DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
This is a final office action in response to a communication filed on February 10, 2026. Claims 1-5 and 7-16 are pending in the application.
Status of Objections and Rejections
All objections from the previous office action are withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendment.
The rejection of claim 6 is obviated by Applicant’s cancellation.
All rejections from the previous office action are withdrawn and new grounds of rejection are necessitated in view of Applicant’s amendment.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1-5, 7-11 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krumrey (EP 3832299, machine translation used for citation) in view of Hellein (DE102019120897, published on February 4, 2021 and using US 2022/0349854 for citation), and further in view of MacFarland (US 2017/0122922), supported by MacFarland and Seymour (I. Seymour, Electrochemical detection of free-chlorine in Water samples facilitated by in-situ pH control using interdigitated microelectrodes, Sensors & Actuators: B. Chemical 2020 (325), 128774, pp. 1-9) as evidence.
Regarding claim 1, Krumrey teaches a method for calibrating an amperometric sensor at a stationary measuring point (Title; ¶6: the disinfectant-containing water present on site), comprising:
A: providing at the stationary measuring point (¶6: the disinfectant-containing water present on site) a calibration device (¶9: an apparatus; ¶23: a device for calibrating an amperometric measuring electrode) having a calibration fluid (Fig. 1: water line 1; ¶10: water);
B. activating the calibration fluid by adding a pH-changing reactant to the calibration fluid (Fig. 1: the pH measuring electrode 6; ¶12: free chlorine as disinfectant active ingredient; Examiner notes that addition of free chlorine would alter the pH of the fluid), thereby releasing a species to be detected (as evidenced by MacFarland, ¶23: when chlorine is added to water, two chemical species are formed by chlorine hydrolysis, hypochlorous acid (HOCl) and hypochlorite ion (OCl-) referred to as “free available” chlorine; as evidenced by Seymour, p. 2, col. 1, para. 2: chlorine concentration is determined by measuring the reduction of either hypochlorous acid or hypochlorite by free-chlorine sensors);
B bis: providing the activated calibration fluid (¶6: standard solutions with defined guaranteed concentrations of the disinfectant active ingredients are difficult to obtain and are not storage stable, and the calibration is therefore carried out with the disinfectant-containing water present on site; here, Examiner notes that since the standard solutions are not storage stable and the calibration is carrier out with the disinfectant-containing water present on site, which means that the calibration fluid is activated onsite); and
C: calibrating the amperometric sensor by determining a concentration of the species to be detected in the activated calibration fluid (¶6: The concentration of the disinfectant active substances is determined in this water by the DPD method and this measured value is used as a standard for calibrating the amperometric device).
Krumrey does not disclose the calibration device is a mobile one.
However, Hellein teaches a mobile system for mobile system for calibrating , verifying and/or adjusting a sensor for determining the process variable of a process medium (¶1). The mobile system is preferably compact as a portable mobile system, which advantageously enables an on-site calibration of a sensor at its intended place of use (¶21).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Krumrey by designing the calibration device a mobile one as taught by Hellein because the compact mobile device would advantageously enable an on-site calibration of a sensor at its intended place of use (¶21). Here, the claimed limitations are obvious because all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results. MPEP 2143(I)(A).
Krumrey does not disclose the calibration fluid is a stabilized calibration fluid or activating the stabilized calibration fluid for providing the activated calibration fluid.
However, MacFarland teaches an openable storage vessel and an aqueous composition that is storage stable within the openable storage vessel (¶7), and the calibration procedure is accomplished using standard composition/solutions in chlorine testing (¶27). Although MacFarland discloses a standard solution of dimethylchloramine (Fig. 3) does meet the stability criteria (¶34), the concentration as Cl2 (ppb), which is measured for stability, decreases over the time (Fig. 3: e.g., at 30 ⁰C). Further, Krumrey further teaches the standard solutions with defined guaranteed concentrations of the disinfectant active ingredients are difficult to obtain and are not storage-stable (Krumrey ¶6). Thus, the calibration is therefore carried out with the disinfectant-containing water present on site (¶6).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Krumrey by using a stabilized calibration fluid as taught by MacFarland for better stability when it has to be stored and also activating the stabilized calibration fluid on site as taught by Krumrey because starting from a stabilized calibration fluid would improve its storage stability before being used for calibration (MacFarland ¶7) and the freshly activated calibration fluid would have defined guaranteed concentrations of the disinfectant active ingredients and avoid any degradation due to storage or transportation (Krumrey ¶6). Here, the claimed limitations are obvious because all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results. MPEP 2143(I)(A). Thus, the combined Krumrey and MacFarland would necessarily result in activating the stabilized calibration fluid on site for the on-site calibration.
Regarding claims 2-3 and 10, Krumrey, Hellein, and MacFarland discloses all limitations of claim 1. Krumrey and MacFarland do not disclose wherein the amperometric sensor is fixed at the measuring point in a process line or a process container when method steps A-C are carried out (claim 2) or wherein the amperometric sensor is provided in a holding device of the calibration device when method step C is carried out (claim 3) or wherein, after the calibration process, the amperometric sensor is reinserted into the measuring point, or in that, after the calibration process, the at least one fluid line or the plurality of fluid lines between the calibration device and the measuring point is/are dismantled (claim 10).
However, Hellein teaches an interchangeable fitting 8, together with connections 7a and 7b, that serves as a calibration site and is integrated into the conveying circuit (Fig. 2; ¶65). Through the interchangeable fittings, sensors can be introduced into a process medium and removed without interrupting ongoing processes (¶66). The calibration site KS may be formed both by the container 10 having the reference sensor RS and by the interchangeable fitting 8 introducing the sensor S to be calibrated, verified and/or adjusted into the convey circuit 1 (Fig. 2; ¶68). In this case, the sensor S can remain at its intended place of use for calibrating, verifying and/or adjusting (¶68).Thus, Hellein teaches the amperometric sensor is fixed at the measuring point in a process line (¶66) and provided in a holding device (Fig. 2: interchangeable fitting 8) during use for calibration. The interchangeable fitting enables the amperometric sensor to be introduced into the process medium and removed without interrupting ongoing processes (¶66).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Krumrey and MacFarland by incorporating an interchangeable fitting for introducing and/or removing the amperometric sensor into and/or from the process medium by fixing it at the measuring point in the process line as taught by Hellein because it would provide the amperometric sensor to be calibrated, verified and/or adjusted through the interchangeable fitting for various intended operation (¶¶66, 68). Here, the claimed limitations are obvious because all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results. MPEP 2143(I)(A). Since the amperometric sensor can be introduced and removed through the interchangeable fitting into and from the process line, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to reinsert the amperometric sensor after the calibration for sensing use with the calibrated sensor.
Regarding claim 4, Krumrey teaches wherein the activated calibration fluid has a disinfectant (¶6).
Regarding claim 5, Krumrey in view of Hellein and MacFarland teaches wherein, after step B bis, the activated calibration fluid is supplied to the measuring point (Krumrey, ¶6: The calibration is therefore carried out with the disinfectant-containing water present on site; MacFarland, ¶34).
Regarding claim 7, the designation “wherein the activation process and the calibration process take place within less than 10 minutes” does not further limit the method as claimed because it does not positively recite any step to be performed in the method claim. Claim scope is not limited by claim language that suggests or makes optional but does not require steps to be performed. In method claims, it is the overall method steps that are given patentable weight not the intended result thereof because the intended result does not materially alter the overall method. MPEP 2111.04.
Regarding claim 8, Krumrey, Hellein, and MacFarland disclose all limitations of claim 1. Krumrey and MacFarland do not disclose the method further comprising: supplying cleaning liquid to the measuring point, at least before the calibration process in step C.
However, Hellein teaches the sensor or sensors are subjected to a thorough cleaning in each case, in order to effectively prevent a mutual contamination of the calibration liquids with respect to one another by any residues on the sensor(s) (¶6).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Krumrey and MacFarland by incorporating a step of cleaning before the calibration process as taught by Hellein because it would effectively prevent a mutual contamination of the calibration liquids with respect to one another by any residues on the sensor(s) (¶6). Here, the claimed limitations are obvious because all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results. MPEP 2143(I)(A).
Regarding claim 9, Krumrey teaches the method further comprising:
recording an actual value via the amperometric sensor (¶12: the amperometric measuring electrode determining the concentration of disinfectant active ingredients in water) and comparing a target/actual value, wherein the target value is determined from a predefined concentration of a compound in the stabilized calibration fluid (¶12: the normal is the determination of the concentration of disinfectant active substances in water by the DPD method, in which the reagent N,N-diethyl-p-phenylenediamine is used which forms a reddish coloration with free chlorine, e.g., a disinfectant active ingredient), which is converted into a species detectable by the amperometric sensor during the activation process in step B. (¶12: With the normal determined in step (c), the measured value of the amperometric measuring electrode can be correlated with the concentration of disinfectant active ingredient).
Regarding claim 11, Krumrey teaches wherein the calibration process in step C is carried out as a measurement of the calibration fluid by the amperometric sensor (¶12: calibrated by the amperometric measuring electrode) and as a measurement of the calibration fluid by a reference measurement (¶12: by the DPD method).
Regarding claim 16, Krumrey teaches wherein the disinfectant is free chlorine (¶12).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are unpersuasive in light of new grounds for rejection.
Applicant argues Krumrey does not teach a stabilized calibration fluid (Response, p. 7) because Krumrey discloses standard solutions with defined guaranteed concentrations of the disinfectant active ingredients are difficult to obtain and are not storage-stable (p. 7, para. 1). Applicant further argues Krumrey does not teach activating the stabilized calibration fluid (p. 8). These arguments are unpersuasive because the standard solutions of the disinfectant active ingredients as disclosed in Krumrey are not storage-stable, and the calibration is therefore carried out with the disinfectant-containing water present on site (Krumrey ¶6). In other word, the standard solutions for calibration are freshly made on site, so the standard solutions before addition of the disinfectant active ingredients would be stabilized calibration fluid and the obtained standard solutions after addition of the disinfectant active ingredients are activated calibration fluid.
Further, a newly cited reference, MacFarland, teaches a standard solution has been stabilized by dimethylchloramine and meets the stability criteria (¶34). Since MacFarland shows the stability slightly decreases over the time at 30 ⁰C (Fig. 3), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to use both stabilized standard solution as taught by MacFarland for inevitable storage/transportation and the on-site calibration based on freshly made standard solutions as taught by Krumrey for the best result of combining both benefits.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CAITLYN M SUN whose telephone number is (571)272-6788. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8:30am - 5:30pm.
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, Luan Van can be reached on 571-272-8521. 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.
/C. SUN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1795