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 . 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.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election of Group I and Species 1 without traverse in the reply filed on 01/26/26 is acknowledged. Claims 1-4, 7-24 are examined1.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 16 are objected. The claims should be amended for example to read as:
Claim 1:
A system for analyzing the concentration of a first component in a sample fluid, comprising:
a sample inlet for receiving a sample fluid comprising at least a first component;
a fluid concentration measuring apparatus arranged to measure a concentration of the first component and provide an estimate of the [[measured]] concentration measurement of the first component to a controller;
a control inlet for receiving a control fluid; and
valving in communication with the sample inlet and the control inlet, the valving arranged to supply a mixture comprising a controlled ratio of the sample fluid and the control fluid to the fluid concentration measuring apparatus at a constant rate, wherein a first state comprises the controlled ratio with a supply of the sample fluid at a low flow rate and a second state comprises the controlled ratio with a supply of the sample fluid at a high flow rate;
wherein:
the controller controls the valving to switch between the first state and the second state to provide a different controlled ratio and processes the estimate of the concentration measurement of the first component to identify a time-varying correction of the estimate of the concentration measurement of the first component using a flow change model that represents variation in time of the flow of the sample fluid between the valving and the fluid concentration measuring apparatus in response to the switch to the different controlled ratio by the valving.
Claim 16:
16. A method for analyzing the concentration of a first component in a sample fluid, comprising:
receiving a sample fluid to be analyzed comprising at least a first component; measuring a concentration of the first component using a fluid concentration measuring apparatus and [[provide]] providing an estimate of the measurement of the first component;
receiving a control fluid;
supplying a mixture comprising a controlled ratio of the sample fluid and the control fluid in a fluid concentration measuring apparatus at a constant rate using valving, wherein a first state comprises the controlled ratio with a supply of the sample fluid at a low flow rate and a second state comprises the controlled ratio with a supply of the sample fluid at a high flow rate;
switching between the first state and the second state to provide a different controlled ratio, processing the estimate of the concentration measurement of the first component to identify a time-varying correction of the estimate of the concentration measurement of the first component using a flow change model that represents variation in time of the flow of the sample fluid between the valving and the fluid concentration measuring apparatus in response to the switch to the different controlled ratio by the valving.
Appropriate action is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
(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 applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-4, 7-24 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.
The term "low flow rate" and “high flow rate” in claims 1 and 16 are relative terms which renders the claim indefinite. The terms "low" and “high” are not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
For examination they are interpreted as first and second flow rates which are different.
Furthermore, claims recite: “identify a time-varying correction of the estimate of the concentration measurement using a flow change model that represents variation in time of the flow of the sample fluid between the valving and the fluid concentration measuring apparatus in response to the switch to the different controlled ratio by the valving.”[emphasis added].
It is not clear, is this “the flow” said high flow rate and said low flow rate cited before in the claim and it should be read as a model that represents time variation of the high and low flow rates (F1, F2)2 of the sample fluid”, but flow rates are claimed and (also disclosed) as constant rates, therefore, should Examiner read this as the model represents different specific time (i.e., specific times t1 and t2) of a flow of the sample fluid between the valving and the fluid concentration measuring apparatus , i.e., read it as for example F1 in specific time t1 and F2 in different specific time t2? or what? besides, should Examiner read these as a correction that “represents variation in time of the flow of the sample fluid between the valving and the fluid concentration measuring apparatus in response to the switch to the different controlled ratio by the valving” or it should be read as a model that “represents variation in time of the flow of the sample fluid between the valving and the fluid concentration measuring apparatus in response to the switch to the different controlled ratio by the valving”. Which one is claimed here?
It is not clear what exactly the limitation is, and therefore, scope of claim should be cleared for a reasonable search. Therefore, it is interpreted as : identify a correction of the estimate of the concentration measurement which the correction is time-varying using a flow change model for concentration of the sample fluid with different flow rates in different specific times (in other words, it is interpreted as different high and low flow rates which are not happening at the same time and if they are in a sequence and are at different time points read on the limitation) and the switch to the different controlled ratio by the valving.
Claim 13 has the limitation “ the variation in time of the flow of sample fluid along the first and second flow paths” and inherently has the same issue therefore is unclear and interpreted that a model based on a flow in each flow path reads on a flow change model separately represents the variation in time of the flow of sample fluid along the first and second flow paths. Claim 15 has the limitation “represents the variation in time of the flow of sample fluid through the system”, therefore is unclear and interpreted in a similar way. Claim 23 has the same limitation “variation in time of the flow of sample fluid” which has the same issue therefore is unclear and interpreted in a similar way. Claim 25 has the limitation “representing the variation in time of the flow of sample fluid” which has the same issue therefore is unclear and interpreted in a similar way.
Claims 4 and 21 are claiming a photomultiplier tube and recite: “fluid concentration measuring apparatus is a photomultiplier tube” [emphasis added], however, disclosure supports the fluid concentration measuring apparatus 103 includes a photomultiplier tube (e.g., ¶0028 of disclosure [emphasis added]). Therefore, the claim language should be amended to claim the fluid concentration measuring apparatus comprising a photomultiplier tube.
Remaining claims are rejected at least due to their dependencies on independent claims 1 and 16.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1-3, 7,9-10, 12, 14-16, 19-20, 22-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102 (a)(2) as being anticipated by Makihara, US 7025870 B2.
Claim 1
Makihara in fig.3 (see also Example given in col.6 from L.40) discloses:
PNG
media_image1.png
478
990
media_image1.png
Greyscale
A system for analysing the concentration of a first component in a sample fluid, comprising:
a sample inlet (IN1) for receiving a sample fluid (SAMPLE GAS, or for example nitrogen gas which includes oxygen gas disclosed in Example) comprising at least a first component (e.g., oxygen e.g., col.2 L.58);
a fluid concentration measuring apparatus (PROBE SENSORE P) arranged to measure a concentration (e.g., col.2 L.54,55) of the first component (Oxygen) and provide an estimate of the measured concentration (e.g., fig.5 shown for zero oxygen gas) to a controller (A,B,CPU,C);
a control inlet (IN2, see setting unit C) for receiving a control fluid (STANDARD GAS); and
valving (e.g., valves V) in communication with the sample inlet (IN1) and the control inlet (IN2), the valving (valves V) arranged to supply a mixture (from mixing unit M) comprising a controlled ratio (col.3 L.1-5, S1, S2 in col.4 L.17,20, also see Example) of the sample fluid and the control fluid to the fluid concentration measuring apparatus (P) at a constant rate (certain flow ratio as cited Col.3 L.1-5), wherein a first state comprises the controlled ratio with a supply of the sample fluid at a low flow rate (first gas mixture Col.3 L.1-5, S1) and a second state (second gas mixture col.3 L.1-5) comprises the controlled ratio (S2) with a supply of the sample fluid at a high flow rate (second gas mixture and different flow ratio S2);
wherein:
the controller (A,B,CPU) controls the valving (valves V) to switch between the first state and the second state to provide a different controlled ratio (e.g., col.3 L.1-6, L.20-22, see also Example) and processes the estimate of the concentration measurement of the first component (e.g., col.3 L.8-12, 20-25) to identify a time-varying correction of the estimate of the concentration measurement (see fig.5 for only one specific case disclosed in Example that discloses time varying correction of concentration of zero) using a flow change model (col.4 L.1-34) that represents variation in time of the flow (variation in time of the flow related to ratio S1 , time of flow related to ratio S2 as a specific case in Example: With the first stage being switched to the second stage and vice versa at 10-min intervals, the oxygen concentration in the sample gas was measured in a time period between 0 and139 hours) of the sample fluid between the valving (see valves shown in fig.3) and the fluid concentration measuring apparatus (P) in response to the switch (from S1 to S2) to the different controlled ratio (set by setting unit C) by the valving (valves V).
Claim 2
Makihara teaches the system of claim 1, wherein:
the fluid concentration measuring apparatus has a controllable sensitivity; and
the system controls the sensitivity of the fluid concentration measuring apparatus using the time-varying correction of the estimate of the concentration (e.g., col.4 L.24-34: by changing how different the two mixing ratio are, how large the signal difference becomes controlled).
Claim 3
Makihara teaches the system of claim 2, wherein:
the fluid concentration measuring apparatus is an electrical device; and
the controllable sensitivity is the gain of the fluid concentration measuring apparatus (e.g., col.4 L.24-34: by changing how different the two mixing ratio are, how large the signal difference becomes controlled S1, S2 very different results in high resolution, S1,S2 close smaller output, i.e., amplifying measurable, or gain is controllable).
Claim 7
Makihara teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the flow change model represents the variation in time of the flow of sample fluid through the system between the valving and the fluid concentration measuring apparatus using a mathematical model (Example and model of given in co.4 with eq.2).
Claim 9
Makihara teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the valving (V)is arranged to supply the sample fluid (IN1) to the fluid concentration measuring apparatus P at two or more fixed rates (S1,S2).
Claim 10
Makihara teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the valving (V) is arranged to control the rate of supply of the sample fluid based on the concentration measured by the fluid concentration measuring apparatus (P, also see e.g., Example).
Claim 12
Makihara teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the valving (V) comprises a first injection valve V4, a second injection valve V5, and a path switching valve V6, wherein:
the first injection valve V4 is arranged to inject the sample fluid into a stream of the control fluid along a first flow path ( A1 via unit M,A) to the fluid concentration measuring apparatus P;
the second injection valve V5 is arranged inject the sample fluid into a stream of the control fluid along a second path ( A2 via unit M,B) to the fluid concentration measuring apparatus P; and the path switching valve V6 supplies the sample fluid to either the first injection valve V4 or the second injection valve V5.
Claim 14
Makihara teaches the system of claim 1, further comprising a mixing chamber (M) between the valving (V) and the fluid concentration measuring apparatus (P).
Claim 15
Makihara teaches the system of claim 14, wherein the flow change model represents the variation in time of the flow of sample fluid (flow related to S1 and flow related to S2 are in different point of times see e.g., Example) through the system from the mixing chamber (M) to the fluid concentration measuring apparatus (P).
Claim 16
Makihara in fig.3 (see also Example given in col.6 from L.40) discloses:
A method for analysing the concentration of a first component in a sample fluid (e.g., oxygen in nitrogen gas see e.g., Example), comprising:
Receiving (in IN1) a sample fluid (SAMPLE GAS) to be analysed comprising at least a first component (oxygen e.g., col.2 L.58); measuring a concentration of the first component (e.g., col.2 L.54,55) using a fluid concentration measuring apparatus (P) and provide an estimate of the measured concentration (e.g., col.2 L.54,55);
receiving a control fluid (STANDARD GAS from IN2);
supplying a mixture (from mixing unit M) comprising a controlled ratio (set by FLOW RATIO SETTING unit C) of the sample fluid (e.g., nitrogen gas including oxygen in Example) and the control fluid (A,B, CPU,C) in a fluid concentration measuring apparatus (P) at a constant rate using (S1,S2 also as disclosed by Example) valving (valving using valves V), wherein a first state ( with S1) comprises the controlled ratio with a supply of the sample fluid at a low flow rate and a second state comprises the controlled ratio (S1) with a supply of the sample fluid at a high flow rate (see Example for example 80 L/min);
switching between the first state (shown with S1) and the second state (shown with S2) to provide a different controlled ratio (S2,S1), processing the estimate of the concentration measurement of the first component (e.g., col.3 L.8-12, 20-25) to identify a time-varying correction of the estimate of the concentration measurement (see fig.5 for only one specific case disclosed in Example that discloses time varying correction of concentration of zero) using a flow change model (col.4 L.1-34) that represents variation in time of the flow (variation in time of the flow related to ratio S1 , time of flow related to ratio S2 as a specific case in Example: With the first stage being switched to the second stage and vice versa at 10-min intervals, the oxygen concentration in the sample gas was measured in a time period between 0 and139 hours) of the sample fluid between the valving (see valves shown in fig.3) and the fluid concentration measuring apparatus (P) in response to the switch (from S1 to S2) to the different controlled ratio (set by setting unit C) by the valving (valves V).
Claim 19
Makihara teaches the method of claim 16, wherein the valving is arranged to supply the sample fluid to the fluid concentration measuring apparatus at two or more fixed rates (S1,S2 see also Example).
Claim 20
Makihara teaches the method of claim 16, comprising controlling the sensitivity of the fluid concentration measuring apparatus using the time-varying correction of the estimate of the concentration (e.g., col.4 L.24-34: by changing how different the two mixing ratio are, how large the signal difference, or sensitivity of the apparatus becomes controlled).
Claim 22
Makihara teaches the method of claim 16, wherein the step of supplying a mixture of the sample fluid and the control fluid comprises: delivering the control fluid into a mixing chamber (M) between the valving (V) and the fluid concentration measuring apparatus (P); and delivering the sample fluid into the mixing chamber (M).
Claim 23
Makihara teaches the method of claim 22, wherein the flow change model represents the variation in time of the flow of sample fluid through the system from the mixing chamber M to the fluid concentration measuring apparatus P.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Makihara, US 7025870 B2 in view of Nicoli , US 6211956 B1.
Claim 4
Makihara teaches the system of claim 1, but does not specifically teach wherein the fluid concentration measuring apparatus is a photomultiplier tube.
In the similar field of endeavor, Nicoli in fig.10 teaches wherein the fluid concentration measuring apparatus is a photomultiplier tube (col.43 L.37-40).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Nicoli‘s photomultiplier tube for Makihara‘s system. One of ordinary skill in the art knows photomultiplier tube as an extremely sensitive detector that converts faint light (even single photons) into a strong electrical signal by using the photoelectric effect and electron multiplication through a series of dynodes would have been motivated to make this modification in order to have a high sensitivity sensor.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Makihara, US 7025870 B2 in view of Tomczyk , Tomczyk, Krzysztof, Małgorzata Kowalczyk, and Ksenia Ostrowska. "Procedure Proposal for Minimising the Dynamic Error of Second-Order Sensors." Sensors 22.5 (2022): 1901.
Claim 8
Makihara teaches the system of claim7, but does not teach wherein the mathematical model is an over-damped harmonic oscillator model.
In the similar field of endeavor, Tomczyk teaches wherein the mathematical model is an over-damped harmonic oscillator model (modeling sensor with second order which is over damped model to optimize parameters for sensors or acetometers).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use ‘s for Tomczyk‘s over-damped harmonic oscillator model. One of ordinary skill in the art knows over-damped harmonic oscillator model are stable would have been motivated to make this modification in order to damp oscillations and eliminate errors and based on MPEP 2143 (B), courts have ruled that Simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results, is within the purview of a skilled artisan. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421,82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Claims 11, 17-18, 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Makihara, US 7025870 B2 in view of Ketler, US20030000281A1.
Claim 11
Makihara teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the valving (V) is arranged to reduce the rate of supply of the sample fluid based on the concentration measured by the fluid concentration measuring apparatus (P) but does not specifically teach exceeding a threshold.
In the similar field of endeavor, Ketler teaches a threshold to make sure there is enough flow rate (e.g., ¶0023¶0028).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Ketler‘s threshold for Makihara‘s system and the modified Makihara’s valving is arranged to reduce the rate of supply of the sample fluid based on the concentration measured by the fluid concentration measuring apparatus exceeding a threshold as taught by Ketler. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to ensure there is enough flow rate to generate sensor response.
Claim 17
Makihara teaches the method of claim 16, comprising changing the rate of supply of the sample fluid (see e.g., Example) using the valving in response to detecting (using P) but does not specifically teach that the concentration measured by the fluid concentration measuring apparatus passes a threshold.
Ketler teaches a threshold to make sure there is enough flow rate (e.g., ¶0023¶0028).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Ketler‘s threshold for Makihara‘s system and the modified Makihara’s valving in response to detecting the concentration measured by the fluid concentration measuring apparatus passes a threshold as taught by Ketler. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to ensure there is enough flow rate to generate sensor response.
Claim 18
Makihara in view of Ketler teaches the method of claim 17, Ketler as cited above teaches comprising reducing the rate of supply of the sample fluid using the valving in response to detecting that the concentration measured by the fluid concentration measuring apparatus exceeds the threshold for the same reason and motivation as cited above
Claim 24
Makihara teaches the method of claim 16, wherein the valving comprises a first injection valve V4 and a second injection valve V5 , wherein: the first injection valve V4 is arranged to inject the sample fluid into a stream of the control fluid along a first flow path A1 to the fluid concentration measuring apparatus P; the second injection valve V5 is arranged to inject the sample fluid into a stream of the control fluid along a second path A2 to the fluid concentration measuring apparatus P; and the method further comprises:
supplying sample fluid along the first flow path A1; but does not specifically teach switching to supplying sample fluid along the second flow path A2 in response to detecting that the estimate of the measured concentration measured by the fluid concentration measuring apparatus passes a threshold.
Ketler teaches a threshold to make sure there is enough flow rate (e.g., ¶0023¶0028).
Therefore, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Ketler‘s threshold for Makihara‘s system and the modified Makihara’s switching to supplying sample fluid along the second flow path in response to detecting that the estimate of the measured concentration measured by the fluid concentration measuring apparatus passes a threshold as taught by Kettler. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to ensure there is enough flow rate to generate sensor response.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Makihara, US 7025870 B2 in view of Pejcinovic, US 11099115 B2.
Claim 13
Makihara teaches the system of claim 12, wherein the flow change model represents the variation in time of the flow (time points for the flow in first ration S1, and for the flow in 2nd ration S2) of sample fluid along the first and second flow paths (A1,A2), but does not specifically teach separately.
In the similar field of endeavor, Pejcinovic teaches a model (e.g., col.9 L.25-30) representing the variation in time of the flow of sample fluid (MF in e.g., Eqs.6 and 7) in each flow path 112,114.
Therefore, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Pejcinovic‘s model for Makihara‘s method and wherein the flow change model separately represents the variation in time of the flow of sample fluid along the first and second flow paths. One of ordinary skill in the art knows the time variation models of concentration depends on flow rate and would have been motivated to make this modification in order to have a real time monitoring and based on MPEP 2143 (C), courts have ruled that Use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way is within the purview of a skilled artisan. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421,82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Makihara, US 7025870 B2 in view of Buckles, Buckles, R. A., et al. "Superlinearity, saturation, and the PMT—Tailoring and calibration methodology for prompt radiation detectors." Review of Scientific Instruments 89.10 (2018).
Claim 21
Makihara teaches the method of claim 20, but does not specifically teach wherein the fluid concentration measuring apparatus is a photomultiplier tube, and controlling the sensitivity comprises attenuating a gain of the photomultiplier tube using the time-varying correction of the estimate of the concentration.
In the similar field of endeavor, Buckles teaches a photomultiplier tube (PMT) and controlling the sensitivity comprises attenuating a gain of the photomultiplier tube (PMT) (models gain compression and saturation mechanisms that attenuate gain at high signals and provide a formal methodology for accounting for these effects, the attenuation of PMT gain is a modeled response of the PMT).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Buckles‘s photomultiplier tube for using in Makihara‘s method and controlling the sensitivity comprises attenuating a gain of the photomultiplier tube using the time-varying correction of the modified Makihara’s estimate of the concentration. One of ordinary skill in the art knows the PMT gets weaker under high signal conditions and would have been motivated to make this modification in order to consider it into the models.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Fatemeh E. Nia whose telephone number is (469)295-9187. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 am to 4:00 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, Kristina DeHerrera can be reached at (303) 297-4237. 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.
/FATEMEH ESFANDIARI NIA/Examiner, Art Unit 2855
1 Claim 25 directed to un-elected Species2 is withdrawn
2 Examiner is using F1 as high flow rate of sample gas and F2 as low flow rate of sample gas to facilitate the Examiner’s comment