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 .
Restriction to one of the following inventions is required under 35 U.S.C. 121:
I. Claims 1-10,15-19,21, drawn to apparatus includes UT transducer operatively connected to either software defined radio or oscilloscope/generator, classified in G01N29/34.
II. Claims 11-14,20, drawn to method to map concentration and composition of particles in a matrix, classified in G01N15/06.
Inventions II and I are related as process and apparatus for its practice. The inventions are distinct if it can be shown that either: (1) the process as claimed can be practiced by another and materially different apparatus or by hand, or (2) the apparatus as claimed can be used to practice another and materially different process. (MPEP § 806.05(e)). In this case the apparatus can be used to test liquid, or in the alternative, the method can be carried out actuating transmitter/receiver with conventional analog hardware components.
During a telephone conversation with Mr. Albrecht on 7/1/26 a provisional election was made with traverse to prosecute the invention of Group I, claims 1-10,15-19,21. Affirmation of this election must be made by applicant in replying to this Office action. Claims 11-14,20 are withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention.
Claims 12,18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
As to claim 18, nothing suggests what an “M-sequence” is, or how it relates to the apparatus. There are no examples, no reference provides a hint, no manner of experimentation is apparent.
As to claim 12, there is no disclosed manner of correlating “composition” to “size”. Figure 5 (Para 107,108) suggests that size is not mapped, as such is merely comparing different compositions with “equal size distributions” (Para 107,108). The sizes are not mapped. There is no example of mapping size in a quest to map composition. No manner of experimenting is apparent.
As to claim 12, there is no disclosed manner of correlating “composition” to “shape”. Figure 5 (Para 107,108) does not suggest shape is mapped. Paragraph 59 (Pub) states such, and adds nothing more. Three are no examples of how shape is mapped in a quest to map composition. There is no reference that provides for such. No manner of experimenting is apparent.
Claims 1-10,15-19,21 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.
As to claim 1, it’s not clear what the alternatives are as listed in lines 8-12. The uncertainty is compounded by the “transmitter” (line 8) and “receiver” being identified as “transducers” (in Figure 1B), but given different identifying tags in the claim.
As to claim 1, “at least one” (lines 5,7) is not consistent with lines 8-9 which indicate that there are at least 2 transducers. This claim is internally inconsistent, as “one” is not 2.
As to claim 1, the claim employs an “or” (line 11), but where would one of ordinary skill recognize where the term - - either - - might be contemplated to be? Again, the alternatives are not apparent.
As to claim 6, “an angle” (lines 6,8,10,12) is confusing because “said second ultrasonic transducer” (line 6) lacks any type of an axis/direction.
As to claim 6, the “or” (line 11) suggests that the last 2 lines are an alternative to something, but what that may be is not apparent. Use of a well-positioned term - - either - - in invaluable in aiding in defining alternatives.
As to claim 4, “an acute angle” (line 2) is confusing because “said second ultrasonic transducer” (line 6) lacks any type of an axis/direction.
As to claim 5, “at least one second exterior portion” (line 2, and many other locations) was never introduced. Is the dependency of claim 5 in error, as claim 2 calls for such? Is claim 1 missing such, or is it to be considered to be inherently there?
As to claim 5, where does the possible list of “one or more” (line 1) end? Does such embrace every single wherein clause in this claim? Note that the claim does not employ the term - - and - - .
As to claim 7, preamble calls for “apparatus”, but structure of at least 2, 5 and 6 are not connected to any remaining structure suggestive that the claim is directed to a list of unconnected parts. Is this claim an apparatus, or a list of unconnected parts?
As to claim 7, is this claim adding “four”(line 2) more transducers? Maybe, “the at least one” (line 5, claim 1) includes 4? Maybe “at least four” (line 2) to - - a total of 4 - - ?; but then, the other 3 are still not connected to remaining claim limitations.
As to claim 7, line 3 is confusing because claim 1 stated that the first transducer included the at least one oscilloscope. What is to be made of the inconsistency of claim 7? Is it possible that claim 7 includes 2 oscilloscopes? It’s problematic that one claim (i.e. claim 1) will expressly tag a transducer as a oscilloscope, and the different claim (i.e. claim 7) expressly suggest otherwise.
As to claim 17, preamble calls for “apparatus”, but many alternatives (each of lines 3-8; 13-15;16-17;18-22; each one of lines 23-31, lines 31-41) are not connected to any remaining structure suggestive that the claim is directed to a list of unconnected parts. Is this claim an apparatus, or a list of unconnected parts?
As to claim 17, is the “chamber” (line 32) that of claim 1’s container? If so, the same structure is twice claimed because the container includes the chamber.
As to claim 17, claim calls for “apparatus”, but last 2 lines provide no structure, an/or do not relate those last 2 lines to any structure. What is one of ordinary skill to make of such in an apparatus claim, if anything at all?
As to claim 18, “said ultrasonic energy” was never initially introduced; yet was introduced in claim 11. Either claim 18 dependent upon the wrong claim, or claim 1 missing such limitation? Note that claim 11 introduces the phrase, so each of claim 1 and 18 are problematic on this uncertainty?
As to claim 18, each one of lines 10-15,20 is unclear as to how many transducers are in the “apparatus”. Are those claims including the transducer of claim 1, or not?
As to claim 18, what is to be make of “or a 60-80 … transducer” (last 2 lines)? Where does that fit into the many alternatives. It seems that either it may have been its own alternative to the wherein clause of line 9, in the alternative, the “or” (line 2 from last, claim) should be an- - and - - to be consistent with “one or more” (line 20).
As to claim 19, “an angles” (lines 6,8,10,12) is confusing because the “plurality” (line 2) lack any type of an axis/direction. As such, what provides for the many angles? What is to be made of this?
As to claim 19, how many receivers are in this apparatus? Claim 1 lacks introduction of “at least one receiver” (line 2, claim 19), but does have a “first ultrasonic receiver”. Does the “a plurality” (line 2) include “first ultrasonic receiver” (claim 1)?
As to claim 21, “the detector” (line 1) is problematic as none is so identified in claim 1. It the dependency upon claim 1 misdirected? Is claim 1 so limited to be a detector in some manner?
Claim(s) 1-7,10,15-19,21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over JP ‘7230301 in view of JP ‘7230301 in view of either Sinha et al CN 103201598 or Li et al CN 105222833, and further in view of Rajagopal et al 20023/0097973.
JP teaches (Figure 1) an apparatus configured to detect small particles of a substance suspended in a matrix using ultrasound, comprising:
a container 110 device configured to receive a sample in an inner volume, said container device comprising:
at least one first ultrasonic transducer 4 mechanically coupled to or disposed on at least one first
at least one electronic controller
Ether Shinha CN 203201598 (Figure 1A, transducer 12) or Li (Figure 1) teach locating transducer on external walls of container walls.
Rajagopal et al 20023/0097973 teach (Para 269-292) employing SDR and processing circuit to effectively transmit/receive/process such signals to/from an ultrasonic transducer.
As to claims 1,10,15,16,17,18, it would have been obvious to secure transducer to the external wall of JP because either Shina or Li teach that external connecting will effectively operate. Also, it would have been obvious to employ SDR because Raj teaches such will efficiently control UT transducers.
As to claims 2,6,3,4,7,18 there are many transducer 4 (Figure 3) lined up, and it is known for receivers to employ transducers for effective reception.
As to claim 5, container 1 has an inlet.
As to claim 19, such is shown in Figure 2 of JP.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Claytor et al 4,542,644 teach amplifier 26 usage.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT R RAEVIS whose telephone number is (571)272-2204. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon to Friday from 8am to 4pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Kristina DeHerrera, can be reached at telephone number 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 an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center to authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to the USPTO patent electronic filing system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
Examiner interviews are available via a variety of formats. See MPEP § 713.01. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/InterviewPractice.
/ROBERT R RAEVIS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855
Prosecution Insights