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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/22/2024. The submission is following the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(l) 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.
Claims 1, 3, 7, 11, 13 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Palumbo (US 2010/0188660 A1).
Regarding claims 1 and 11, Palumbo discloses (Fig.2) an apparatus for measuring a fluid turbidity and a fluid composition (paragraph [0114], “The instrument 100 can comprise a turbidimeter”) comprising:
a light source (110, Fig.2); a tube (130, see paragraph [0121], “The sample material 132… held in a sample chamber 130”, and paragraph [0116], “the sample material 132 can comprise a liquid); an image pattern slide (120, Fig.2 and [0124], “the spatial frequency mask 120 may comprise a series of light blocking and light transmitting regions”, “the spatial frequency mask 120 encodes the light by forming an image”); an imager (140, Fig.2) located on a second sidewall of the tube (see Fig.2, the light receiver 140 receives the light passing through the mask 120 and placed on the second sidewall of the chamber)
; and a controller component (180) electrically connected to the light source (110) and the imager (140)(paragraph [0115], “The processing system 180 is connected to the light receiver 140” and [0138], “The processing system 180… turning on and off the light source 110, receiving the measurement signal from the light receiver 140), wherein the controller component (180) is configured to:
cause the imager (140) to capture a baseline image (“the one or more predetermined particulate concentration images”, paragraph [0115], “The processing system 180 is connected to the light receiver 140” and [0126], the receivers captures “The spatial frequency image” which is “compared to one or more predetermined particulate concentration images”) of the image pattern slide (120, Fig.2)
; cause the light source (110) to project at least one light beam through an image pattern slide (120) and a fluid flow through the tube (see Fig.2, and [0138], “The processing system 180 … turning on and off the light source 110”, and [0122], “Light emitted from the light source 110 is interacted with the sample material 132. The light is directed along a light path through the test chamber 130” );
cause the imager (140) to capture an image of the image pattern slide (120, see [0126]
“At least some of the scattered light can be detected and received by the light receiver 140”, and “The received light comprises an image formed of the encoded, confused spatial frequency information”, and [0140], “During operation, the light receiver 140 receives an image of spatial frequency mask 120); and
determine the fluid turbidity based on the image of the image pattern slide and the baseline image of the image pattern slide (paragraph [0125], “degree to which the spatial frequency image is changed is related to the amount of particulate matter present in the sample material 132 “ and [0140], “The MTF is therefore a function of the turbidity and can be used to quantify the particulate concentration of sample material 132” and “The processing system 180 can assay a change in the MTF from a stored value”).
Regarding claims 3 and 13, Palumbo, as discussed in claims 1 and 11, discloses the controller component being further configured to: determine the fluid composition (paragraph [0126], “determine a particulate concentration in the sample material” and [0127], “The particulate value can comprise a turbidity value or nephelometric measurement. The particulate value can comprise a measurement of one or more surface characteristics”) based on the image of the image pattern slide (120, paragraph [0125], “the spatial frequency information is changed by interaction with the test sample 132, i.e., the encoded light is “confused” by the interaction with the test sample “ and paragraph [0126], “the light receiver 140 can be used to determine a particulate concentration in the sample material 132. The received light comprises an image formed of the encoded, confused spatial frequency information”, showing that the spatial frequency mask 120 acts as the image pattern slide, and the light receiver forms an image of pattern after interaction with the fluid) and the baseline image of the image pattern slide ([0126], “the spatial frequency image at the light receiver 140 can be compared to one or more predetermined particulate concentration images”).
Regarding claims 7 and 17, Palumbo, as discussed in claims 1 and 11, discloses the tube being made of a material that allows the at least one light beam to pass through (paragraph [0121], “a sample chamber 130 is constructed of a material, transparent at the wavelength(s) of interest”), and configured to define a flow channel for the fluid flow with suspended particles to flow through (see Fig. 1, and paragraph [0121], “The sample material 132 can include particles, such as suspended particles”).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
6. Claims 5 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Palumbo in view of Adams (US 2011/0066382 A1).
Regarding claims 5 and 15, Palumbo, as discussed in claims 1 and 11, do not disclose the at least one light beam being a coherent light beam as claimed. Adams discloses at least one light beam being a coherent light beam (paragraph [0040], “light source 102 can be, e.g., a coherent light source, such as a laser”). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Palumbo, by utilizing the teaching of Adams to improve imaging on the receiver.
7. Claims 6 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Palumbo in view of Pison et al., (US 2013/0293706 A1).
Regarding claims 6 and 16, Palumbo, as discussed in claims 1 and 11, discloses the imager being located on a second sidewall of the tube (see Fig.2, the light source 110 and imager 140 are on opposite sides of the container containing the sample 132), and the imager captures the image of the image pattern slide (paragraph [0126], The spatial frequency image at the light receiver 140”). Palumbo does not disclose the receiver being as a CMOS or CCD camera as claimed, and generating digital image data as claimed. Pison et al., disclose (Fig.1) the imager (22) being located on a second sidewall of a tube (see Fig.1), and the imager (22) is a CMOS or CCD camera ([0040], “the camera 22 or an image sensor (CCD, CMOS)”), configured to capture the image of the image pattern slide (32) by generating digital image data of the image pattern slide (paragraph [0036], “image recording device 22, such as a digital camera”; and
[0038], “the camera 22… is able to record an image of the respective identification pattern 32”). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Palumbo, by utilizing the teaching of Pison et al., to provide a digital image of a pattern through the chamber, thereby increasing the accuracy of sample turbidity and composition.
8. Claims 8-10 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Palumbo.
Regarding claims 8-10 and 18-20, although Palumbo does not disclose the shapes of the image pattern slide such as a checkered pattern, a concentric stars pattern, and a black triangles pattern as claimed, Palumbo discloses a series of apertures therefore create a series of light transmitting regions separated by opaque regions, wherein the regions are spatially increasing in frequency and decreasing in size ([0131]), and [0132], “other shapes are contemplated and are within the scope of the description”. Thus, choosing a specific shape of structure/element for providing a compact design would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. Absent any criticality, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Palumbo, accordingly to provide compact design, getting more direct, better measurement of fluid’s optical properties.
Allowable Subject Matter
9. Claims 2, 4, 12, 14 are 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.
Regarding claims 2 and 12, the prior art fails to disclose generating a blur matrix by comparing the image of the image pattern slide with the baseline image of the image pattern slide; and determine the fluid turbidity based on the blur matrix.
Regarding claims 4 and 14, the prior art fails to disclose calculating a particle scattering angle by comparing the image of the image pattern slide with the baseline image of the image pattern slide; and determine the fluid composition based on the particle scattering angle.
Conclusion
10. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MAI THI NGOC TRAN whose telephone number is (571)-272- 3456. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday: 9:00-5:30pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, GEORGIA EPPS can be reached on (571)-272-2328. 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.
/M.T.T./Examiner, Art Unit 2878
/GEORGIA Y EPPS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2878