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, see pages 5-10, filed 5/6/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 12-22 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Tomioka et al (WO 2020/235198 A1) and Haberstroh et al (US 8704158 B2). A Final Rejection is made necessitated by amendment to claims 12, 15, 21.
Claim Objections
Claim 12 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Amendment to claim, line 2, . Appropriate correction is required.
Response to Amendment
The amendment submitted 5/6/2026 has been accepted and entered. Claims 12, 15, 21 are amended. No new claims are added. No further claims are cancelled. Thus, claims 12-22 are examined.
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) 12-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tomioka et al (WO 2020/235198 A1) in view of Haberstroh et al (US 8704158 B2).
Regarding claim 12, Tomioka et al discloses a calibration attachment for an optical sensor (sensor module used in water quality analysis system) (100) (pages 3, 4), which is designed to measure at least one measured variable in a medium using light (pages 3, 4), wherein the sensor is designed to emit transmitted light at least of a wavelength in the range of 200-450 nm (254 nm) (page 4), comprising: a housing (adapter (8) calibration jig included in an angle changing mechanism (12)) (page 11); and a body, which is arranged in the housing; wherein the body (liquid sample) (page 13) comprises; and wherein the body, after excitation with the transmitted light, emits light of a longer wavelength; wherein the body is embodied for adjusting, calibrating, and/or for carrying out a functional check of the optical sensor (page 13, paragraph 5). Tomioka et al is silent with regards to the body comprising praseodymium. Haberstroh et al discloses a fluorescence standard for calibrating optical detectors comprising: a sample plate wherein a fluorescent mineral contains an activator (i.e. praseodymium compounds (col. 2, lines 22-35 and claim 4). Thus, it would have been obvious to modify Tomioka e al with the teaching of Haverstroh et al of a praseodymium body, so as to enable a reliable reference standard for calibration and testing.
Regarding claim 13, Tomioka et al in view of Haverstroh et al discloses wherein the body is a glass body (col. 2, line 59). Thus, it would have been obvious to modify Tomioka et al to use a glass body as taught by Haverstroh et al so as to enable stable luminescence.
Regarding claim 14, Haverstroh et al discloses wherein the glass body is doped with praseodymium (col. 2, lines 22-35).
Regarding claim 15, Haverstroh et al discloses wherein the body is a plastic body (co. 2, lines 38-49).
Regarding claim 16, Tomioka et al discloses wherein the body is mounted in the housing via a mechanical holder (121) (page 11).
Regarding claim 17, Tomioka et al discloses wherein the body is a disk-shaped or lens-shaped (plate) (col. 2, lines 22-35 and claim 4).
Regarding claim 18, Tomioka et al discloses wherein the housing comprises a receptacle for the sensor (page 9).
Regarding claim 19, Tomioka et al discloses wherein the housing is substantially transparent to the transmitted light (page 6).
Regarding claim 20, Tomioka et al discloses wherein the housing comprises an opening and transmitted light impinges on the body through the opening (See Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 21, Tomioka et al discloses a sensor arrangement, comprising: a sensor (sensor module used in water quality analysis system) (100) (pages 3, 4), having: at least one light source (21) (page 9), wherein the light source (21) emits transmitted light at least of a wavelength in the range of 200-450 nm (i.e. 254 nm) (page 9); at least one receiver (light detector (31)) (page 4), which is designed to receive received light of a wavelength of 250-500 nm (page 4); and a calibration attachment (adapter (8) calibration jig included in an angle changing mechanism (12)) (page 11); wherein the calibration attachment includes: a housing; and a body (liquid sample) (page 13), which is arranged in the housing; wherein the body; and wherein the body, after excitation with the transmitted light, emits light of a longer wavelength; wherein the light emitted by the body forms the received light; wherein the body is embodied for adjusting, calibrating, and/or for carrying out a functional check of the optical sensor (page 13, paragraph 5). Tomioka et al is silent with regards to the body comprising praseodymium. Haberstroh et al discloses a fluorescence standard for calibrating optical detectors comprising: a sample plate wherein a fluorescent mineral contains an activator (i.e. praseodymium compounds (col. 2, lines 22-35 and claim 4). Thus, it would have been obvious to modify Tomioka e al with the teaching of Haverstroh et al of a praseodymium body, so as to enable a reliable reference standard for calibration and testing.
Regarding claim 22, Tomioka et al discloses a method of adjusting, calibrating or carrying out a functional check of an optical sensor (sensor module used in water quality analysis system) (100) (pages 3, 4), including steps of: emitting transmitted light at least of a wavelength in the range of 200-450 nm using a sensor (page 4); wherein the sensor is designed to measure at least one measured variable in a medium using light (pages 4, 9); exciting a calibration attachment (adapter (8) calibration jig included in an angle changing mechanism (12)) (page 11) of the optical sensor with the transmitted light, wherein the calibration attachment includes a housing and a body (liquid sample) (page 13), arranged in the housing; upon excitation, the body emitting light of a longer wavelength; and adjusting, calibrating or carrying out a functional check of the optical sensor (page 13, paragraph 5). Tomioka et al is silent with regards to the body comprising praseodymium. Haberstroh et al discloses a fluorescence standard for calibrating optical detectors comprising: a sample plate wherein a fluorescent mineral contains an activator (i.e. praseodymium compounds (col. 2, lines 22-35 and claim 4). Thus, it would have been obvious to modify Tomioka e al with the teaching of Haverstroh et al of a praseodymium body, so as to enable a reliable reference standard for calibration and testing.
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 FANI POLYZOS BOOSALIS whose telephone number is (571)272-2447. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30-3:30 PM.
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, Uzma Alam can be reached at Uzma.Alam@USPTO.GOV. 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.
/F.P.B./Examiner, Art Unit 2884 /UZMA ALAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2884
Prosecution Insights