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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 2-6, 15, and 17 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Lines 9-10 of claim 2 recites “…which lateral surface is a surface of the front region of the first component…” when it should instead recite “…in which the lateral surface is a surface of the front region of the first component…”.
Line 12 of claim 3 recites “…the cross-sectional area of which recess continuously transitions from a first…” should instead recite “the cross-sectional area of which [[recess]] continuously transitions from a first…” to match line 13 of claim 1.
Lines 2-3 of claim 4 recites “…the first molded part and the second molded part lie relative each other in the inner chamber of the measuring cell…” when it should instead recite “…the first molded part and the second molded part lie relative to each other in the inner chamber of the measuring cell…”.
Line 1 of claim 5 recites “…the measurement chamber configured to…” should instead recite “…the measurement chamber is configured to…”.
Line 2 of claim 6 recites “…an end of each transition adjacent its respective channel…” should instead recite “…an end of each transition adjacent to its respective channel…”.
Line 4-5 of claim 15 recites “…wherein the first molded part is selectable or selected from the set based on…” where “the set” has insufficient antecedent basis. It is unclear whether “the set” is referring to “a set of molded part” (in line 1 of claim 15) or another set altogether. It would appear that “the set” should instead recite “the set of molded parts.” Similarly, the last line of claim 15 also recites “the set based on the second insertion depth…” where “the set” should instead recite “the set of molded parts.”
Lines 9-10 of claim 17 recites “…the first molded part and/or the second molded part in each case, at least one of: is configured as a one-piece molded part…” should instead recite “…the first molded part and/or the second molded part in each case, is at least one of: [[is]] configured as a one-piece molded part…”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“Measuring element” in claim 17. Here the word “element” is a generic placeholder for the term “means”, is modified by the functional language, “for measuring a measured variable”, and further is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
An example of structure corresponding to a “measuring element” was found in the specification in paragraph [0086] where a measuring element comprises at least one measuring electrode.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth 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.
Claim 10 is 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.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, the last line of claim 10 recites the broad recitation “a few millimeters”, and the claim also recites “one millimeter” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
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.
(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 1-6, 9, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Milosevic (US 7,961,310 B1).
Regarding Claim 1, Milosevic teaches a device for measuring a measured variable of a medium (Shown in Fig. 1 and described in Abstract), the device comprising:
a measuring cell (flow cell shown in Fig. 1 and described in Abstract) through which the medium can flow in a flow direction into an inner chamber (Shown in annotated Fig. 1a below) from which an inlet channel opens on an inlet side (Fig. 1: inlet tube 2b) and an outlet channel opens on an outlet side (Fig. 1: outlet tube 2a);
a first duct extending along a first longitudinal axis and opening into the inner chamber (Shown in annotated Fig. 1a below);
PNG
media_image1.png
670
576
media_image1.png
Greyscale
a first component (Figs. 1 and 2: window 4) configured to be introduced through the first duct such that a first end portion of the first component extends into the inner chamber at a first insertion depth (Shown in annotated Fig. 1b below where window 4 extends into the inner chamber);
PNG
media_image2.png
654
600
media_image2.png
Greyscale
and
a first molded part (Figs. 1 and 2: insert 5 (on the left-hand side) which is molded to be inserted into the flow cell of Fig. 1), which:
surrounds, on an exterior of at least all lateral sides, the first end portion of the first component introduced at the first insertion depth (Shown in Fig. 1 where insert 5 surrounds all elements within the insert 5 from the first end portion (window 4 which extends into the inner chamber) to the compression nut 10) and surrounds a hollow chamber adjacent to an end face of the first component in the inner chamber (Shown in Fig. 1 where insert 5 surrounds the inner chamber (which is hollow so liquid can flow through) which is adjacent to an end face of the window 4); and
includes a recess for each channel that connects the hollow chamber to the respective channel (Shown in annotated Fig. 1c below), the cross-sectional area (Shown in annotated Fig. 1d below) of which continuously transitions from a first cross-sectional area to a second cross-sectional area in a direction extending from the respective channel to the hollow chamber, wherein the first cross-sectional area corresponds to a channel cross-sectional area of the channel adjacent thereto, and the second cross-sectional area corresponds to a hollow chamber cross-sectional area of a hollow chamber region of the hollow chamber adjacent to the respective recess (Shown in annotated Fig. 1d below).
PNG
media_image3.png
797
902
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
748
954
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 2, Milosevic teaches the device according to claim 1.
Milosevic further teaches that the first component (Figs. 1 and 2: window 4 on left-hand side) includes a rear region (Figs. 1 and 2: region of window 4 which is closest to element 10) disposed in the first duct and a front region (Figs. 1 and 2: region of window 4 which extends into the inner chamber) adjacent thereto, which tapers in a direction parallel to the first longitudinal axis of the first duct into the inner chamber of the measuring cell (Figs. 1 and 2: window 4 (on the left) tapers in the direction of the cell axis (which is indicated by the number 11 shown in Fig. 1).), which forms or comprises the first end portion disposed in the inner chamber (Shown in Fig. 1), and which is surrounded on the exterior of at least all the lateral sides by the first molded part (Shown in Fig. 1 where insert 5 surrounds window 4); and/or
the first molded part is clamped between the first component and a counter bearing, wherein the first molded part is clamped between a lateral surface of the first component facing into the inner chamber of the measuring cell, in which the lateral surface is a surface of the front region of the first component, and the counter bearing, wherein the counter bearing comprises a wall region of the measuring cell opposite the first duct and delimiting the inner chamber.
Regarding Claim 3, Milosevic teaches the device according to claim 1.
Milosevic further teaches a second duct (Shown in annotated Fig. 1e below) arranged on a side of the inner chamber opposite the first duct and opening into the inner chamber (Shown in Fig. 1);
PNG
media_image5.png
670
576
media_image5.png
Greyscale
a second component (Figs. 1 and 2: window 4 on the right-hand side) configured to be introduced through the second duct into the inner chamber at a second insertion depth such that a second end portion of the second component projects into the inner chamber (Shown in Fig. 1 where the window 4 on the right-hand side projects into the inner chamber), and
a second molded part (Figs. 1 and 2: insert 5 on the right-hand side mirrors the insert 5 on the left-hand side), which:
surrounds, on an exterior of at least all lateral sides, the second end portion of the second component introduced in the second insertion depth and a hollow chamber adjacent to an end face of the second component in the inner chamber (Figs. 1 and 2: insert 5 on the right-hand side mirrors the insert 5 on the left-hand side); and
includes a recess for each channel that connects the hollow chamber to the respective channel, the cross-sectional area of which recess continuously transitions from a first cross-sectional area to a second cross-sectional area in the direction extending from the respective channel to the hollow chamber, wherein the first cross-sectional area corresponds to a channel cross-sectional area of the channel adjacent thereto, and the second cross-sectional area corresponds to the hollow chamber cross-sectional area of the hollow chamber region of the hollow chamber adjacent to the respective recess (Figs. 1 and 2: insert 5 on the right hand side mirrors the insert 5 on the left hand side).
Regarding Claim 4, Milosevic teaches the device according to claim 3.
Milosevic further teaches that the first molded part and the second molded part lie relative to each other in the inner chamber of the measuring cell such that their respective recesses adjoin (definition taken from merriam-webster.com where adjoin means to be close to or in contact with one another) one another in pairs (Shown in annotated Fig. 1c below where the recesses are close to each other);
PNG
media_image6.png
797
902
media_image6.png
Greyscale
a portion of the hollow chamber surrounded by the first molded part together with a portion of the hollow chamber surrounded by the second molded part delimit a measurement chamber defined by both molded parts (shown in annotated Fig. 1f below);
PNG
media_image7.png
646
853
media_image7.png
Greyscale
and
the measurement chamber is connected to each channel by a transition, wherein each transition is formed by one of the recesses of the first molded part and the recess of the second molded part adjacent thereto (Shown in Fig. 1 where each channel narrows into a measurement chamber).
Regarding Claim 5, Milosevic teaches the device according to claim 4.
Milosevic further teaches that the measurement chamber is configured to, at least one of: facilitate a laminar flow (Fig. 3 shows smooth/laminar fluid flow); be free of dead space; have a constant cross-sectional area in the flow direction; and have a continuously changing cross-sectional area in the flow direction.
Regarding Claim 6, Milosevic teaches the device according to claim 4.
Milosevic further teaches that an end of each transition adjacent its respective channel has a cross-sectional area corresponding to or approximately corresponding to the channel cross-sectional area of the respective channel adjacent thereto (Shown in Fig. 1 where inlet side 2b mirrors outlet side 2a as described in Col. 3, ll. 51-54); and
an end of each transition adjacent to the measurement chamber has a cross-sectional area corresponding to or approximately corresponding to a measurement chamber cross-sectional area of a measurement chamber region of the measurement chamber adjacent to the respective transition (Shown in Fig. 1 where inlet side 2b mirrors outlet side 2a as described in Col. 3, ll. 51-54).
Regarding Claim 9, Milosevic teaches the device according to claim 3.
Milosevic further teaches that the end faces of the first component and the second component are disposed at the same distance from an axis which extends between the two end faces and coincides with the longitudinal axes of both channels; and/or
the first molded part and the second molded part are structurally identical and/or are arranged and/or formed mirror-symmetrically to the axis coinciding with the longitudinal axes of the channels (Shown in Fig. 1 and described in Col. 3, ll. 49-57: “The cell is left right symmetric, i.e. the left side of the cell is the mirror image of the right side. For each component shown on the left side there is an identical component shown on the right side and vice versa. For clarity, we have identified only one component of each pair.”).
Regarding Claim 14, Milosevic teaches the device according to claim 3.
Milosevic further teaches that the first molded part (Figs. 1 and 2: insert 5 (on left hand side)) comprises a region consisting of a sealing material (Figs. 1 and 2: O-rings 6 and 9) configured to seal a gap (shown in Fig. 1 and described in Col. 3, ll. 58-67 to Col. 4, ll. 1-7), which exists between the first duct (area where insert 5 is inserted as shown in Fig. 1) and the first component (Figs. 1 and 2: optical window 4), surrounds the first component on the exterior of at least all lateral sides (Insert 5 with O-rings 6 and 9 surrounds all lateral sides of the optical window 4), and opens into the inner chamber of the measuring cell (O-ring 6 is in the inner chamber); and/or
the second molded part comprises a region consisting of a sealing material configured to seal a gap, which exists between the second duct and the second component, surrounds the second component on the exterior of at least all lateral sides, and opens into the inner chamber of the measuring cell.
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.
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.
Claims 7 and 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Milosevic (US 7,961,310 B1) in view of Simpkin (US 10,996,161 B2).
Regarding Claim 7, Milosevic teaches the device according to claim 3.
Milosevic further teaches the first molded part and the second molded part (Figs. 1 and 2: inserts 5) where when the inserts 5 are inserted into the cell body, said inserts 5 enclose a sealed path from the inlet 2b through the gap between the two windows to the outlet 2a (Shown in Figs. 1 and 3). Milosevic further teaches that the first molded part and the second molded part face each other in the inner chamber of the measuring cell (Shown in Fig. 1).
Milosevic appears to be silent to the first molded part and the second molded part include mutually complementary locking elements on corresponding end faces, and which engage in a form-fit manner when the first molded part and the second molded part rest against each other such that their respective recesses adjoin one another in pairs,
wherein the locking elements of the first molded part and the locking elements of the second molded part are configured as element pairs such that each molded part, with regard to its locking element, comprises the locking element complementary thereto.
Simpkin, related to a flow cell, does teach that the first molded part and the second molded part (Shown in annotated Fig. 5 below) include mutually complementary locking elements on corresponding end faces (Fig. 5: tabs 54a and 54b are complementary locking elements with recesses 41a and 41b), and which engage in a form-fit manner when the first molded part and the second molded part rest against each other such that their respective recesses adjoin one another in pairs (Col. 10, ll. 35-45: Recesses 41a and 41b receive the tabs 54a and 54b),
wherein the locking elements of the first molded part and the locking elements of the second molded part are configured as element pairs such that each molded part, with regard to its locking element, comprises the locking element complementary thereto (Shown in Fig. 5 and described in Col. 10, ll. 35-45).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Milosevic so that the first molded part and the second molded part include mutually complementary locking elements on corresponding end faces, and which engage in a form-fit manner when the first molded part and the second molded part rest against each other such that their respective recesses adjoin one another in pairs,
wherein the locking elements of the first molded part and the locking elements of the second molded part are configured as element pairs such that each molded part, with regard to its locking element, comprises the locking element complementary thereto, as disclosed by Simpkin. It is well known that locking elements allows for parts to be secured together to ensure that measurements are not impeded by loose parts.
PNG
media_image8.png
696
624
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 10, Milosevic teaches the device according to claim 3.
Milosevic further teaches that the end faces of the first component and the second component (Figs. 1 and 2: windows 4) are disposed at a distance from each other in the inner chamber of the measuring cell (Shown in Figs. 1 and 2).
Milosevic appears to be silent to the distance (between end faces of the first component and the second component):
is within a distance range of 1–20 millimeters (mm) and/or is adjustable in steps within the distance range, wherein the first component is configured to be introduced at the first insertion depth, which is selectable, and/or the second component is configured to be introduced at the second insertion depth, which is selectable from different insertion depths; and/or
is less than or equal to a height of internal chambers of the inlet and outlet channels through which the medium flows and which extends parallel thereto and/or is one or a few millimeters.
Simpkin, related to a measuring cell, does teach that the distance (between end faces of the first component and the second component) is within a distance range of 1–20 millimeters (mm) (Fig. 7: gap length (G1) between windows 80 is 2mm +/- 0.2 mm (Col. 7, ll. 18-21)) and/or is adjustable in steps within the distance range, wherein the first component is configured to be introduced at the first insertion depth, which is selectable, and/or the second component is configured to be introduced at the second insertion depth, which is selectable from different insertion depths; and/or
is less than or equal to a height of internal chambers of the inlet and outlet channels through which the medium flows and which extends parallel thereto and/or is one or a few millimeters.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Milosevic so that the distance (between end faces of the first component and the second component):
is within a distance range of 1–20 millimeters (mm) and/or is adjustable in steps within the distance range, wherein the first component is configured to be introduced at the first insertion depth, which is selectable, and/or the second component is configured to be introduced at the second insertion depth, which is selectable from different insertion depths; and/or
is less than or equal to a height of internal chambers of the inlet and outlet channels through which the medium flows and which extends parallel thereto and/or is one or a few millimeters, as disclosed by Simpkin. The gap in the inner chamber of the measuring cell affects the level of attenuation of the light signal as it is transmitted through the measurement chamber and provides a desirable volume for the sample being measured (Col. 7, ll. 25-46 from Simpkin), therefore it would be advantageous for a user to have a gap that best optimizes the measurements.
Regarding Claim 11, Milosevic teaches the device according to claim 3.
Milosevic further teaches that the end faces of the first component and the second component (Figs. 1 and 2: windows 4) are disposed at a distance from each other in the inner chamber of the measuring cell (Shown in Figs. 1 and 2).
Milosevic appears to be silent to the distance (between the end faces of the first component and the second component in the inner chamber) is 1–10 mm.
Simpkin, related to a measuring cell, does teach the distance (between the end faces of the first component and the second component in the inner chamber) is 1–10 mm (Fig. 7: gap length (G1) between windows 80 is 2mm +/- 0.2 mm (Col. 7, ll. 18-21)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Milosevic so that the distance (between the end faces of the first component and the second component in the inner chamber) is 1–10 mm, as disclosed by Simpkin. The gap in the inner chamber of the measuring cell affects the level of attenuation of the light signal as it is transmitted through the measurement chamber and provides a desirable volume for the sample being measured (Col. 7, ll. 25-46 from Simpkin), therefore it would be advantageous for a user to have a gap that best optimizes the measurements.
Regarding Claim 12, Milosevic modified by Simpkin teaches the device according to claim 11.
Milosevic modified by Simpkin further teaches that the distance is 1–3 mm (Simpkin, Fig. 7: gap length (G1) between windows 80 is 2mm +/- 0.2 mm (Col. 7, ll. 18-21).
Claims 13 and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Milosevic (US 7,961,310 B1) in view of Shimizu (JP 2009180665 A, with portions of an attached translation provided below).
Regarding Claim 13, Milosevic teaches the device according to claim 3.
Milosevic further teaches the first molded part (Figs. 1 and 2: insert 5 on left-hand side).
Milosevic appears to be silent to the first molded part includes on an interior at least one elastic bulge adapted to engage a recess of the first component that is complementary thereto and/or includes on an exterior at least one elastic bulge adapted to engage a recess of the first duct that is complementary thereto; and/or
wherein the second molded part includes on an interior at least one elastic bulge adapted to engage in a recess of the second component that is complementary thereto and/or includes on an exterior at least one elastic bulge adapted to engage a recess of the second duct that is complementary thereto.
Shimizu, related a flow cell, does teach a structure which includes on an interior (Fig. 7b: opening 14) at least one bulge (Fig. 7b: convex locking member 27) adapted to engage a recess (Fig. 7b: locking groove 28) of the first component (Fig. 7b: elements inside opening 14) that is complementary thereto (Fig. 7b: locking groove 28 and convex locking member 27 complement each other) and/or includes on an exterior at least one elastic bulge adapted to engage a recess of the first duct that is complementary thereto; and/or
wherein the second molded part includes on an interior at least one elastic bulge adapted to engage in a recess of the second component that is complementary thereto and/or includes on an exterior at least one elastic bulge adapted to engage a recess of the second duct that is complementary thereto.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Milosevic so that the first molded part includes on an interior at least one bulge adapted to engage a recess of the first component that is complementary thereto, as disclosed by Shimizu. The above configuration would allow for elements to lock-in place which provides the benefit of securing elements in place so that they do not impede the optical measurements by having loose parts.
Shimizu appears to be silent to having an elastic bulge. However, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have found it obvious that a locking element (bulge) could be made of elastic which would allow for elastic flexibility when the elements are being locked in place so that the locking elements do not break from being too rigid.
Regarding Claim 15, Milosevic teaches the device according to claim 3.
Milosevic further teaches a set of molded parts (Fig. 1 and 2: inserts 5).
Milosevic appears to be silent to having a set of molded parts of different dimensions configured to provide a plurality of different insertion depths such that:
the first component is insertable or inserted at the first insertion depth selectable from the plurality of different insertion depths, wherein the first molded part is selectable or selected from the set based on the first insertion depth for the first component; and/or
the second component is insertable or inserted at the second insertion depth selectable from the plurality of different insertion depths, wherein the second molded part is selectable or selected from the set based on the second insertion depth selected for the second component.
Shimizu, related to a flow cell, does teach an optical path length variable cell (Shown in Fig. 7b) with different insertion dimensions configured to provide a plurality of different insertion depths such that (Shown in Fig. 7b):
the first component (Fig. 7b: elements within opening 14) is insertable or inserted at the first insertion depth selectable from the plurality of different insertion depths (Shown in Fig. 7b with pairs of locking grooves and convex locking members at different depths).
Shimizu appears to be silent to a set of molded parts such the first molded part is selectable or selected from the set based on the first insertion depth. However, the Applicant has not disclosed the novelty of having a set of molded parts of different dimensions to provide a plurality of different insertion depths versus what is already known in the art. While Shimizu’s components slightly differ, it would appear that Shimizu’s components provide the same function as the Applicant’s set of molded parts, which is to provide an adjustable optical path length. Therefore, it would appear that Shimizu’s invention is equivalent to “a set of molded parts such the first molded part is selectable or selected from the set based on the first insertion depth.” From MPEP 2183, factors that support a conclusion that the prior art element is equivalent are:
(A) The prior art element performs the identical function specified in the claim in substantially the same way, and produces substantially the same results as the corresponding element disclosed in the specification. Shimizu’s optical path length variable cell performs the identical function of adjusting the optical path length in a flow cell.
(B) is not excluded by any explicit definition provided in the specification for an equivalent, and
(C) is an equivalent of the means- (or step-) plus-function limitation.
Regarding Claim 16, Milosevic teaches the device according to claim 3.
Milosevic further teaches the first duct (Shown in annotated Fig. 1a above in rejection of claim 1) and the first molded part (Figs. 1 and 2: insert 5 on left hand side).
Milosevic appears to be silent to the first duct and the first molded part include alignment elements, which are complementary to each other and extend parallel to the longitudinal axis of the first duct, the alignment elements configured such that the first molded part is insertable into the measuring cell through the first duct in only one alignment, in which the recesses of the first molded part open in the corresponding inlet and outlet channels after insertion; and/or
the second duct and the second molded part include alignment elements, which are complementary to each other and extend parallel to the longitudinal axis of the second duct, the alignment elements configured such that the second molded part is insertable into the measuring cell through the second duct in only one alignment, in which the recesses of the second molded part open in the corresponding inlet and outlet channels after insertion.
Shimizu, related to a flow cell, does teach alignment elements (Fig. 7b: convex locking members 27 and locking grooves 28), which are complementary to each other and extend parallel to the longitudinal axis of the first duct (Shown in Fig. 7b), the alignment elements configured such that the first molded part is insertable into the measuring cell (Fig. 7b: window 20 is insertable into opening 14) through the first duct in only one alignment (Shown in Fig. 7b).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Milosevic to incorporate alignment elements, which are complementary to each other and extend parallel to the longitudinal axis of the first duct, the alignment elements configured such that the first molded part is insertable into the measuring cell through the first duct in only one alignment, as disclosed by Shimizu. The alignment elements provide the advantage of maintaining a specific optical path length (shown in Fig. 7b of Shimizu).
Milosevic modified by Shimizu teaches that the recesses of the first molded part (Milosevic, Fig. 1 and 2: insert 5) open in the corresponding inlet and outlet channels after insertion (Milosevic, Shown in annotated Fig. 1c above in rejection of claim 1).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Milosevic (US 7,961,310 B1) in view of Alarji (US 2022/0097065 A1) and further in view of Pike et al (“Flow Cell Design for Effective Biosensing", December 2012, Sensors 13(1), pp. 58-70).
Regarding Claim 17, Milosevic teaches the device according to claim 3.
Milosevic further teaches that the measuring cell is, at least one of: configured as a flow cell (liquid flow cell from Abstract) and/or as a disposable measuring cell; configured as a one-piece body; made of a plastic and/or a sterilizable material; and configured as an injection molded part;
the first component and/or the second component are each configured as a sensor component (Figs. 1 and 2: optical windows 4 are sensor components) of a sensor for measuring the measured variable (Abstract), comprises a housing (Figs. 1 and 2: inserts 5 are housing optical windows 4), is configured as a window (Figs. 1 and 2: optical windows 4), or is configured as a window mount including a window;
the first molded part and/or the second molded part in each case (Figs. 1 and 2: inserts 5), is at least one of:
configured as a one-piece molded part (Shown in Fig. 2 where inserts 5 is one-piece) and/or comprises entirely or sectionally of a sealing material, a rubber, or an elastomer.
Milosevic appears to be silent to the first molded part and/or the second molded part in each case, is at least one of:
includes a smooth, chemically resistant, abrasion-resistant surface and/or a surface having antibacterial properties, or is coated with a coating having smooth, chemically resistant, abrasion-resistant and/or antibacterial properties.
Alarji (US 2022/0097065 A1), related to a microfluidic device, does teach
that the testing apparatus includes a smooth, chemically resistant, abrasion-resistant surface ([0038]: Testing apparatus body 3 may be partially or fully formed of a material that is chemically-resistant.; Shown in Fig. 1) and/or a surface having antibacterial properties, or is coated with a coating having smooth, chemically resistant, abrasion-resistant and/or antibacterial properties.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Milosevic so that the first molded part and/or the second molded part in each case at least one of: includes a smooth, chemically resistant, abrasion-resistant surface and/or a surface having antibacterial properties, or is coated with a coating having smooth, chemically resistant, abrasion-resistant and/or antibacterial properties, as disclosed by Alarji. The advantage of having a chemically resistant surface is that the chemical resistance may prevent significant chemical degradation of the flow cell ([0038] from Alarji).
Milosevic modified by Alarji appears to be silent to the first component and/or the second component comprises a housing with a measuring element inserted therein at an end face;
the first molded part and/or the second molded part in each case is configured to accept a measuring device for measuring the measured variable, wherein the measuring device:
is configured as an optical sensor, as a turbidity sensor, as a sensor operable to measure a solids concentration contained in the medium, as a fluorescence sensor, as an absorption sensor, as a sensor operable to measure a spectral absorption coefficient, or as a sensor operable to measure a concentration of an analyte contained in the medium; and/or
comprises a transmitting device and a detector, wherein the transmitting device is configured to transmit transmitted radiation into the measuring cell, and the detector is configured to:
receive measuring radiation resulting from an interaction of the transmitted radiation along an optical path passing through the medium and emerging from the measuring cell; and
provide a detector signal corresponding to the measured variable-dependent measurement radiation.
Pike et al, related to flow cells, does teach that the first component and/or the second component (Fig. 1A-1D: sensor/electrode) comprises a housing (Fig. 1A-1D: flow cell houses the sensor/electrode) with a measuring element (Fig. 1A-1D: sensor/electrode is the measuring element) inserted therein at an end face (Shown in Fig. 1A-1D where end face of the sensor/electrode faces the direction of the fluid flow);
the first molded part and/or the second molded part in each case (Fig. 1A-1D: flow cell) is configured to accept a measuring device (Fig. 1A-1D: sensor/electrode) for measuring the measured variable, wherein the measuring device:
is configured as an optical sensor, as a turbidity sensor, as a sensor operable to measure a solids concentration contained in the medium, as a fluorescence sensor, as an absorption sensor, as a sensor operable to measure a spectral absorption coefficient, or as a sensor operable to measure a concentration of an analyte contained in the medium (Page 67, last paragraph: “The solution concentration can then be estimated from the sensor response using a cell factor.”; and/or
comprises a transmitting device and a detector, wherein the transmitting device is configured to transmit transmitted radiation into the measuring cell, and the detector is configured to:
receive measuring radiation resulting from an interaction of the transmitted radiation along an optical path passing through the medium and emerging from the measuring cell; and
provide a detector signal corresponding to the measured variable-dependent measurement radiation.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Milosevic combined with Alarji so that the first component and/or the second component comprises a housing with a measuring element inserted therein at an end face;
the first molded part and/or the second molded part in each case is configured to accept a measuring device for measuring the measured variable, wherein the measuring device:
is configured as an optical sensor, as a turbidity sensor, as a sensor operable to measure a solids concentration contained in the medium, as a fluorescence sensor, as an absorption sensor, as a sensor operable to measure a spectral absorption coefficient, or as a sensor operable to measure a concentration of an analyte contained in the medium; and/or
comprises a transmitting device and a detector, wherein the transmitting device is configured to transmit transmitted radiation into the measuring cell, and the detector is configured to:
receive measuring radiation resulting from an interaction of the transmitted radiation along an optical path passing through the medium and emerging from the measuring cell; and
provide a detector signal corresponding to the measured variable-dependent measurement radiation, as disclosed by Pikes et al.
The advantage of having the first component and/or the second component comprising a housing with a measuring element inserted therein at an end face allows for a more compact structure while still allowing for the measuring element to measure the material being measured in the flow cell.
The advantage of having the first molded part and/or the second molded part in each case be configured to accept a measuring device for measuring the measured variable, wherein the measuring device is configured as a sensor operable to measure a concentration of an analyte contained in the medium, is that the sensor can measure a variable of interest (concentration in this case) which is required in a device for measuring a measured variable of a medium.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 8 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding Claim 8, Milosevic teaches the device according to claim 3.
Milosevic further teaches the first molded part and the second molded part (Figs. 1 and 2: inserts 5).
Milosevic does not teach that the first molded part and the second molded part are arranged one on top of the other in a stack arranged or are clamped between the first component and the second component; and/or
the first molded part and the second molded part are arranged one on top of the other in a stack, which is clamped between a lateral surface of the first component and a lateral surface of the second component,
wherein the lateral surface of the first component is a surface of a front region of the first component extending into the measuring cell and tapering in a direction parallel to the longitudinal axis of the first duct into the measuring cell, and/or the lateral surface of the second component is a surface of a front region of the second component extending into the measuring cell and tapering in a direction parallel to the longitudinal axis of the second duct into the measuring cell.
Therefore, as to Claim 8, the prior art of record, taken either alone or in combination, fails to disclose or render obvious a device for measuring a measured variable of a medium, the device comprising a first molded part and a second molded part which are arranged one on top of the other in a stack arranged or are clamped between the first component and the second component; and/or
the first molded part and the second molded part are arranged one on top of the other in a stack, which is clamped between a lateral surface of the first component and a lateral surface of the second component,
wherein the lateral surface of the first component is a surface of a front region of the first component extending into the measuring cell and tapering in a direction parallel to the longitudinal axis of the first duct into the measuring cell, and/or the lateral surface of the second component is a surface of a front region of the second component extending into the measuring cell and tapering in a direction parallel to the longitudinal axis of the second duct into the measuring cell, in combination with the rest of the limitations in Claim 8.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUDY DAO TRAN whose telephone number is (571)270-0085. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri. 9:30am-5:00pm EST.
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, Michelle Iacoletti can be reached at (571) 270-5789. 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.
/JUDY DAO TRAN/Examiner, Art Unit 2877
/MICHELLE M IACOLETTI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2877