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 .
This Office Action is in response to amendments and remarks filed October 23, 2025. Claims 24-45 are currently pending.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the liquid sample contained in a primary container which is enclosed in a secondary container must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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.
Claims 27, 28, 31, 45 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.
Regarding claim 27, “the container” lacks proper antecedent basis as it is unclear which container is being referred to. Furthermore, it is unclear how many primary or secondary containers are in the invention as a primary and secondary container are already claimed in independent claim 24.
Regarding claims 28, 32, “the container” lacks proper antecedent basis as it is unclear which container is being referred to.
Regarding claim 31, the claim conflicts with independent claim 24. It is unclear how a liquid sample is “a crop, a fruit, a flower bud… a tablet.. a hard geletain…”
Regarding clam 45, it is unclear how many containers are in the invention. It is unclear how a first container is related to the primary and secondary container already claimed. Further, it is unclear how many secondary containers are in the invention as another secondary container is introduced in claim 45.
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)(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.
Claim(s) 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Doggett (U.S. Patent 9,677,988).
Regarding claim 26, Doggett discloses (Figs. 3A-3B) a sample holder for spectrophotometric measurements of a liquid sample (303) using a transmission technique (intended use), the sample holder (301) comprising: a hollow light guiding channel (space inside holder), wherein an inner wall of the hollow light guiding channel is covered by a smooth reflective coating (301a; col. 10, lines 40-45) and is configured to encase at least partially a container (302) containing the liquid sample along a circumferential direction of a tubular part of the liquid sample or of the container. Doggett also discloses (col. 9, line 1-2) a glass container.
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.
Claim(s) 24, 27-29, 31-34, 38, 39, 42-45 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Doggett in view of Rapp et al. (U.S. PGPUB 2012/0025081).
Regarding claims 24, 27-29, 31-33, 38, 39, 45, Doggett discloses (Figs. 3A-3B) a sample holder for spectrophotometric measurements of a liquid sample (303) contained in a primary container (302) using a transreflection technique (intended use), the sample holder comprising: a sample receiving chamber (space inside 301) comprising a diffusive mirror (col. 10, lines 13-26) is adapted to a curvature (col. 10, lines 51-53) of a surface of the container. Doggett also discloses (col. 9, line 1-2) a glass container, directing a measurement light beam (306) and collecting light (Fig. 3C) as claimed. Doggett does not disclose the primary container is enclosed by a second container. Rapp et al. teach (Figs.) in a spectroscopy system providing a primary container (1a) encased by a secondary container (3). In combination, the mirror would be adapted to a curvature of the secondary container as the secondary container surrounds the primary container. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the time of the effective filing of the invention to provide a secondary container in the apparatus of Doggett in view of Rapp et al. to maintain a desired temperature for the sample for a desired detection result as taught, known and predictable.
Regarding claims 42-44, Doggett in view of Rapp et al. disclose the claimed invention as set forth above. Doggett in view of Rapp et al. do not disclose the analyte being a cannabinoid or caffeine as claimed. However, choosing a particular analyte is a matter of design choice and would not affect the structure or method steps. Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the time of the effective filing of the invention to provide any type of analyte in the apparatus and method of Doggett in view of Rapp et al. to obtain a desired analysis on desired samples as known and predictable.
Claim(s) 34 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Doggett in view of Rapp et al., further in view of Horvath et al. (U.S. PGPUB 2016/0169481).
Regarding claim 34, Doggett in view of Rapp et al. disclose the claimed invention as set forth above. Doggett and Rapp et al. do not disclose a surface structure of the diffusive mirror comprises multiple geometric bodies as claimed. Horvath et al. teach ([0043]) a diffusive reflector having prism shapes. Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the time of the effective filing of the invention to provide such geometric shapes in the apparatus and method of Doggett and Rapp et al. in view of Horvath et al. to obtain conventional and reliable diffusive reflection as taught, known and predictable.
Claim(s) 40, 41 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Doggett in view of Rapp et al., further in view of Yin et al. (CN 105115902).
Regarding claims 40, 41, Doggett in view of Rapp et al. disclose the claimed invention as set forth above. Doggett and Rapp et al. do not disclose Raman spectroscopy as claimed. Yin et al. teach (claim 3) Raman spectroscopy is conventional. Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the time of the effective filing of the invention to provide such spectroscopic techniques in the apparatus and method of Doggett and Rapp et al. in view of Yin et al. to obtain a desired measurement characteristics as taught, known and predictable.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 35-37 are allowed over the prior art of record.
Claims 25, 30 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claim(s) 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.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 THANH LUU whose telephone number is (571)272-2441. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-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 at 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.
/THANH LUU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2878
Prosecution Insights