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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 04/13/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4, 7, 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Olaf, S. et al., WO 2019219497 A1 (hereinafter Olaf), in view of Manzardo, O. e tal., US20080204879A1 (hereinafter Manzardo), Frizzarin, Maria, et al. "Predicting cow milk quality traits from routinely available milk spectra using statistical machine learning methods." Journal of Dairy Science 104.7 (2021): 7438-7447 (hereinafter Frizzarin), and JP 2007255918 A (hereinafter Takashi).
Regarding claim 1, Olaf teaches an arrangement, comprising: a milking machine (fig. 2, para [0036]) having a line section for a fluid (fig. 2 the measuring channel 20 is where the milk is being measured, para [0036]), a monitoring device (fig. 1 measuring device 30, para [0044]) for monitoring constituents of the fluid when the fluid is flowing through the line section (fig. 2 measuring area 25, para [0042]), comprising a light source unit (para [0044]), which emits light into the line section (para [0044]), and a detection unit (para [0045]) including a spectrometer (p. 8 para 1) for the spectrally resolved recording of light which emerges from the line section (para [0045]), the detection unit being adapted to output a signal that indicates measured spectral information (the signal from the measuring area goes to the spectrometer, para [0045]), and wherein the line section has an at least partially transparent region (fig. 3 window 26 is transparent).
Olaf does not teach wherein the spectrometer of the detection unit has a microscopic structure, and wherein the microscopic structure comprises an interferometer with a moving mirror; and an evaluation unit constructed and arranged to apply a machine-learning program to determine one or more of the constituents of the fluid based on the signal, and wherein the monitoring device is configured as a handheld instrument, in such a way that when the handheld instrument is held on the at least partially transparent region of the line section, light emitted by the light source unit enters the line section and light emerging from the line section reaches the detection unit.
Manzardo, from the same field of endeavor as Olaf, teaches “wherein the spectrometer of the detection unit has a microscopic structure, and wherein the microscopic structure comprises an interferometer with a moving mirror” (this entire limitation is shown in fig. 6, para [0054] lines; the moving mirror is element 13 in fig. 8, para [0066]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to apply the teaching of Manzardo to Olaf to have “wherein the spectrometer of the detection unit has a microscopic structure, and wherein the microscopic structure comprises an interferometer with a moving mirror” in order to provide an improved spectrometer element allowing enhanced miniaturization at high reliability (para [0005]).
Olaf, when modified by Manzardo, fails to teach an evaluation unit constructed and arranged to apply a machine-learning program to determine one or more of the constituents of the fluid based on the signal and wherein the monitoring device is configured as a handheld instrument, in such a way that when the handheld instrument is held on the at least partially transparent region of the line section, light emitted by the light source unit enters the line section and light emerging from the line section reaches the detection unit.
Frizzarin, from the same field of endeavor as Olaf, teaches an evaluation unit constructed and arranged to apply a machine-learning program to determine one or more of the constituents of the fluid based on the signal (p. 2 col 1 para 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to apply the teaching of Frizzarin to Olaf, when modified by Manzardo, to have an evaluation unit constructed and arranged to apply a machine-learning program to determine one or more of the constituents of the fluid based on the signal in order to improve the prediction accuracy for some milk traits (p. 2 col 1 para 2).
Olaf, when modified by Manzardo and Frizzarin, does not teach wherein the monitoring device is configured as a handheld instrument, in such a way that when the handheld instrument is held on the at least partially transparent region of the line section, light emitted by the light source unit enters the line section and light emerging from the line section reaches the detection unit.
Takashi, from the same field of endeavor as Olaf, teaches wherein the monitoring device is configured as a handheld instrument, in such a way that when the handheld instrument is held on the at least partially transparent region of the line section, light emitted by the light source unit enters the line section and light emerging from the line section reaches the detection unit (this is show in fig. 7-2, p. 10 para 10; p. 8 para 3, p. 4 last para).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to apply the teaching of Takashi to Olaf, when modified by Manzardo and Frizzarin, to have wherein the monitoring device is configured as a handheld instrument, in such a way that when the handheld instrument is held on the at least partially transparent region of the line section, light emitted by the light source unit enters the line section and light emerging from the line section reaches the detection unit in order to provide a device and method, capable of easily and noninvasively measuring a sample without being affected by disturbance light in spectroscopic analysis (Abstract lines 1-2).
Regarding claim 2, Olaf teaches the arrangement as claimed in claim 1, wherein the milking machine furthermore has a main line (fig. 2 main channel 10, para [0057]), and wherein the line “section branches off from the main line and debouches into the main line” (fig. 2 shows channel 20 connects again to channel 10).
Regarding claim 4, Olaf teaches a method for the analysis of a fluid in a line section of a milking machine, comprising: a) introduction of light into the line section (para [0044]), b) spectrally resolved detection of light which emerges from the line section (para [0045]), c) analysis of the fluid in respect of constituents with the aid of the light detected according to step b) (para [0045]), wherein the method is carried out with the arrangement as claimed in claim 1 (see rejection claim 1 above).
Olaf does not teach wherein the detection is carried out with a detection unit for the spectrally resolved recording of light which emerges from the line section, the detection unit being adapted to output a signal, wherein the constituents of the fluid flowing through the line section can be determined with the aid of the signal, wherein the detection unit comprises a microscopic structure, wherein the microscopic structure comprises an interferometer with a moving mirror.
Manzardo, from the same field of endeavor as Olaf, teaches “wherein the detection is carried out with a detection unit for the spectrally resolved recording of light which emerges from the line section, the detection unit being adapted to output a signal, wherein the constituents of the fluid flowing through the line section can be determined with the aid of the signal, wherein the detection unit comprises a microscopic structure, wherein the microscopic structure comprises an interferometer with a moving mirror” (this entire limitation is shown in fig. 6, para [0054] lines; the moving mirror is element 13 in fig. 8, para [0066]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to apply the teaching of Manzardo to Olaf to have “wherein the detection is carried out with a detection unit for the spectrally resolved recording of light which emerges from the line section, the detection unit being adapted to output a signal, wherein the constituents of the fluid flowing through the line section can be determined with the aid of the signal, wherein the detection unit comprises a microscopic structure, wherein the microscopic structure comprises an interferometer with a moving mirror” in order to provide an improved spectrometer element allowing enhanced miniaturization at high reliability (para [0005]).
Regarding claim 7, Olaf does not teach the method as claimed claim 4, wherein steps a) and b) are carried out with a handheld instrument which in step c) transmits the information recorded according to step b) to a central computer, and wherein in step c) the central computer furthermore carries out the analysis and transmits the result to the handheld instrument.
Takashi, from the same field of endeavor as Olaf, teaches, teaches “the method as claimed claim 4, wherein steps a) and b) are carried out with a handheld instrument” (this is show in fig. 7-2, p. 10 para 10; p. 8 para 3, p. 4 last para).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to apply the teaching of Takashi to Olaf to have “the method as claimed claim 4, wherein steps a) and b) are carried out with a handheld instrument” in order to provide a device and method, capable of easily and noninvasively measuring a sample without being affected by disturbance light in spectroscopic analysis (Abstract lines 1-2).
Olaf, when modified by Takasi, does not teach which in step c) transmits the information recorded according to step b) to a central computer, and wherein in step c) the central computer furthermore carries out the analysis and transmits the result to the handheld instrument.
Frizzarin, from the same field of endeavor as Olaf, teaches “which in step c) transmits the information recorded according to step b) to a central computer, and wherein in step c) the central computer furthermore carries out the analysis and transmits the result to the handheld instrument” (p. 8 col 2 para 4).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to apply the teaching of Frizzarin to Olaf, when modified by Takasi, to have “which in step c) transmits the information recorded according to step b) to a central computer, and wherein in step c) the central computer furthermore carries out the analysis and transmits the result to the handheld instrument” in order to improve the prediction accuracy for some milk traits (p. 2 col 1 para 2).
Regarding claim 9, Olaf teaches a method for the analysis of a fluid in a milking machine, comprising: A) branching of a part of the fluid off from a line section of the milking machine (fig. 2 the measuring channel 20 is where the milk is being measured in measuring area 25, para [0036], para [0042]), B) introduction of light into the fluid branched off according to step a) (para [0044]), C) spectrally resolved detection of light which emerges from the fluid (para [00445), and D) analysis of the fluid in respect of constituents with the aid of the light detected according to step C) (para [00445]), wherein the method is carried out with an arrangement as claimed in claim 1 (see rejection claim 1 above).
Olaf does not teach “wherein the detection is carried out with a detection unit for the spectrally resolved recording of light which emerges from the line section, the detection unit being adapted to output a signal, wherein the constituents of the fluid flowing through the line section can be determined with the aid of the signal, wherein the detection unit comprises a microscopic structure, wherein the microscopic structure comprises an interferometer with a moving mirror”.
Manzardo, from the same field of endeavor as Olaf, teaches “wherein the detection is carried out with a detection unit for the spectrally resolved recording of light which emerges from the line section, the detection unit being adapted to output a signal, wherein the constituents of the fluid flowing through the line section can be determined with the aid of the signal, wherein the detection unit comprises a microscopic structure, wherein the microscopic structure comprises an interferometer with a moving mirror” (this entire limitation is shown in fig. 6, para [0054] lines; the moving mirror is element 13 in fig. 8, para [0066]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to apply the teaching of Manzardo to Olaf to have “wherein the detection is carried out with a detection unit for the spectrally resolved recording of light which emerges from the line section, the detection unit being adapted to output a signal, wherein the constituents of the fluid flowing through the line section can be determined with the aid of the signal, wherein the detection unit comprises a microscopic structure, wherein the microscopic structure comprises an interferometer with a moving mirror” in order to provide an improved spectrometer element allowing enhanced miniaturization at high reliability (para [0005]).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Olaf, Manzardo, Frizzarin, and Takashi as applied to claim(s) 4, and in view of Den Berg, K. V. et al., US 6197538 B1 (hereinafter Den Berg).
Regarding claim 6, Olaf does not teach the method as claimed in claim 4, wherein steps a) to c) are carried out at least at two monitoring locations, and wherein the results obtained in step c) for the at least two monitoring locations are compared with one another.
Den Berg, from the same field of endeavor as Olaf, teaches the method as claimed in claim 4, wherein steps a) to c) are carried out at least at two monitoring locations, and wherein the results obtained in step c) for the at least two monitoring locations are compared with one another (fig. 1 has 4 location 11; col 1 lines 56-61).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to apply the teaching of Den Berg to Olaf to have the method as claimed in claim 4, wherein steps a) to c) are carried out at least at two monitoring locations, and wherein the results obtained in step c) for the at least two monitoring locations are compared with one another in order to detect subtle color changes in the milk (col 1 line 67 to col 2 lines 1-2).
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Olaf and Manzardo as applied to claim(s) 1, 4, and in view of Krief, H., US 20150241336 A1 (hereinafter Krief).
Regarding claim 8, Olaf does not teach the method as claimed in claim 4, wherein steps a) to c) are carried out cyclically, and wherein a respective calibration is carried out between successive cycles.
Krief, from the same field of endeavor as Olaf, teaches the method as claimed in claim 4, wherein steps a) to c) are carried out cyclically, and wherein a respective calibration is carried out between successive cycles (the cycle is shown in fig. 6, with calibration in 140; para [0028] lines 1-4).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to apply the teaching of Krief to Olaf to have the method as claimed in claim 4, wherein steps a) to c) are carried out cyclically, and wherein a respective calibration is carried out between successive cycles in order to have accurate measurement.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERTO FABIAN JR whose telephone number is (571)272-3632. The examiner can normally be reached M-F (8-12, 1-5).
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, KARA GEISEL can be reached at (571)272-2416. 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.
/ROBERTO FABIAN JR/Examiner, Art Unit 2877
/Kara E. Geisel/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2877
Prosecution Insights