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 .
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 10-37 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 10, “the desiccator” lacks antecedent basis in the claim. It is not clear what desiccator this is referring to.
Regarding claim 11, “said receptacle” lacks antecedent basis in the claim and it is not clear what element this referring back to, or if it is meant to set forth a new element.
Regarding claim 13, “said housing element” lacks antecedent basis in the claim. It is not clear which element this is referring to or if it is meant to set forth a new element.
Regarding claim 15, “said housing element” lacks antecedent basis in the claim. It is not clear which element this is referring to or if it is meant to set forth a new element.
Also in claim 15, the term “preferably” renders the claim indefinite because it is not clear whether the limitations following the term are required or merely a preference. If these are required limitations then the term should be omitted, and if these are truly only a preference then they should not be in the claim at all.
Regarding claim 16, “said housing element” lacks antecedent basis in the claim. It is not clear which element this is referring to or if it is meant to set forth a new element.
Also in claim 16, the term “preferably” renders the claim indefinite because it is not clear whether the limitations following the term are required or merely a preference. If these are required limitations then the term should be omitted, and if these are truly only a preference then they should not be in the claim at all.
Regarding claim 17, “said flow control element” and “said vacuuming element” each lacks antecedent basis in the claim. It is not clear which element each of these terms is referring to, or if they are meant to set forth new elements.
Also in claim 17, the term “preferably” renders the claim indefinite because it is not clear whether the limitations following the term are required or merely a preference. If these are required limitations then the term should be omitted, and if these are truly only a preference then they should not be in the claim at all.
Regarding claim 18, the claim is confusing because the preamble says “a polyacrylamide-containing indirect… measurement system… used in a polyacrylamide-containing indirect… measurement system according to claim 1” and this wording is redundant and confusing. Furthermore, the body of the claim appears to be drawn to a method because it sets forth steps. The preamble should likely use the term –method-- in order to make it clear that it is drawn to a series of steps for use with a system of claim 1, since this appears to be what the body of the claim is drawn to.
Also in claim 18, “said conveying element” lacks antecedent basis in the claim. It is not clear which element this is referring to or if it is meant to set forth a new element.
Regarding claim 19, the term “preferably” renders the claim indefinite because it is not clear whether the limitations following the term are required or merely a preference. If these are required limitations then the term should be omitted, and if these are truly only a preference then they should not be in the claim at all.
Regarding claim 21, “positioning said positioning element on said positioning element” is confusing and does not make sense because it is not clear how and element is positioned on itself.
Also in claim 21, “said conveying elements” lacks antecedent basis in the claim. It is not clear which elements this is referring to or if it is meant to set forth new elements.
Regarding claim 26, the claim refers to the “system according to claim 18” but claim 18 appears to be drawn to a method, and claim 26 appears to be further limiting a method with more steps, so the word –method—should be used instead of “system.”
Also in claim 26, the language “wherein said gas is in air form comprises the steps of” is unclear and does not make any sense.
Also in claim 26, “said body member” and “said vacuuming element” each lacks antecedent basis in the claim. It is not clear which element each of these terms is referring to, or if they are meant to set forth new elements.
Regarding claim 28, the claim refers to the “system according to claim 26” but claim 26 appears to be drawn to a method, and claim 28 appears to be further limiting a method with more steps, so the word –method—should be used instead of “system.”
Regarding claim 29, the claim refers to the “system according to claim 26” but claim 26 appears to be drawn to a method, and claim 29 appears to be further limiting a method with more steps, so the word –method—should be used instead of “system.”
Regarding claim 31, the claim refers to the “system according to claim 26” but claim 26 appears to be drawn to a method, and claim 31 appears to be further limiting a method with more steps, so the word –method—should be used instead of “system.”
Regarding claim 32, the claim refers to the “system according to claim 26” but claim 26 appears to be drawn to a method, and claim 32 appears to be further limiting a method with more steps, so the word –method—should be used instead of “system.”
Regarding claim 33, the claim refers to the “system according to claim 26” but claim 26 appears to be drawn to a method, and claim 33 appears to be further limiting a method with more steps, so the word –method—should be used instead of “system.”
Also in claim 33, the phrase “such as” renders the claim indefinite because it is not clear whether the limitations following the phase are required or merely an example. If these are required limitations then the term should be omitted, and if these are truly only an example then they should not be in the claim at all.
Regarding claim 34, the claim refers to the “system according to claim 26” but claim 26 appears to be drawn to a method, and claim 34 appears to be further limiting a method with more steps, so the word –method—should be used instead of “system.”
Regarding claim 35, the claim refers to the “system according to claim 26” but claim 26 appears to be drawn to a method, and claim 35 appears to be further limiting a method with more steps, so the word –method—should be used instead of “system.”
Regarding claim 36, the claim refers to the “system according to claim 35” but claim 35 appears to be drawn to a method, and claim 36 appears to be further limiting a method with more steps, so the word –method—should be used instead of “system.”
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1 and 3-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Sikes et al. (US 2007/0085055).
Regarding claims 1 and 5, Sikes et al. disclose a polyacrylamide-containing indirect negative cavity water pressure measurement system that includes polyacrylamide used in the measurement and/or calibration process, a measurement sample on which the measurement process will be performed and the measurement of the negative cavity water pressure / water activity / relative humidity value, simplifying the measurement processes and increasing the accuracy and precision of the measured values, allowing multiple, repeated measurements to be made, time-dependent or independent, the system comprising: at least one transport element (vials or cuvettes, see par. 0126 and Figs. 7 and 8), each of which includes at least one second cover that closes it (Id., vials have cap closures), is suitable for the placement of at least one polyacrylamide and/or measurement sample inside (par. 0126, vials and cuvettes have soil samples and varying amounts of polyacrylamide (PAM)), and ensures the transport of the materials placed inside and their isolation from external conditions; and at least one positioning element for fixing the position of said transport element in connection with said transport element (see Fig. 7, light field inspection device on which vials are placed is a positioning element that supports them).
Sikes et al. do not explicitly state that the second cover that closes the transport element vials as shown in Figure 7 ensure gas, air and liquid tightness. However, using caps and covers on vials that completely seal the vail from liquid or air, is a common and conventional practice when closing a vail or container as would be known and understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have used a cap with a liquid tight and air tight seal in the system of Sikes et al., in order to ensure the sample and material in the vials does not get contaminated and cannot leak out.
Regarding claims 3 and 6, Sikes et al. disclose that the said transport element is suitable for light to pass through it in the ultraviolet-visible light range (see Fig. 7 and par. 0245) and has an optical cuvette structure (Id.).
Regarding claim 4, Sikes et al. disclose that the positioning element is suitable for transmitting light in the ultraviolet-visible light range through said transport element and for measuring the optical properties of the light transmitted through said transport element (see Fig. 7 and par. 0245, support light field inspection device directs light through vials for optical/visual inspection/measurement).
Regarding claim 7, Sikes et al. disclose that the transport element may be suitable for light to pass through it in the ultraviolet-visible light range, and wherein said positioning element contains an ultraviolet-visible light spectrometer (see par. 0246, cuvettes as transport elements are place into a spectrophotometer which is a positioning element). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have used sealing caps on the cuvettes just as on the vials for same reasons as set forth above, i.e. to seal contaminants out and keep the sample from leaking or spilling.
Regarding claim 8, Sikes et al. disclose that positioning element comprises at least one suspension element which enables the position of said transport element to be easily changed and fixed (see Fig. 7, positioning element has elevated platform for supporting vials and allows them to be moved).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2 and 9 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.
Claims 10-37 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
With regard to claim 2, Sikes et al. do not disclose or suggest a system where the polyacrylamide is in disk form.
With regard to claim 9, Sikes et al. do not disclose or suggest, in combination with the other limitations of claim 1, a chamber to maintain the moisture balance of the materials placed in it, at least one base to provide resistance against chemical materials and at least one cover to ensure that the said chamber is closed in a gas and liquid-tight manner, and at least one body element to ensure that the materials placed in it are kept and isolated from external environmental conditions.
With regard to claim 18, Sikes et al. do not disclose or suggest using the system of claim 1 in a method that includes the steps of: constructing a water retention approximation curve; positioning each of the measuring samples prepared at different water contents for the measurement of negative cavity water pressure values in a conveying element in such a way that the volume of said conveying element does not exceed half of the volume of said conveying element; each of the polyacrylamide of the same physical dimensions as the polyacrylamide used in said calibration process being suspended in one of said transport elements in such a way that it does not come into contact with said measurement samples; when the relative humidity reaches dynamic equilibrium, the aforementioned transport elements being opened and the gravimetric water content of the and the measured samples in the aforementioned transport elements being measured; calculation of the polyacrylamide negative void water pressure value corresponding to the gravimetric water content of polyacrylamide measured in dynamic equilibrium using the water retention approximation curve obtained in the calibration process; performing indirect measurement of the negative pore water pressure value corresponding to the gravimetric water content value of the measuring sample, which is equal to the calculated negative pore water pressure value.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAUL M WEST whose telephone number is (571)272-2139. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9 am - 5:30 pm (CT).
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, Kristina DeHerrera can be reached at 303-297-4237. 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.
/PAUL M. WEST/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855
