DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Objections
2. Claim 42 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding Claim 42, line 2, delete “the” before volume. Otherwise, it will invoke 112, 2nd paragraph (Lack of antecedent basis).
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
3. 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.
4. Claims 1, 4, 13, 16, 21-23, 29-32, 34, 37-40 and 42 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US Patent Pub. No. 2013/0020480 A1 by Ford et al. (hereinafter Ford).
Regarding Claim 1, Ford teaches a system for measuring optical properties of liquid samples (Fig. 1, Par. [0003, 0037, 0040, 0050, 0115]), the system comprising (Fig. 1-16):
a multi-wavelength light source (Fig. 2A @ 40, 42, Par. [0005, 0044-0045, 0047]. Also see Fig. 3A @ 112, Par. [0053]);
a collimator (Fig. 2A @ 46, Par. [0044]: a router (Fig. 14A @ 500, 510A, Par. [0096]: the router 500 has an input collimation optic 510A), Fig. 3A @ 134, Par. [0054]), wherein the multi-wavelength light source (Fig. 2A @ 40, 42, Par. [0044]. Also see Fig. 3A @ 112, Par. [0053]) is positioned to direct light through the collimator (Fig. 2A @ 46, Par. [0044]: a router (Fig. 14A @ 500, 510A, Par. [0096]: the router 500 has an input collimation optic 510A), Fig. 3A @ 134, Par. [0054]);
a beamsplitter (Fig. 2A @ 46, Par. [0044], Fig. 3A @ 132, Par. [0054]), wherein the collimator (Fig. 2A @ 46, Par. [0044]: a router (Fig. 14A @ 500, 510A, Par. [0096]: the router 500 has an input collimation optic 510A), Fig. 3A @ 134, Par. [0054]) is positioned to direct the light to the beamsplitter (Fig. 2A @ 46, Par. [0044], Fig. 3A @ 132, Par. [0054]);
a first light sensor (Fig. 2A @ 80, Par. [0044, 0050]: the detector unit 80, containing both the measurement and reference detectors thus teaches a first light sensor), wherein the beamsplitter (Fig. 2A @ 46, Par. [0044], Fig. 3A @ 132, Par. [0054]) is configured to direct a first portion of the light (Fig. 2A @ 60, Par. [0044, 0050], Fig. 3A @ 105, Par. [0056-0057]) to the first light sensor (Fig. 2A @ 80, Par. [0044, 0050]: the detector unit 80, containing both the measurement and reference detectors thus teaches a first light sensor);
a sample chamber (Fig. 1 @ 30, Par. [0040], Fig. 2A @ 70, Par. [0044, 0049]) having a sample inlet (Par. [0039], inherently teaches a sample inlet), wherein the beamsplitter (Fig. 2A @ 46, Par. [0044], Fig. 3A @ 132, Par. [0054]) is configured to direct a second portion of the light (Fig. 2A @ 50, Par. [0044, 0050], Fig. 3A @ 104, Par. [0056-0057]) to the sample chamber; and
a second light sensor (Fig. 2A @ 80, Par. [0044, 0050]: the detector unit 80, containing both the measurement and reference detectors thus teaches a second light sensor) positioned to detect a portion of the light emitted (Fig. 2A @ light going from 70 to 80, Par. [0048]) from the sample chamber (Fig. 1 @ 30, Par. [0040], Fig. 2A @ 70, Par. [0044, 0049]).
3. (Cancelled)
Regarding Claim 4, Ford teaches the first light sensor measures an intensity of the light emitted from the multi-wavelength light source, wherein the second light sensor measures an intensity of the light after passing through the sample chamber (Fig. 2A @ 60, 70, 80, Par. [0054]. Also see Claim 1 rejection).
5-9. (Cancelled)
11. (Cancelled)
12. (Cancelled)
Regarding Claim 13, Ford teaches a housing (Fig. 1 @ 22, part of 10 is the housing);
an elongated probe (Fig. 1 @ 20 down to 11, part of 10 is the elongated probe) extending from the housing (Fig. 1 @ 22, part of 10 is the housing), wherein the sample chamber (Fig. 1 @ 30, Par. [0040], Fig. 2A @ 70, Par. [0044, 0049]) is positioned within the elongated probe (Fig. 1 @ 20 down to 11, part of 10 is the elongated probe), wherein the sample inlet (Fig. 1 @ arrows between 12 and 11 is the sample inlet) is an opening (Par. [0039]: an intake port draws fluid into the tool 10 thus teaches an opening) on the probe (Fig. 1 @ 20 down to 11, part of 10 is the elongated probe) into the sample chamber (Fig. 1 @ 30, Par. [0040], Fig. 2A @ 70, Par. [0044, 0049]).
Regarding Claim 16, Ford teaches a temperature sensor positioned within the probe, wherein the temperature sensor is configured to measure a temperature of liquid within the sample chamber (Par. [0002, 0040]).
17-20. (Cancelled)
Regarding Claim 21, Ford teaches the sample chamber is configured to receive a liquid sample through the sample inlet when the probe is inserted into a liquid (Fig. 1, Par. [0037, 0039]).
Regarding Claim 22, Ford teaches the system is configured to measure the optical properties of the liquid while the probe is inserted into the liquid (Fig. 1, Par. [0037, 0039]).
Regarding Claim 23, Ford teaches the optical properties comprise haze, color, or combinations thereof (Par. [0050]: determine chemical and/or physical (i.e. the color) properties of the sample fluid, Par. [0120]: the measurement signals to be spectrally de-convolved using a predefined numerical method based on the known temporal characteristics of the waveform to produce information for later data processing thus teaches color. Also see Par. [0115]).
24-28. (Cancelled)
Regarding Claim 29, Ford teaches a computer and software (Par. [0116]) in the housing, wherein the software is configured to determine a light-absorbing intensity of a liquid sample by comparing intensity, as a function of wavelength, of light transmitted to and measured by the first light sensor to intensity, as a function of wavelength, of the light transmitted to and measured by the second light sensor (Par. 0050, 0115]. Also see Claim 1 rejection).
Regarding Claim 30, Ford teaches a graphical user interface on the housing including controls configured to allow a user to select and initiate a test of a liquid sample and view test results of a test of a liquid sample (Par. [0058]: a communications interface 170 that can be used for external control of the control circuitry 160 thus teaches a graphical user interface. Also see Par. [0109-0110]).
Regarding Claim 31, Ford teaches a method for measuring optical properties of liquid samples (See claim 1 rejection. Note: an apparatus claim can be used to implement a method claim), the method comprising:
providing a probe comprising a sample chamber and a sample inlet into the sample chamber (See claim 13 rejection);
inserting the probe into a liquid until a portion of the liquid flows into the sample chamber through the sample inlet (See claim 21 rejection);
directing light from a multi-wavelength light source through a collimator and to a beamsplitter (See claim 1 rejection);
directing a first portion of the light from the beamsplitter to a first light sensor (See claim 1 rejection);
directing a second portion of the light from the beamsplitter through the liquid in the sample chamber (See claim 1 rejection);
determining an intensity of the light directed to the first light sensor (See claims 1, 4 rejection); and
determining an intensity of the light directed to the second light sensor (See claims 1, 4 rejection).
Regarding Claim 32, Ford teaches determining a difference in the intensities of light determined by the first and second light sensors and correlating the difference to a concentration of contaminant in the liquid (Par. [0003, 0040, 0050]).
33. (Cancelled)
Regarding Claim 34, Ford teaches the probe is immersed in the liquid within a local environment such that the sample inlet is surrounded by the liquid within the local environment and at least a portion of the liquid enters into the sample inlet (Fig. 1, Par. [0037, 0039]); and
wherein, with the portion of the probe immersed in the liquid within the local environment (Fig. 1, Par. [0037, 0039]), the light (Fig. 2A @ 50) is transmitted along a path within the probe (Fig. 1 @ 20 down to 11, part of 10 is the elongated probe) and through a portion of the liquid in the sample inlet (See Claim 31) and received at the second light sensor (Fig. 2A @ 80, Par. [0044, 0050]: the detector unit 80, containing both the measurement and reference detectors thus teaches a second light sensor).
35. (Cancelled)
36. (Cancelled)
Regarding Claim 37, Ford teaches the intensities of light are determined without removal of the liquid from the local environment (See Claim 4, 22 rejection).
Regarding Claim 38, Ford teaches the portion of the liquid that enters the sample inlet is less than an entirety of the liquid in the local environment (Par. [0037, 0039], [0045]: downhole environment thus inherently teaches the liquid that enters the sample inlet is less than an entirety of the liquid in the local environment).
Regarding Claim 39, Ford teaches the portion of the liquid that enters the sample inlet is not isolated from a remainder of the liquid in the local environment (Fig. 1 @ arrows between 12 and 11 is the sample inlet and it is not closed, always open thus teaches the sample inlet is not isolated from a remainder of the liquid in the local environment).
Regarding Claim 40, Ford teaches the local environment is a container, and wherein the probe is inserted into the liquid within the container (See Claim 14 rejection).
Regarding Claim 42, Ford teaches the local environment comprises the volume (inherently teaches the volume) of the container (Par. [0037]: wellbore, i.e. the container).
43-91. (Cancelled)
determining a first intensity of the light directed to the first light sensor (See claims 1, 4 rejection);
determining a second intensity of the light directed to the second light sensor (See claims 1, 4 rejection); and
determining a difference in the first and second intensities and correlating the difference to a concentration of contaminant in the liquid (See claim 32 rejection).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
5. 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 2, 10, 14-15, 41 and 92-93 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ford.
Regarding Claim 2, Ford teaches the sample chamber, the beamsplitter and direct the light from the sample chamber to the second light sensor (See Claim 1 rejection) but does not explicitly teach a return mirror positioned to reflect the light from within the sample chamber back to the beamsplitter, wherein the beamsplitter is configured to direct the light from the sample chamber to the second light sensor.
However, It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to use a return mirror positioned to reflect the light from within the sample chamber back to the beamsplitter, wherein the beamsplitter is configured to direct the light from the sample chamber to the second light sensor in order to obtain a predictable result, since applicant has not disclosed that such configuration solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears that the invention would perform equally well with the configuration as cited by the reference. In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975).
Regarding Claim 10, Ford teaches the beamsplitter and the first light sensor and the second light sensor (See Claim 1 rejection) but does not explicitly teach a first folding mirror positioned between the beamsplitter and the first light sensor and arranged to direct the light to the first light sensor, and a second folding mirror positioned between the beamsplitter and the second light sensor and arranged to direct the light to the second light sensor.
However, It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to use a first folding mirror positioned between the beamsplitter and the first light sensor and arranged to direct the light to the first light sensor, and a second folding mirror positioned between the beamsplitter and the second light sensor and arranged to direct the light to the second light sensor in order to obtain a predictable result, since applicant has not disclosed that such configuration solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears that the invention would perform equally well with the configuration as cited by the reference. In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975).
Regarding Claim 14, Ford teaches the probe is configured to fit within and extend into a cavity of a container (Par. [0037]: wellbore, i.e. the container), and wherein the housing (Fig. 1 @ 22, part of 10 is the housing) but does not explicitly teach is configured to rest on and remain outside of the cavity of the container.
However, it is considered obvious to try all known solutions when there is a recognized need in the art (housing is configured to rest on and remain outside of the cavity of the container), there had been a finite number of identified, predictable solutions to the recognized need (housing is outside the cavity of the container, housing is inside the cavity of the container), and when one of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued the known potential solutions with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP § 2143, E. Furthermore, such an arrangement would imply to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use the housing is configured to rest on and remain outside of the cavity of the container in order to avoid the issues of heavy insulation, condensation, poor signal, and structural reinforcement needs, potentially making it complex and costly.
Regarding Claim 15, Ford teaches a scatter sensor positioned within the probe, wherein the scatter sensor is configured to detect light scattered within the sample chamber (Fig. 2A @ 80, i.e. the scatter sensor. Also see Claim 1 rejection).
Regarding Claim 41, Ford teaches the path of the light and the local environment (See Claim 34 rejection) but does not explicitly teach traverses through the local environment.
However, It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to traverse light through the local environment in order to obtain a predictable result, since applicant has not disclosed that such configuration solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears that the invention would perform equally well with the configuration as cited by the reference. In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975).
Regarding Claim 92, Ford teaches a system for measuring optical properties of liquid samples (See Claim 1 rejection), the system comprising:
a housing (See Claim 13 rejection);
a light source, first light sensor, and second light sensor (See Claim 1 rejection); a probe coupled with and extending from the housing (See Claim 13 rejection), wherein the probe comprises a sample chamber having a sample inlet (See Claim 13 rejection);
wherein the light source is positioned to direct light to the beamsplitter, wherein the beamsplitter is positioned to direct a first portion of the light to the first light sensor and a second portion of the light into the sample chamber (See Claim 1 rejection) within the probe (See Claim 13 rejection. Fig. 1 @ 20 down to 11, part of 10 is the elongated probe), but does not explicitly teach a light source, first light sensor, and second light sensor position within the housing; and a return mirror; and wherein the return mirror is positioned to reflect light from the sample chamber to the second light sensor in the housing.
However, It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to use a light source, first light sensor, and second light sensor position within the housing; and a return mirror; and wherein the return mirror is positioned to reflect light from the sample chamber to the second light sensor in the housing in order to obtain a predictable result, since applicant has not disclosed that such configuration solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears that the invention would perform equally well with the configuration as cited by the reference. In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975).
Regarding Claim 93, Ford teaches a method for measuring optical properties of liquid samples (See claim 1 rejection. Note: an apparatus claim can be used to implement a method claim), the method comprising:
inserting a probe into a liquid within a local environment (See claim 34 rejection) such that a portion of the liquid flows through a sample inlet and into a sample chamber within the probe (See claims 13, 21, 31 rejection), wherein the probe extends from a housing that is positioned outside of the liquid (See claim 13 rejection) within the local environment (See claim 34 rejection);
with the probe positioned within the local environment (See claim 34 rejection), directing a first portion of a light from the housing to a first light sensor in the housing (See claim 92 rejection);
with the probe positioned within the local environment (See claim 34 rejection), directing a second portion of the light from the housing and through the liquid in the sample chamber (See claim 92 rejection);
with the probe positioned within the local environment (See claim 34 rejection), directing at least some of the second portion of the light from the sample chamber to a second light sensor within the housing (See claim 92 rejection);
Additional Prior Art
7. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure. The reference listed teaches of other prior art method/system of return mirror, traverse light.
US Patent Pub. No. 2003/0127609 A1 by El-Hage et al (Fig. 80).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMIL AHMED whose telephone number is (571)272-1950. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:00 AM - 5:00 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, Kara Geisel can be reached on 571-272-2416. 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.
/JAMIL AHMED/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2877