DETAILED ACTIONNotice 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 .
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided. The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it is not limited to a single paragraph.
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 applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 6 – 9, 10, 12 and 14 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.
Regarding claims 6 – 8, 10, 12 and 14, the phrase "in particular" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
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 – 5, 10, 12 and 15 – 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sinha (See IDS dated 2/19/25).
Regarding claim 1, Sinha discloses and apparatus comprising a container configured to accommodate a sample in a container volume (See Col. 3, lines 42 – 50), wherein the container comprises a uniform cross-section; a sonic emitter unit (See Col. 4, lines 44 – 52) configured to emit sonic waves into the container towards the sample; a sonic receiver unit (See Col. 4, lines 44 – 52) configured to receive reflected sonic waves, and standing sonic waves, which are formed by combinations of the emitted sonic waves and the reflected sonic waves; and a control unit configured to determine at least one resonance frequency based on the received standing sonic waves and to determine at least one sample parameter based on the at least one determined resonance frequency (See Col. 5, lines 44 – 65 and Col. 6, lines 1 – 29).
Regarding claim 2, the sample parameter refers to a density of the sample (See Col. 6, lines 7 – 28).
Regarding claim 3, the at least one resonance frequency of the received standing sonic waves comprises a first-harmonic resonance frequency (See Col. 4, lines 44 – 51). Regarding claim 4, the at least one resonance frequency of the standing sonic waves comprises a second harmonic frequency (See Col. 4, lines 44 – 51).
Regarding claim 5, the uniform cross-section of the container is circular (See Col. 3, lines 55 – 58). Regarding claim 10, the sonic emitter unit is configured as a transducer (See Col. 4, lines 44 – 51).
Regarding claim 12, a control element of the control unit is detachably coupled to the container (See Col. 5, lines 46 – 66).
Regarding claim 15, the sample is in a liquid state (See Col. 4, lines 34 – 43).
Regarding claim 16, the control unit is configured to calculate a length of a fluid column present in the container volume in contact with the sample based on the at least one determined resonance frequency (See Col. 3, lines 43 – 63 and Col. 4, lines 8 – 23).
Regarding claim 17, the control unit is configured to calculate physical properties of the liquid sample (See Col. 3, lines 43 – 63 and Col. 4, lines 8 – 23).
Regarding claim 18, the control unit is configured to calculate physical properties of the liquid sample (See Col. 3, lines 43 – 63 and Col. 4, lines 8 – 23).
Regarding claim 19, the sample is provided in the container, sonic waves are emitted into the container towards the sample; standing sonic waves are received which are formed by combinations of the emitted sonic waves and reflected sonic waves; at least one resonance frequency is determined based on the received standing sonic waves; and a sample parameter is determined based on the at least one determined resonance frequency (See Col. 3, lines 43 – 50, Col. 6, lines 7 – 28 and Col. 7, lines 33 – 65). Regarding claim 20, a density of the sample is calculated based on the volume of the sample present in the container volume (See Col. 3, lines 43 – 50, Col. 6, lines 7 – 28 and Col. 7, lines 33 – 65).9. Claims 1 and 6 – 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wenman (WO02/16924 – See IDS dated 2/19/25). Regarding claim 1, Wenman discloses and apparatus comprising a container 44 (housing) configured to accommodate a sample in a container volume, the container comprising a uniform cross-section; a sonic emitter unit 22 configured to emit sonic waves into the container towards the sample; a sonic receiver unit 24 configured to receive reflected sonic waves, and standing sonic waves, which are formed by combinations of the emitted sonic waves and the reflected sonic waves; and a control unit configured to determine at least one resonance frequency based on the received standing sonic waves and to determine at least one sample parameter based on the at least one determined resonance frequency (See Figs. 1a, 1b, See Pg. 24, Para. 2, Pg. 25, Para. 1, Pg. 26, Paras. 2 and 3, Pg. 27, Para. 3, Pg. 28, Paras. 1 and 2 and Pg. 29, Para. 2). Regarding claim 6, a cover structure 42 is provided, wherein the sonic emitter unit 22 is arranged at the cover structure (See Fig. 1b, See Pg. 28, Para. 2).
Regarding claim 7, the measuring device is configured so that when the cover structure is arranged at the container, the sonic emitter unit is in contact with a fluid present in the container volume (See Figs. 1b).
Regarding claim 8, the container is fluid-tight sealed when the cover structure is arranged at the container (See Fig. 1b, See Pg. 29, Para. 2).
Regarding claim 9, the surface of the bottom part of the cover structure 42, which is inside of the container, is planar (See Fig. 1b).
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. 11. 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.
12. Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Sinha in view of Skinner et al. (GB2203247, hereinafter Skinner). Regarding claim 11, Sinha discloses an apparatus comprising a container configured to accommodate a sample in a container volume (See Col. 3, lines 42 – 50), wherein the container comprises a uniform cross-section; a sonic emitter unit (See Col. 4, lines 44 – 52) configured to emit sonic waves into the container towards the sample; a sonic receiver unit (See Col. 4, lines 44 – 52) configured to receive reflected sonic waves, and standing sonic waves, which are formed by combinations of the emitted sonic waves and the reflected sonic waves; and a control unit configured to determine at least one resonance frequency based on the received standing sonic waves and to determine at least one sample parameter based on the at least one determined resonance frequency (See Col. 5, lines 44 – 65 and Col. 6, lines 1 – 29).
Sinha fails to disclose that the sonic receiver unit is configured as a microphone.
However, Skinner discloses an apparatus comprising a receiving means that includes a microphone 401 (See Fig. 4, See Pg. 10, Para. 3). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify Sinha according to the teachings of Skinner for the purpose of, advantageously providing an improved device since this type of device enables a receiver unit to pick up vibrations in a gas located within tubes (See Skinner, Pg. 10, Para. 3).13. Claims 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sinha in view of Funck et al. (KR20060130217, hereinafter Funck – See IDS dated 2/19/25). Regarding claim 13, Sinha fails to disclose that the sample is in a solid state. However, Funck discloses an apparatus comprising a sample container 10 for housing a sample that is a solid sample (See Pg. 2, Para. 4, Pg. 3, Paras. 2 and 3, and Pg. 5, Para. 9). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify Sinha according to the teachings of Funck for the purpose of, advantageously providing an improved device since this type of device avoids undesirable interaction of the sample with the transducer surface, pours the sample without air into a resonance chamber more easily and quickly, and avoids contamination of the chamber by the sample (See Funck, Pg. 2, Para. 6).
Regarding claim 14, Sinha fails to disclose that the sample comprises particles. However, Funck discloses an apparatus comprising a sample container 10 for housing a sample that comprises particles (See Pg. 2, Para. 4, Pg. 3, Paras. 2 and 3, and Pg. 5, Para. 9). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify Sinha according to the teachings of Funck for the purpose of, advantageously providing an improved device since this type of device avoids undesirable interaction of the sample with the transducer surface, pours the sample without air into a resonance chamber more easily and quickly, and avoids contamination of the chamber by the sample (See Funck, Pg. 2, Para. 6).
Conclusion14. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
15. Greenleaf et al. (5,921,928) disclose acoustic force generation by amplitude modulating a sonic beam. Questo et al. (2011/0283767) disclose a sonic resonator system for testing the adhesive bond strength of composite materials.16. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OCTAVIA HOLLINGTON whose telephone number is (571)272-2176. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-5pm.
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, John Breene can be reached at 5712724107. 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.
/OCTAVIA HOLLINGTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855 10/31/25