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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, filed 03/31/26, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) under 35 USC 103 as being anticipated by Aasmul (US 2008/0024779) in view of Lecke (US 2023/013566 reference has been fully considered and are persuasive in light of the amendment. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made Jame et al (US 2015/0140546).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claims 17 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by James et al (US 2015/0140546).
Regarding claim 17; James discloses an optical detection device (400 @ figures 4A-4B) that is configured and designed for optically detecting a fluid guided in a transparent line portion (424 @ figures 4A-4B and paragraph [0051]), the optical detection device comprising:
a measuring light source (first light source 404 @ figures 4A-4B) and a measuring light sensor (first detector 408 @ figures 4A-4B), wherein a measuring light (432A, 432B @ figures 4A-4B and paragraph [0052]) region extends from the measuring light source (404 @ figures 4A-4B) to the measuring light sensor (408 @ figures 4A-4B) along a measuring light axis through the transparent line portion (424 @ figures 4A-4B and paragraph [0051]: e.g., a flow of fluid is passing through tubing 424. In embodiments, the flow may be a flow one or more components separated from a composite fluid (e.g., blood). Tubing 424, in embodiments, is made from material that is at least translucent and in some embodiments substantially transparent to light generated from light sources 404 and 416), wherein a test light sensor (second detector 420 @ figures 4A-4B), which is configured to be brought into optical operative connection with the measuring light source (404 @ figures 4A-4B) and which is configured and designed to test the measuring light source (paragraph [0052]: e.g., another amount may be reflected by the flow of fluid in tubing 424 and detected by the second detector 420), is arranged adjacent to the measuring light source (404 @ figures 4A-4B) on a first side (right side of tube 424 @ figures 4A-4B) of the transparent line portion (424 @ figures 4A-4B), and wherein a test light source (second light source 416 @ figures 4A-4B), which is configured to be brought into optical operative connection with the measuring light sensor (first detector 408 @ figures 4A-4B) and which is configured and designed to test the measuring light sensor (408 @ figures 4A-4B), is arranged adjacent to the measuring light sensor (404 @ figures 4A-4B) on a second side (left side of the tube 424 @ figures 4A-4B) of the transparent line portion (424 @ figures 4A-4B). see figures 4A-4B
PNG
media_image1.png
817
1432
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 19; James discloses the test light source has a lower luminous intensity than the measuring light source (paragraph [0051]: e.g., the sensor 400 includes two different light sources 404 and 416, each which emits a light of a different wavelength).
Regarding claim 20; James discloses a main light area (figure 4A, e.g., first light source 404 transmitted light through the tube 424 to first detector 408 is considered to a main light area in figure 4A) is defined by the measuring light source (404 @figure 4A), in which the measuring light region is arranged, wherein the test light sensor (second detector 420 @ figure 4A) is arranged outside the measuring light region and at least in sections inside the main light area (figure 4A and paragraph [0052]: e.g., Another amount may be reflected by the flow of fluid in tubing 424 and detected by the second detector 420).
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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 21 and 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over James et al (US 2015/0140546) in view of Lecke (US 2023/0135616).
Regarding claim 21; James discloses all of feature of claimed invention except for a scattered light region is defined by the measuring light source, in which the main light area and/or the measuring light region are/is arranged, wherein the test light sensor is arranged outside the measuring light region and inside the scattered light region. However, Lecke teaches that it is known in the art to provide a scattered light region (LS @ figures 2-3) is defined by the measuring light source (8 @ figures 2-3), in which the main light area and/or the measuring light region (LT @ figures 2-3) are/is arranged, wherein the test light sensor (10 @ figure 2) is arranged outside the measuring light region (L, LT @ figure 2) and inside the scattered light region (LS @ figure 2). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of claimed invention to combine optical detection device of Jame with limitation above as taught by Lecke for the purpose of detecting accuracy blood in a dialysate flow of a dialysis machine during an extracorporeal blood treatment.
It is noted that the term “and/or” is alternative.
Regarding claim 32; Jame discloses all of feature of claimed invention except for an extracorporeal blood treatment machine comprising: an extracorporeal blood circuit with the optical detection device and a transparent line portion through which the measuring light axis and the measuring light region extend. However, Lecke teaches that it is known in the art to provide an extracorporeal blood treatment machine (1 @ figure 1 and paragraph [0038] e.g., the dialysis machine 1 is provided for extracorporeal blood treatment and comprises a dialyzer 3 having a blood chamber 4 and a dialysate chamber 5) comprising: an extracorporeal blood circuit (paragraph [0038] e.g., The blood chamber 4 is separated from the dialysate chamber 5 by means of a semipermeable membrane 6 and is connected to an extracorporeal blood circuit) with the optical detection device (2 @ figures 1-2) and a transparent line portion (a fluid-guiding channel 7 @ figures 1-2 and paragraph [0021] e.g., The fluid-guiding channel is preferably manufactured from a transparent plastic or from glass) through which the measuring light axis (L @ figure 2 and paragraph [0022] e.g., said optical axis extending directly between the light source and the first detector extends along the radiated-in direction) and the measuring light region (LT, LS @ figure 2) extend. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of claimed invention to combine optical detection device of Jame with limitation above as taught by Lecke for the purpose of detecting accuracy blood in a dialysate flow of a dialysis machine during an extracorporeal blood treatment.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over James et al (US 2015/0140546) in view of Mitra et al (US 2009/0101822 hereinafter “Mitra”).
Regarding claim 22; James discloses all of feature of claimed invention except for a center axis of the test light sensor is arranged at a right angle to the measuring light axis. However, Mitra teaches that it is known in the art to provide a center axis of the test light sensor (reference detector 92 @ figure 3) is arranged at a right angle to the measuring light axis (98 @ figure 3) of the laser (82 @ figure 3). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of claimed invention to combine optical detection device of Jame with limitation above as taught by Mitra for the purpose of measuring accurately on-line moisture content in fuel gas at high pressures and temperatures.
Claims 23-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over James et al (US 2015/0140546) in view of Aasmul (US 2008/0024779).
Regarding claim 23; James discloses all of feature of claimed invention except for the optical detection device comprises a first printed circuit board to which the measuring light source and the test light sensor are attached. However, Aasmul teaches that it is known in the art to provide the optical detection device (figures 2, 9) comprises a first printed circuit board (15 @ figure 2) to which the measuring light source (7 @ figures 2, 9) and the test light sensor (53 @ figures 2 and 9) are attached. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of claimed invention to combine optical detection device of Jame with limitation above as taught by Aasmul for the purpose of improving measurement of the shift in phase induced in the light of the first light source by the sample.
Regarding claim 24; James discloses all of feature of claimed invention except for the optical detection device comprises a second printed circuit board to which the measuring light sensor and the test light source are attached. However, Aasmul teaches that it is known in the art to provide the optical detection device (figures 2 and 9) comprises a second printed circuit board (51 @ figure 2, 9) to which the measuring light sensor (13 @ figures 2 and 9) and the test light source (5 @ figures 2, 9) are attached. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of claimed invention to combine optical detection device of Jame with limitation above as taught by Aasmul for the purpose of improving measurement of the shift in phase induced in the light of the first light source by the sample.
Regarding claim 25; James discloses all of feature of claimed invention except for the first printed circuit board and the second printed circuit board are arranged parallel to each other and perpendicular to the measuring light axis. However, Aasmul teaches that it is known in the art to provide the first printed circuit board (15 @ figure 2) and the second printed circuit board (51 @ figure 2) are arranged parallel to each other and perpendicular to the measuring light axis (39 @ figure 2). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of claimed invention to combine optical detection device of Jame with limitation above as taught by Aasmul for the purpose of improving measurement of the shift in phase induced in the light of the first light source by the sample.
Regarding claim 26; James discloses all of feature of claimed invention except for the measuring light source and the measuring light sensor respectively have a cuboid housing or acuboid body, which abuts on the first printed circuit board or second printed circuit board with a respective large side and/or a bottom. However, Aasmul teaches that it is known in the art to provide the measuring light source (7 @ figure 9) and the measuring light sensor (13 @ figure 9) respectively have a cuboid housing or a cuboid body (figure 9), which abuts on the first printed circuit board (15, 51 @ figure 2) or second printed circuit board (15, 51 @ figure 2) with a respective large side and/or a bottom (figure 9). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of claimed invention to combine optical detection device of Jame with limitation above as taught by Aasmul for the purpose of improving measurement of the shift in phase induced in the light of the first light source by the sample.
It is noted that the term “and/or” is alternative.
Regarding claim 27; James discloses all of feature of claimed invention except for the test light source and the test light sensor respectively have a cuboid housing or respectively have a cuboid body which abuts on the first printed circuit board or the second printed circuit board with a respective narrow side. However, Aasmul teaches that it is known in the art to provide the test light source (5 @ figure 9) and the test light sensor (53 @ figure 9) respectively have a cuboid housing or respectively have a cuboid body (figure 9) which abuts on the first printed circuit board or the second printed circuit board (15, 51 @ figure 2) with a respective narrow side (figure 9). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of claimed invention to combine optical detection device of Jame with limitation above as taught by Aasmul for the purpose of improving measurement of the shift in phase induced in the light of the first light source by the sample.
Regarding claim 28; James discloses all of feature of claimed invention except for the measuring light sensor is arranged in a scattered light region of the test light source. However, Aasmul teaches that it is known in the art to provide the measuring light sensor (13 @ figure 5) is arranged in a scattered light region (45 @ figure 5) of the test light source (5 @ figure 5). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of claimed invention to combine optical detection device of Jame with limitation above as taught by Aasmul for the purpose of improving measurement of the shift in phase induced in the light of the first light source by the sample.
Regarding claim 29; James discloses all of feature of claimed invention except for the measuring light sensor is arranged in a scattered light region of the test light source. However, Aasmul teaches that it is known in the art to provide a radiation direction of the test light source (5 @ figure 3) is arranged at a right angle to the measuring light axis (41 @ figure 3). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of claimed invention to combine optical detection device of Jame with limitation above as taught by Aasmul for the purpose of improving measurement of the shift in phase induced in the light of the first light source by the sample.
Claims 18 and 30-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over James et al (US 2015/0140546) in view of Hallstadius (US 2003/0025909).
Regarding claim 18; Jame discloses all of feature of claimed invention except for the test light sensor has a lower light sensitivity than the measuring light sensor. However, Hallstadius teaches that it is known in the art to provide the test light sensor (26, 33 @ figure 1) has a lower light sensitivity than the measuring light sensor (14, 19 @ figure 1 and paragraphs [0106]-[0107]: e.g., well-functioning detectors for this wavelength are the low sensitivity detectors, adapted for detection at 254 nm... a different type of detector may be required, such as for example a higher sensitivity detector, adapted for detection at a wavelength at which the hydrogen peroxide absorption is lower than at 254 nm). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of claimed invention to combine optical detection device of Jame with limitation above as taught by Hallstadius for the purpose of improving accuracy determined the true concentration.
Regarding claim 30; Jame discloses all of feature of claimed invention except for the measuring light source and/or the test light source emit light with a wavelength of 490 to 575 nm. However, Hallstadius teaches that it is known in the art to provide the measuring light source (11 @ figure 2) and/or the test light source (11' @ figure 2) emit light with a wavelength of 490 to 575 nm (paragraph [0016]: e.g., the first wavelength is 254 nm, while the second wavelength is 436 or 546 nm, or both wavelengths are measured as a second and a third wavelength). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of claimed invention to combine optical detection device of Jame with limitation above as taught by Hallstadius for the purpose of improving accuracy determined the true concentration.
It is noted that the term "and/or" is alternative.
Regarding claim 31; Jame discloses all of feature of claimed invention except for the wavelength is between 520 and 530 nm. However, Hallstadius teaches that it is known in the art to provide the wavelength is between 520 and 530 nm (paragraph [0033]: e.g., measured among wavelengths of about 385 nm and longer, more preferably from wavelengths of between about 400 nm and 700 nm, and most preferably from about 436 nm and/or about 546 nm). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of claimed invention to combine optical detection device of Jame with limitation above as taught by Hallstadius for the purpose of improving accuracy determined the true concentration.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
1) Battefeld et al (US 2018/0059016) discloses the turbidimeter includes a light source which emits a light beam directed to a cuvette, a scattering light detector, and a diffuser with a body and an actuator.
2) Strohhoefer et al (US 2014/0326646) discloses a device for extracorporeal blood treatment is disclosed that includes a detection equipment for detecting uremic toxins in a used dialysis liquid by measuring the absorbance, the detection equipment being provided at such a position downstream the outflow of the dialysis liquid.
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 SANG H NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-2425. The examiner can normally be reached M-F.
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, Michelle Iacoletti can be reached at 571-270-5789. 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.
/SN/
April 27, 2026
/SANG H NGUYEN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2877
Prosecution Insights