FINAL REJECTION
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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/15/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant argues that (page 6, remarks):
“In regard to the rejection of claims 1 and 5-7 under 35 U.S.C. §102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yazaki, the rejection of claims 2, 8, 10-12 under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being unpatentable over Yazaki in view of Carbonelli, the rejection of claims 3, 4, and 9 under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being unpatentable over Yazaki in view of Carbonelli in view of De-Stefani, and the rejection of claims 13 and 14 under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being unpatentable over Yazaki in view of Carbonelli in view of Oltyan, Applicant respectfully traverses these rejections.
Yazaki uses peak detection, not peak integration. The peak reading in Yazaki is very dependent on atmospheric conditions. In contrast, in amended independent claim 1, the calculation of the area under the curve makes the measurements independent of atmospheric conditions. Further, Yazaki does not disclose, teach, or suggest ultrasonic disk.
Accordingly, Yazaki does not disclose, teach, or suggest "an evaporator including an ultrasonic disk configured to evaporate or vaporize the liquid received in the reservoir into a gas including a liquid sample," nor "the one or more sensors are configured to provide a varying voltage output proportional to a compound in the amount of the liquid sample in the gas near the one or more sensors, the detection system further including a controller configured to receive sensor values from the one or more gas sensors and calculate an amount of compound in the liquid based on an integral of the sensor values received from the one or more gas sensors," as required by claim 1, and Carbonelli, De-Stefani, and Oltyan are silent as to these features.”
The examiner respectfully disagrees. As discussed in the 103 rejection below, Yazaki does not disclose certain features of the now amended claim 1 (previous subject matter of claims 2 and 3), but Yazaki is modified by Carbonelli and De-Stefani in order to teach the discussed features. The applicant argues above that Yazaki does not disclose these features and the examiner agrees. However, these features are obvious modifications in view of the Carbonelli and De-Stefani as detailed in the rejections below by the examiner and the applicant has not provided any detailed arguments as to why these modifications are not obvious or not taught in Carbonelli and De-Stefani.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Applicant's arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the one or more sensors" in lines 8 and 9 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 4-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yazaki JP3220024 (citations from translation) in view of Carbonelli et al. U.S. Patent Application Publication 2020/0271605 and further in view of De-Stefani U.S. Patent Application Publication 2021/0322711.
With respect to claim 1, 4, 8, 9, Yazaki teaches a detection system for measuring the concentration of a volatile or gaseous compound in a liquid (alcohol concentration measuring device, figure 1), comprising: a reservoir (sensor chamber 2, figure 2) configured to receive the liquid (sensor chamber 2 receives a sample liquid, page 4); an evaporator (heating means 9, figure 2) configured to evaporate or vaporize the liquid received in the reservoir into a gas including an amount of a liquid sample (heating means 9 for heating the sample held in the filter paper holder 12 to a predetermined temperature to evaporate the alcohol, page 4); one or more gas sensors (gas sensor 7, figure 2) coupled to the evaporator and configured to sense the amount of the liquid sample in the gas to measure the concentration of the volatile or gaseous compound (gas sensor 7 outputs a highly accurate sensor output in response to the alcohol concentration in the gas phase in the sensor chamber 2, page 4). Further, Yazaki teaches wherein the one or more sensors are configured to provide a varying voltage output proportional to a compound in the amount of the liquid sample in the gas near the one or more sensors (interpreted as the sensor output of the gas sensor 7, pages 5 and 6), vaporizing or evaporating the liquid to form a compound-rich gas (heating means 9 for heating the sample held in the filter paper holder 12 to a predetermined temperature to evaporate the alcohol, page 4); moving the compound-rich gas to the one or more gas sensors (fan 5 moves evaporated gas, page 4); collecting gas sensor readings (sensor output is read by central processing unit 22, page 5); normalizing integration of the integrated gas sensor readings (the sensor data is rounded step S37, page 8); computing output of the concentration of a volatile or gaseous compound in the liquid based on calibration (alcohol concentration is detected and calibration is performed, page 8 and 9).
Yazaki teaches the claimed invention except the detection system further including a controller configured to receive sensor values from the one or more gas sensors and calculate an amount of compound in the liquid based on integrating the collected gas sensor readings received from the one or more gas sensors, and wherein the evaporator includes an ultrasonic disk configured to vaporize the liquid to form a compound rich gas, wherein the ultrasonic disk is configured to vaporize the liquid into one of faster vaporization yielding a jet of vapor mist and slower, pulsed vaporization.
Carbonelli teaches a gas sensing device that includes a preprocessing block for filtering signal samples in order to generate filtered signal samples for each of the gas sensors, an information extraction block for generating representations for the filtered signal samples for each of the gas sensors based on dynamic characteristics of the received filtered signal samples of the respective gas sensor (abstract), where a phase space integral calculation stage 21 is configured for calculating a phase space integral of the one of the filtered signal samples FFS for each of the gas sensors 2 (paragraph 152).
De-Stefani teaches a device for evaporating liquid wherein the evaporation apparatus can be a heating apparatus with which the liquid reservoir is heated and evaporated or an ultrasonic nebulize wherein the operating power level that is modifiable by the control apparatus depending on the ascertainment result is the operating power level of the ultrasonic nebulizer (paragraphs 51-52).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the invention of Yazaki with the method of integrating the sensor signals as taught by Carbonelli in order to provide a sensor device with increased accuracy (Carbonelli, paragraph 29) and further modify the method of evaporating the liquid of Yazaki as modified by Carbonelli with ultrasonic method of evaporation as taught by De-Stefani in order make a more efficient measuring system by decreasing the needed power level (De-Stefani, paragraph 52).
With respect to claim 5, Yazaki teaches wherein the detection system is configured to measure the concentration of the volatile or gaseous compound in the liquid independent of atmospheric temperature, atmospheric pressure, sample temperature, sample viscosity, off-target compounds, or other environmental variables in the liquid (the alcohol concentration measuring device having the sensor chamber 2 is independent of atmospheric conditions, figure 1).
With respect to claim 6, Yazaki teaches wherein the detection system is configured to measure the concentration of the volatile or gaseous compound in the liquid negligibly unaffected by viscosity, carbonation, turbidity, sugar content, or acid content of the liquid (the alcohol concentration measuring device is configured for detecting an alcohol concentration suitable for measuring an alcohol concentration of a fermented product in a brewing process, therefore the liquid is interpreted as being carbonated and/or acidic, page 1).
With respect to claim 7, Yazaki teaches wherein the detection system is configured to meter one or more of the liquid and the gas via one or more of volumetric measurement of a predetermined fixed volume of the liquid, a fixed, predetermined limiting evaporation or vaporization time, volumetric airflow measurement, and mass measurement (the language “one or more” only requires one of the conditions met, thereby limiting the evaporation or vaporization time is interpreted as the control circuit 16 powers the heater 4 and the power supply to the heater 4 is controlled to meter the evaporation time, page 5).
With respect to claim 10, Yazaki teaches wherein the detection system is configured to meter one or more of the liquid and the gas via one or more of volumetric measurement of the liquid, limiting evaporation or vaporization time, volumetric airflow measurement, and mass measurement (control circuit 16 powers the heater 4 and the power supply to the heater 4 is controlled to meter the evaporation time, page 5).
With respect to claim 11, Yazaki teaches wherein the detection system is configured to measure the concentration of the volatile or gaseous compound in the liquid independent of atmospheric temperature, atmospheric pressure, sample temperature, sample viscosity, off-target compounds, or other environmental variables in the liquid (the alcohol concentration measuring device having the sensor chamber 2 is independent of atmospheric conditions, figure 1).
With respect to claim 12, Yazaki teaches wherein the detection system is configured to measure the concentration of the volatile or gaseous compound in the liquid negligibly unaffected by viscosity, carbonation, turbidity, sugar content, or acid content of the liquid (the alcohol concentration measuring device is configured for detecting an alcohol concentration suitable for measuring an alcohol concentration of a fermented product in a brewing process, therefore the liquid is interpreted as being carbonated and/or acidic, page 1).
Claim(s) 13 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yazaki JP3220024 (citations from translation) in view of Carbonelli et al. U.S. Patent Application Publication 2020/0271605 further in view of in view of De-Stefani U.S. Patent Application Publication 2021/0322711 and further in view of Oltyan et al. U.S. Patent Application Publication 2019/0145947.
With respect to claims 13 and 14, Yazaki teaches measuring an alcohol concentration of a fermented product in a brewing process and computing output includes computing output of an alcohol level in the liquid based on calibration (alcohol concentration is detected and calibration is performed, pages 1, 8 and 9), but Yazaki as modified by Carbonelli and De-Stefani fails to teach wherein the liquid is a beverage including alcohol or kombucha and vaporizing or evaporating the liquid includes vaporizing or evaporating the beverage to form a compound-rich gas.
Oltyan teaches device and method for estimating the alcohol-by-volume (ABV) of a liquid inside a fermentation or distillation vessel, without opening the vessel or requiring a liquid sample, where the liquid may be kombucha (abstract, paragraph 3).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the invention of Yazaki as modified by Carbonelli and De-Stefani and determine the alcohol concentration of beverage that includes kombucha as taught by Oltyan in order to more accurately determined the alcohol concentration of the liquid beverages.
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 FREDDIE KIRKLAND III whose telephone number is (571)272-2232. The examiner can normally be reached 9am-5pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, John Breene can be reached at (571) 272-4107. 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.
FREDDIE KIRKLAND III
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2855
/Freddie Kirkland III/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855 6/24/2026
Prosecution Insights