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 .
112(b) Rejections
Claims 1-19 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.
As to claims 1,8,10, what is to be made of “the sensor(s)” (line )? How many sensors is this claim limited to? Claims calls for “one or more”, so what is the intent? Uncertainty is indefinite.
As t claim 1, what is “proximal to the surface” (italics added, line 2 from last) for purposes of defining what such might be?
As to claim 2, it’s not clear how many sensors are in this claim. Do the “two or more” relate to the sensors of lines 2-3 claim 1, or maybe some other different sensors.1 Claim 2 neither relates the “two or more” to lines 2-3, nor does it introduce such as additional sensors. What is one of ordinary skill to make of such?
As to claims 3 and 12 suggest that claim 1 is limited to a plurality of sensors. Is such the case?
As to claim 7, what structure does “a flotation feature” refer to? Apparatus claims are limited combinations of structure and/or means plus function limitations. The “feature” is neither one nor the other. What is Applicant’s intent?
As to claims 8,10, what is “the sensor(s)” imply? How many sensors is claim 8 limited to? Claim 1 calls for “one or more” of 3 different sensor; not - - one or 2 sensors - - . What is the meaning of the “(s)” in “sensors(s)?
As to claim 12, what might “the same sensors” relate to in claim 8? Claim 8 calls for “the sensor(s)” which is yet to be clearly established. Claim 3 lists 3 sensors, but calls for “one or more”. How many sensor is claim 12 limited to?
As to claim 13, are the “different parts” the “different positions”, or are they totally different, or can a position also be a part? What is Applicant’s intent?
As to claim 15, does the “and wherein …gas sensor” (lines 2-3) related to only the “and/or” (of line 2), or does the “and wherein … gas sensor” clause also related to the “wherein … the surface” (lines 3-last) too.
As to claim 15, multiple “and/or” cause confusion; for instance, insertion of “the dissolved oxygen sensor” (line 4) is not consistent with the “potential sensor” (lines 1-2) “or” (line 2) alternative that suggests that the “or” (line 2) is misplaced/in-error.
As to claim 15, is the “and/or” (line 4) possibility associated with the “and/or” (line 2) alternative, or are they somehow intended to be completely separate? (Undersigned does not wish to see another - - and/or - - or added into this claim) Use of the term - - either - - is invaluable in separating alternatives.
As to claim 16, how does this add a step in this method claim? The “if” is entirely conditional, making it unclear if an alert is generated (and an alert is transmitted). Maybe, the control module is merely configured to do such, but the claim certainly does not express such. How is claim 16 related/consistent with a method claim?
As to claim 16, “any of the sensor measurements” and “present limits” is confusing because it seems to suggests a plurality of sensor (each with different limits), when it remains unclear if the claim is limited to a plurality in light of “the sensor(s)” (claim 8).
As to claim 18, what “other sensors” (line 4) might such relate to? Are they other than the depth sensor, or potential sensor or oxygen sensor or something different from all of the sensors listed in this claim? How many (different and/or otherwise) sensors does this method include? The claim (best guess) includes the sum of 3 sensors (i.e. ORP “and” DO, and “depth”) and a plurality of “other sensors” for a total of at least 5 different sensors to generate; is that the case?
112(a) Rejections
Claims 18,19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
As to claim 18, there is no algorithm that discloses how individual measurements from an unknown number of sensors are combinable to generate a single alert? There are no examples, no references provides for such, no manner of experimentation is suggested.
112(d) Rejections
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 19 removes “data from other sensors” (line 2 from last of claim 18). Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
102(a1)/103 Rejections
Claim(s) 1,8-10,12, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Liu CN 115494203.
Liu teaches (Figure 1) a system for analyzing pond water health, wherein the system comprises: one or more of an oxidation-reduction potential sensor, a dissolved oxygen sensor 5, or an H2S gas sensor; a housing 1 containing a control module, wherein the control module is in informational communication with the sensor(s); wherein the system is positionable over a surface of a pond, proximal to the surface, or adapted to float on the surface.
“the molecular oxygen dissolved in the air in the water is called dissolved oxygen, when the dissolved oxygen value in the water is reduced to 5 mg/L, the respiratory of some fish is difficult, so the farmers when performing aquaculture, needs time attention to the dissolved oxygen content in the culture pond, the dissolved oxygen content in the water is detected by the solution sample sensor, the dissolved oxygen sensor is a sensing device for measuring the dissolved amount of oxygen in the water, the sensing device is connected with a handheld meter through a cable, when detecting, the data detected by the instrument reaction sensor.”
As to claims 1,12, either the Reference teaches placed the probe into a pond, or in the alternative, one of ordinary skill would recognizing employing the sensor at the source of water to be tested.
As to claims 8,9, a when the dissolved oxygen is reduced, farmers need to address such, indicative of signaling a supervisor.
“the molecular oxygen dissolved in the air in the water is called dissolved oxygen, when the dissolved oxygen value in the water is reduced to 5 mg/L, the respiratory of some fish is difficult, so the farmers when performing aquaculture, needs time attention to the dissolved oxygen content in the culture pond, the dissolved oxygen content in the water is detected by the solution sample sensor, the dissolved oxygen sensor is a sensing device for measuring the dissolved amount of oxygen in the water, the sensing device is connected with a handheld meter through a cable, when detecting, the data detected by the instrument reaction sensor.”
As to claim 10, fish breath 24 hours a day, suggestive of a desire to test often. Such suggests that that testing often is inherent, or desirable to one of ordinary skill.
103 Rejection
Claim(s) 12,13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu ‘203.
As to claims 12,13, it would have been obvious for two inspectors to test the water at different location to provide for a meaningful (ever average) reading for a pond.
102(a1) Rejections
Claim(s) 1,2,4,5,7-13,15,18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Wang et al CN 113640489.
As to claims 1,7,11,12,15,18, Wang teach analyzing drinking water health, wherein the system comprises: - one or more of an oxidation-reduction potential sensor, a dissolved oxygen sensor, or an H2S gas sensor; a housing containing a control module, wherein the control module is in informational communication with the sensor(s) (“wireless communication module connected with the first controller”); wherein the system is positionable over a surface of a pond, proximal to the surface ,or adapted to float (“boat”) on the surface. The boat floats, and is optionable, or one of ordinary skill would so recognize the desirability of such because ponds are sources of drinking water.
“With social and economic development, scientific progress and the improvement of the people's living standard, the water quality requirement of the drinking water is continuously improved; the monitoring means of the water quality of the water source is continuously developed and perfected. In addition, from the perspective of protecting the natural ecology, it is also necessary to strengthen the monitoring of the water quality of the urban waterways and prevent the emission of pollutants..”
“In the invention, a plurality of patrol boats are arranged in the whole city drainage area; it can form a monitoring network; realizing the precise collection of urban river water pollution source, position determination, online real-time change; and can distinguish the surface floater, underwater pollutant with different depth, comprehensively analyzing the component of the pollutant, convenient for pertinence treatment, which is good for improving the treatment effect.
Further, the first sensor unit 1 comprises a pH sensor.
Further, the first sensor unit 1 further comprises a turbidity sensor, H2S sensor, dissolved oxygen sensor, residual chlorine sensor and ammonia nitrogen sensor.
Further, the second sensor unit 2 comprises a COD sensor, ammonia nitrogen sensor and ORP sensor.
the first sensor unit 1 is used for detecting pH, H2S, dissolved oxygen, turbidity, residual chlorine, ammonia nitrogen and other water quality data, indicating water quality pollution degree of underwater different depth, the second sensor unit 2 for detecting river surface COD, ammonia nitrogen and dissolved oxygen content, indicating the degree of river surface organic pollution.
the first sensor unit 1 and the second sensor unit 2 are combined to realize the full-face detection of river water quality pollutant, completely analyzing the component of the pollutant, performing pertinence treatment, which is good for improving the treatment effect.”
As to claim 2, there are many sensors on the boat, which information is sent.
As to claim 4, either the sensor is within the body (withing 36 inches), or one of ordinary skill would so locate such as a usable location.
As to claims 5,12,18 the Reference employs depth sensors.
As to claim 8,9, either the condition of city water is inherently suggestive of an alert, or in the alternative, it would have been obvious to so employ an alarm. Also, is known that drinking water can be obtained from ponds.
As to claim 10,13, more data provides more suitable, final evaluations.
103 Rejection
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Wang et al CN 113640489.
As to claim 16, it would have been obvious to employ an autonomous boat because one of ordinary skill would recognize that such can effectively/economically provide data in a small body of water.
103 Rejections
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Wang et al CN 113640489.
As to claim 17, the boat employ a sensor of dissolved oxygen, and one of ordinary skill recognizes that the public is sensitive to the concept of drinking biofouled water per Applicant’s BACKGROUND.
Prior Art cited; not applied
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
As to Liu CN 107535399, Liu ‘203 teaches that 5 mg/L oxygen negatively affects respiration in fish, while Liu ‘399 teach associates growth anaerobic bacteria with 3 mg/L, a narrower region.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT R RAEVIS whose telephone number is (571)272-2204. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon to Fri from 8am to 4pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Kristina DeHerrera, can be reached at telephone number 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 an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center to authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to the USPTO patent electronic filing system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
Examiner interviews are available via a variety of formats. See MPEP § 713.01. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/InterviewPractice.
/ROBERT R RAEVIS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855
1 Para 10 (Publication) refers to 2 different H2S sensors.