise and ensure more accurate measurements. The above combination doesn’t explicitly teach a polarizer for improving a polarization of the swept wavelength signal prior to the reference photodetector . Like Hassell (and like the instant application), Yalin is directed to absorption spectroscopy with a laser and teaches a polarizer (240; paragraph 37) for improving a polarization of the swept wavelength signal (paragraph 27) immediately after the light source provides the benefit of reducing noise (paragraph 37). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the above combination by adding a polarizer for improving a polarization of the swept wavelength signal immediately after the light source (and therefore polarizing the optical signal prior to the reference photodetector ) in order to reduce noise. Regarding claim 17 , Hassell teaches a probe for a bioreactor, comprising: ports defining a sample detection region in the bioreactor (abstract; paragraphs 61-65) ; and a sample photodetector for detecting the optical signal after transmission through the sample detection region (paragraphs 61 and 65) . Hassell doesn’t explicitly teach a reference photodetector for detecting an optical signal received from a polarizer and prior to the sample detection region . Like Hassell (and like the instant application), Hagans is directed to absorption spectroscopy with a laser and teaches a tunable laser spectrometer (figure 3) for generating a swept wavelength signal (column 6, lines 15-30; column 8, lines 60-67) for transmission on an optical fiber (figure 3; column 8, lines 1-5; column 9, lines 10-15) ; a reference photodetector (15 and 12) for detecting the swept wavelength signal from the tunable laser spectrometer after transmission on the optical fiber (column 8, lines 1-5) ; a sample photodetector (13) for detecting the swept wavelength signal after transmission through a sample detection region (figure 3) . Additionally, Hagans teaches that having a reference photodetector provides the benefit of cancelling out noise generated by the laser or optical delivery system (column 9, lines 15-25). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hassell such that it comprises a reference photodetector for detecting the swept wavelength signal from the tunable laser spectrometer after transmission on the optical fiber in order to reduce noise and ensure more accurate measurements. The above combination doesn’t explicitly teach a polarizer. Like Hassell (and like the instant application), Yalin is directed to absorption spectroscopy with a laser and teaches a polarizer (240; paragraph 37) for improving a polarization of the swept wavelength signal (paragraph 27) immediately after the light source provides the benefit of reducing noise (paragraph 37). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the above combination by adding a polarizer for improving a polarization of the swept wavelength signal immediately after the light source (and therefore polarizing the optical signal prior to the reference photodetector ) in order to reduce noise. Regarding claim 18 , Hassell teaches a method for on-line or off-line monitoring of a bioreactor, the method comprising: generating a swept wavelength signal (201; paragraph 15) ; transmitting the swept wavelength signal to a sample detection region for a sample of the bioreactor (paragraphs 61-65; abstract) ; detecting the swept wavelength signal after transmission through the sample detection region (paragraphs 61 and 65) ; and resolving an absorption spectra of a sample in the sample detection region with reference to the swept wavelength signal after transmission through the sample detection region (Hassell, paragraph 67; paragraphs 61-65) . Hassell doesn’t explicitly teach polarizing the swept wavelength signal ; detecting the swept wavelength signal prior to transmission through the sample detection region; the resolving is also with reference to the detecting prior to transmission. Like Hassell (and like the instant application), Hagans is directed to absorption spectroscopy with a laser and teaches a tunable laser spectrometer (figure 3) for generating a swept wavelength signal (column 6, lines 15-30; column 8, lines 60-67) for transmission on an optical fiber (figure 3; column 8, lines 1-5; column 9, lines 10-15) ; a reference photodetector (15 and 12) for detecting the swept wavelength signal from the tunable laser spectrometer after transmission on the optical fiber (column 8, lines 1-5) ; a sample photodetector (13) for detecting the swept wavelength signal after transmission through a sample detection region (figure 3) . Additionally, Hagans teaches that having a reference photodetector provides the benefit of cancelling out noise generated by the laser or optical delivery system (column 9, lines 15-25). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hassell such that it comprises detecting the swept wavelength signal prior to transmission through the sample detection region; the resolving is also with reference to the detecting prior to transmission – i n order to reduce noise and ensure more accurate measurements. The above combination doesn’t explicitly teach polarizing the swept wavelength signal . Like Hassell (and like the instant application), Yalin is directed to absorption spectroscopy with a laser and teaches a polarizer (240; paragraph 37) for improving a polarization of the swept wavelength signal (paragraph 27) immediately after the light source provides the benefit of reducing noise (paragraph 37). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the above combination by adding a polarizer for improving a polarization of the swept wavelength signal immediately after the light source (and therefore polarizing the optical signal prior to the reference photodetector detecting the signal prior to transmission) in order to reduce noise. Claims 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hassell and Hagans, as applied to claim 1, above, and further in view of Murdza (US 2007/0035741 A1). Regarding claims 3-4 , Hassell doesn’t explicitly teach the optical fiber includes polarization maintaining fiber (claim 3); the polarization maintaining fiber is single mode polarization maintaining fiber (claim 4) . Like Hassell (and like the instant application), Murdza is directed to absorption spectroscopy with a laser and teaches the optical fiber includes polarization maintaining fiber ; the polarization maintaining fiber is single mode polarization maintaining fiber (paragraph 33). Additionally, Murdza teaches this provides the benefit of managing polarization dependent loss (paragraph 34). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the above combination such that the optical fiber includes polarization maintaining fiber ; and the polarization maintaining fiber is single mode polarization maintaining fiber – in order to manage polarization dependent loss. Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hassell and Hagans, as applied to claim 1, above, and further in view of Maier ( DE 102016226288 A1 ). Regarding claim 5 , Hassell teaches the sample interface includes an optical transmission port and optical detection port (abstract; paragraphs 61-65). Hassell doesn’t explicitly teach at least one beveled surface. Like Hassell (and like the instant application), Maier is directed to n optical monitoring system and teaches a sample interface includes an optical transmission port and optical detection port least one beveled surface provides the benefit of optimizing the output characteristics of the light and provide efficient light coupling (page 2 of attached translation ) . It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the above combination such that the sample interface includes an optical transmission port and optical detection port comprising at least one beveled surface in order to optimize the output characteristics of the light and provide efficient light coupling. Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hassell , Hagans, and Maier, as applied to claim 5, above, and further in view of DE 3129477 A1 . Regarding claim 6 , Hassell doesn’t explicitly teach the optical transmission port and the optical detection port are provided by an input waveguide rod and output waveguide rod . Like Hassell (and like the instant application), DE 3129477 A1 is directed to an optical absorption system and teaches the optical transmission port and the optical detection port are provided by an input waveguide rod (6) and output waveguide rod (11; abstract and figure 1) . It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the above combination such that the optical transmission port and the optical detection port are provided by an input waveguide rod and output waveguide rod in order to provide flexibility with respect to the relative positions of the light source, sample region, and light detector while maintaining a high signal-to-noise ratio. Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hassell and Hagans, as applied to claim 1, above, and further in view of Flurescu ( CN 113748321 A ). Regarding claim 11 , Hassell teaches the monitoring system includes a sample interface for receiving sample extracted from a bioreactor (paragraphs 61-65; figures) . Hassell doesn’t explicitly teach the sample is drops. Like Hassell (and like the instant application), Flurescu is directed to an optical absorption system and provides a general teaching of receiving drops of a n extracted sample (page 6 of attached translation). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the above combination such that the sample is drops in order to conserve by not using more sample than is necessary to perform the desired measurements. Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hassell and Hagans, as applied to claim 12, above, and further in view of Gerety ( US 20170038354 A1 ). Regarding claim 14 , Hassell doesn’t explicitly teach the controller compensates based on a temperatures detected by one or more thermistors associated with the reference photodetector and the sample photodetector. Like Hassell (and like the instant application), Gerety is directed to an optical absorption system and teaches the controller compensates based on a temperatures detected by one or more thermistors associated with the reference photodetector and the sample photodetector (claim 7; paragraph 14; figure 5) . It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the above combination such that the controller compensates based on a temperatures detected by one or more thermistors associated with the reference photodetector and the sample photodetector in order to obtain a more accurate measurement. Additional Prior Art US 20120225475 A1 discloses tunable laser, reference detector, sample, absorption spectroscopy, detector, and Bioreactor (figure 16) Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT RUFUS L PHILLIPS whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)270-7021 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT M-Th, 2 -10 pm . 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Michelle Iacoletti can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (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. /RUFUS L PHILLIPS/ Examiner, Art Unit 2877