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 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The previous rejection of claim 1 is withdrawn, however, see new grounds of rejection below.
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) 1, 2, 5, 10, 11, 12, 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ulrich, R. et al. DE 19811876 A1 (hereinafter Ulrich).
Regarding claim 1, Ulrich teaches a self-cleaning probe for use in optical measurements in a flow containing a known liquid (the probe is shown in fig. 2; the known liquid is water or effluent, Abstract lines 1-2), the probe comprising a measuring cell (fig. 2 housing 1, p. 3 para 2) defining a passage for the liquid to be measured to pass through (the liquid is inside the walls of housing 1), “the probe including minimum a first and second optical interface on opposite sides of the passage” (this is shown in fig. 2, p. 3 para 2), both being in communication with the known liquid (this is shown in fig. 2), the probe comprising at least one optical light source emitting an optical signal (fig. 2 element 7, p. 3 para 2) and a detector for receiving an optical signal having propagated partly or fully through the liquid flow from the first to the second interface (fig. 2 element 8, p. 3 para 2), wherein the optical interfaces are mechanically and acoustically coupled to each other (this is shown in fig. 2; note that the examiner interpreted the limitation “the optical interfaces are mechanically and acoustically coupled to each other” as “the two walls of the housing 1 are mechanically and acoustically coupled to each other by elements 11” as shown in fig. 2) and are “acoustically coupled to at least one acoustic transducer connected to a power source, adapted to produce vibrations in the frequency range of 5kHz-1MHz” (fig. 2 elements 11, Abstract lines 1-6; a piezoelectrical device requires a power source, see evidentiary reference US20160146721A1 para [0032] lines 1-4), “the vibrations being substantially perpendicular to the plane of the interfaces and the acoustic energy of the vibrations of the optical interfaces exceeding the cavitation threshold in the known liquid, so as to remove deposits on the optical interfaces” (Abstract lines 1-6, fig. 2 element 5).
Regarding claim 2, Ulrich teaches “probe according to claim 1, wherein the first and second optical interfaces are acoustically connected to each other through the passage walls, the acoustic transducer being acoustically connected to one of the interfaces, the produced vibrations having the same direction in both interfaces” (p. 3 para 3; both windows can vibrate in the direction of element 5).
Regarding claim 5, Ulrich teaches probe according to claim 1, wherein both optical interfaces are surfaces on windows being transparent in the range used by the optical measurements (fig. 2 shows light beam 7 passing through the transparent walls).
Regarding claim 10, Ulrich does not explicitly teach probe according to claim 1, wherein the acoustic transducer is configured to operate at a predetermined fixed frequency with equal but adjustable amplitude.
MPEP 2144.05 II-A In re Kulling, 897 F.2d 1147, 1149, 14 USPQ2d 1056, 1058 (Fed. Cir. 1990) states a routine experimentation. This means probe according to claim 1, wherein the acoustic transducer is configured to operate at a predetermined fixed frequency (see evidentiary reference US20180369880A1 para [0021] last sentence) with equal but adjustable amplitude (see evidentiary reference US20180369880A1 para [0062] line 7-12) is simply a routine optimization.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to apply probe according to claim 1, wherein the acoustic transducer is configured to operate at a predetermined fixed frequency with equal but adjustable amplitude to the teaching of Ulrich in order to maximize the cleaning of the optical window.
Regarding claim 11, Ulrich does not explicitly teach probe according to claim 1, wherein the acoustic transducer is configured to operate at least two frequencies with equal but adjustable amplitude.
Similar to claim 10, probe according to claim 1, wherein the acoustic transducer is configured to operate at least two frequencies (see evidentiary reference US20180369880A1 para [0021] last sentence) with equal but adjustable amplitude (see evidentiary reference US20180369880A1 para [0062] line 7-12) is simply a routine optimization.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to apply probe according to claim 1, wherein the acoustic transducer is configured to operate at least two frequencies with equal but adjustable amplitude in order to further maximize the cleaning of the optical window.
Regarding claim 12, Ulrich teaches probe according to claim 1, wherein the probe has an elongated shape with an axial direction (fig. 2 shows housing 1 is elongated) and the passage for the liquid (this is shown in fig. 2) has a direction being essentially perpendicular to the probe axis (this is shown in fig. 2).
Regarding claim 13, Ulrich teaches probe according to claim 1, where the probe has an elongated shape with an axial direction and the transducer(s) are positioned symmetrically relative to the probe axis (fig. 2 element 11 are positioned symmetrically relative to the probe axis), transmitting longitudinal vibrations along the probe axis (this is shown in fig. 2).
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 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) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ulrich as applied to claim(s) 1 above, and in view of Thabeth, K. et al., US9116102B2 (hereinafter Thabeth).
Regarding claim 3, Ulrich does not teach probe according to claim 2, wherein the transducer is cylindrical, defining a coaxial space containing optical components such as source, receiver or light guides related to the optical measurements.
Thabeth, from the same field of endeavor as Ulrich, teaches probe according to claim 2, wherein the transducer is cylindrical (fig. 1 element 24 is a cylinder, col 5 lines 3-11), defining “a coaxial space containing optical components such as source, receiver or light guides related to the optical measurements” (fig. 3 shows a define coaxial space, col 5 last sentence).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to apply the teaching of Thabeth to Ulrich to have probe according to claim 2, wherein the transducer is cylindrical, defining a coaxial space containing optical components such as source, receiver or light guides related to the optical measurements in order to clean the measurement window and mirror and/or agitate or homogenise the water/oil in the measurement (col 6 para 3).
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ulrich as applied to claim(s) 1 above, and in view of Brown, L. et al., US20160349157A1 (hereinafter Brown) or Pope, J. et al., CN1672032A (hereinafter Pope).
Regarding claim 4, Ulrich does not teach probe according to claim 1, wherein the acoustic transducer is mounted in the passage wall between the optical interfaces, the produced vibrations in the interfaces having opposite directions (note this limitation is fig. 3 of the instant application).
Brown, from the same field of endeavor as Ulrich, teaches probe according to claim 1, wherein the acoustic transducer is mounted in the passage wall between the optical interfaces, the produced vibrations in the interfaces having opposite directions (fig. 3 element 25 is placed on the other side of element 47, para [0039] lines 10-12).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to apply the teaching of Brown to Ulrich to have probe according to claim 1, wherein the acoustic transducer is mounted in the passage wall between the optical interfaces, the produced vibrations in the interfaces having opposite directions in order to minimize or eliminate contamination on measuring surface(s) that may affect the optical measurements (para [0015] lines 5-8).
Or
Pope, from the same field of endeavor as Ulrich, teaches probe according to claim 1, wherein the acoustic transducer is mounted in the passage wall between the optical interfaces, the produced vibrations in the interfaces having opposite directions (fig. 12 element 50 is placed in the same position as fig. 3 of the instant application; p. 6 para 5 lines 2-4).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to apply the teaching of Brown to Ulrich to have probe according to claim 1, wherein the acoustic transducer is mounted in the passage wall between the optical interfaces, the produced vibrations in the interfaces having opposite directions in order to clean the window and to eliminate coal (p. 6 para 5 lines 2-9).
Claim(s) 6, 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ulrich as applied to claim(s) 1 above, and in view of Wang, P., US20160146721A1 (hereinafter Wang).
Regarding claim 6, Ulrich fails to teach probe according to claim 1, wherein an optical signal travel from source side at first interface window, through two windows and is reflected from optical components being positioned behind second window interface, returning to the optical detector positioned at the first interface side, together with the source.
Wang, from the same field of endeavor as Ulrich, teaches “probe according to claim 1, wherein an optical signal travel from source side at first interface window, through two windows and is reflected from optical components being positioned behind second window interface, returning to the optical detector positioned at the first interface side, together with the source” (this entire limitation is shown in fig. 3, para [0038] lines 6-10)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to apply the teaching of Wang to Ulrich to have probe according to claim 1, wherein an optical signal travel from source side at first interface window, through two windows and is reflected from optical components being positioned behind second window interface, returning to the optical detector positioned at the first interface side, together with the source in order to for the light to reflect multiple times in the sample thus increasing the accuracy of the measurements.
Regarding claim 7, Ulrich fails to teach probe according to claim 1, wherein the transducer is constituted by at least one piezoelectric element connected to a control unit.
Wang, from the same field of endeavor as Ulrich, teaches probe according to claim 1, wherein the transducer is constituted by at least one piezoelectric element (para [0032] lines 1-4) connected to a control unit (para [0034] lines 5-12).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to apply the teaching of Wang to Ulrich to have according to claim 1, wherein the transducer is constituted by at least one piezoelectric element connected to a control unit in order to control the transducer in specified manner by the user (para [0034] lines 5-12).
Claim(s) 8, 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ulrich as applied to claim(s) 1 above, and further in view of Brown.
Regarding claim 8, the modified device of Ulrich does not teach probe according to claim 1, wherein the optical detector is adapted to recognize reflections or backscatter from deposits on the optical interfaces and to initiate production of the vibration and thus the cleaning process, and to stop them when the reflections or backscatter are within a predetermined limit.
Brown, from the same field of endeavor as Ulrich, teaches probe according to claim 1, wherein the optical detector is adapted to recognize reflections or backscatter from deposits on the optical interfaces and to initiate production of the vibration and thus the cleaning process, and to stop them when the reflections or backscatter are within a predetermined limit (para [0048] last sentence).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to apply the teaching of Brown to Ulrich to have probe according to claim 1, wherein the optical detector is adapted to recognize reflections or backscatter from deposits on the optical interfaces and to initiate production of the vibration and thus the cleaning process, and to stop them when the reflections or backscatter are within a predetermined limit in order to obtain the desired measurement accuracy (para [0048] last sentence).
Regarding claim 9, the modified device of Ulrich does not teach probe according to claim 8, wherein the acoustic transducer is configured to adjust the emitted energy, frequency and/or amplitude, until the optical receiver detects that the deposits have been removed.
Brown, from the same field of endeavor as Ulrich, teaches probe according to claim 8, wherein the acoustic transducer is configured to adjust the emitted energy, frequency and/or amplitude (para [0049] lines 3-6), until the optical receiver detects that the deposits have been removed (para [0048] last sentence).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to apply the teaching of Brown to Ulrich to have probe according to claim 8, wherein the acoustic transducer is configured to adjust the emitted energy, frequency and/or amplitude, until the optical receiver detects that the deposits have been removed in order to obtain the desired measurement accuracy (para [0048] last sentence).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERTO FABIAN JR whose telephone number is (571)272-3632. The examiner can normally be reached M-F (8-12, 1-5).
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, Tarifur Chowdhury can be reached at (571) 272-2287. 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.
/ROBERTO FABIAN JR/Examiner, Art Unit 2877
/MICHELLE M IACOLETTI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2877
Prosecution Insights