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 .
Election
Applicant's election with traverse of Species I in the reply filed on 3-16-2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that examining both species would not provide a serious burden. This is not found persuasive because the examiner still finds the separate species would require different search terms and areas.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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 2-8 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.
Claim 2 is rejected because the applicant claims the monitoring chamber having a pre-defined optical focal path length. However, the applicant seems to conflating two terms “optical path length” and “Focal point”. Still further the monitoring chamber would not have a focal point but the lens (which they disclose) would have a focal point. The examiner construes that what the applicant is trying to convey is that the monitoring chamber is and lens are arranged such that the focal point of the lens lies within the path length prescribed by the windows of the chamber. The examiner suggests clarification of this in future amendments.
Claim 3 suffers from the same problem as claim 2 and should likewise be fixed.
In Claim 4, the term “substantially” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Thus, this leaves in question how planar the surface of the window is.
In Claim 6, the term “reducing” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “reducing” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Reducing merely is a term which merely means making less and it is not clear by how much less a dead flow area is reduced thus it leaves the claim indefinite.
Claims 5, 7, & 8 are also rejected based upon their dependency on the rejected claims.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6, 9, 11, 18 & 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Mace et al (PGPub 2002/0029003) (Mace).
Regarding Claim 1, Mace discloses a single use flow cell for use in-line monitoring, the cell comprising:
a one-piece central body (20, Fig. 1) integrally formed with an optical housing, wherein the central body comprises an inlet (24), an outlet (26), and a central bore (34) extending therethrough from the inlet to the outlet;
the optical housing comprises a first end, a second end, and a housing bore extending from the first end to the second end (See fig. 1). As can be seen the optical housing has a first and second side with a bore extending from the first to second side (More clearly seen in fig. 6); and
an optical retainer slidably coupled in one of an interference fit and a snap-fit within the central body such that at least a portion of the optical retainer is securely coupled within at least one opening formed within the optical housing (Paragraph 90). As is described the two housings are designed to be snapped together securely.
Regarding Claim 2, Mace discloses the aforementioned. Further, Mace discloses wherein the union of the central body and the optical housing defines a monitoring chamber (32) within the flow cell, the monitoring chamber having a pre-defined optical focal path length (Paragraph 94). The disclosure states that lenses may be used with detectors and such a lens is shown in fig. 6 for the emitter (252) and detector (254) thus the monitoring chamber will have a focal point given that’s the point of the lens.
Regarding Claim 3, Mace discloses the aforementioned. Further, Mace discloses wherein a portion of the monitoring chamber is defined by a pair of opposed windows (fig. 6, 40 & 42), wherein a distance between the pair of windows defines the optical focal path length of the monitoring chamber (Paragraph 94). The disclosure states that lenses may be used with detectors and such a lens is shown in fig. 6 for the emitter (252) and detector (254) thus the monitoring chamber will have a focal point between the windows given that’s the point of the lens.
Regarding Claim 4, Mace discloses the aforementioned. Further, Mace discloses wherein each of the windows includes at least one substantially planar surface. In fig. 6 the windows are shown as substantially planar; and
wherein at least a portion of the optical housing forms a seat oriented to position each of the windows within the flow cell such that the at least one substantially planar surface of each window is between the central bore and the optical retainer (Fig. 1). As can be seen in figure 1 the housing (22) is U shaped and the flow cell (20) has a similarly shaped structure to ensure the positioning of the two elements together (Paragraph 90) and when positioned the windows will between the central bore and optical retainer thus meeting the limitation. Also, of note it appears the housing (22) also has windows that would likewise be positioned according to this limitation.
Regarding Claim 6, Mace discloses the aforementioned. Further, the applicant has claimed, “wherein the position of the pair of opposed windows relative to the central bore facilitates reducing an amount of dead flow areas by volume defined within the monitoring chamber,” but has provided no structure for achieving this. Further, “reducing” is a term of degree which is not defined in the claim so any amount of reduction meets this claim even 0 reduction. Still further, when the examiner refers to the specification the applicant appears to be referring to reducing a gap between the window and the flow chamber where the sample can stagnate. Given all of this the examiner finds the disclosure meets this limitation particularly as in fig. 6 a similar gap between the window and flow chamber would not occur thus no flow deadening would occur.
Regarding Claim 9, Mace discloses the aforementioned. Further, Mace discloses wherein the flow cell is symmetric (See fig. 6). As can be seen the flow chamber is shown as being symmetric.
Regarding Claim 11, Mace discloses the aforementioned. Further, Mace discloses wherein the optical retainer is securely retained within the optical housing without the use of any adhesive product (Paragraph 90).
Regarding Claim 18, Mace discloses an in-line process monitor comprising:
a one-piece central body (Fig. 1, 20) integrally formed with an optical housing (22), the central body defining a fluid flow path (34) extending therethrough, the optical housing including an interface bore extending therethrough (See fig. 1). As can be seen the optical housing has a first and second side with a bore extending from the first to second side (More clearly seen in fig. 6); and
an optical retainer slidably coupled within the interface bore in one of an interference fit and a snap-fit (Paragraph 90), at least a portion of the optical retainer is received within a portion of the optical housing (See fig. 1), wherein an intersection of the central body and the optical housing defines a monitoring chamber (32) that is bordered at least partially by at least two windows (40 & 42) that are oriented to enable light energy to be transmitted through the optical housing and through fluid flowing through the fluid flow path (Paragraph 91).
Regarding Claim 19, Mace discloses the aforementioned. Further, Mace discloses wherein the optical retainer is securely retained within the optical housing without the use of any adhesive product (Paragraph 90), and wherein the optical retainer includes at least two locking tabs that are each biased radially outwardly into a respective opening formed in the optical housing (see modified figure 2 below). While not explicitly disclosed these tabs are drawn on the retainer and would appear to be for use in locking the two portions together.
PNG
media_image1.png
587
532
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
Claim(s) 5, 7, 8, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mace.
Regarding Claim 5, Mace discloses the aforementioned. Further, Grace shows (Fig. 1) that a portion of the optical housing forms at stop, at least one of the windows is positioned in sealing contact against the annular stop. The U shape is formed such that the places will be stopped once it’s in a proper place and the windows will be positioned against the housing when it’s snapped into place;
Mace fails to explicitly disclose the stop is annular shaped;
However, The Applicant has no support data, which convinces that the particular claimed configuration is significant or is anything more than one of numerous configurations a person of ordinary skill in the art would find obvious for the purpose of providing mating surfaces. In re Dailey 149 USPQ 47, 50 (CCPA 1966). See also Glue Co. v. Upton 97 US 3,24 (USSC 1878);
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Mace with the stop is annular shaped because one would choose whatever shape best suits the design for proving complete mating surfaces that would ensure a tight fight with no optical loss between the two parts.
Regarding Claim 7, Mace discloses the aforementioned but fails to explicitly disclose wherein each of the windows includes at least one substantially planar surface, and wherein a pair of O-rings are each compressed against a respective one of the windows such that the O-ring is between the window and the optical retainer;
However, the examiner takes official notice that this would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing;
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Mace with wherein each of the windows includes at least one substantially planar surface, and wherein a pair of O-rings are each compressed against a respective one of the windows such that the O-ring is between the window and the optical retainer because O-rings are known gaskets that can provide tight seals at the meeting place between parts that would help prevent the sample from leaking.
Regarding Claim 8, Mace discloses the aforementioned. Further, the limitation, “wherein each of the pair of O-rings remains dry during monitoring,” would be met because the flow cell of Mace deals with gas flows.
Regarding Claim 20, Mace discloses the aforementioned but fails to explicitly disclose wherein the optical retainer is sized and oriented to induce a compressive force against each of a pair of O-rings positioned between the optical retainer and each of the windows;
However, the examiner takes official notice that this would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing;
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Mace with wherein the optical retainer is sized and oriented to induce a compressive force against each of a pair of O-rings positioned between the optical retainer and each of the windows because O-rings are known gaskets that can provide tight seals at the meeting place between parts that would help prevent the sample from leaking.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHON COOK whose telephone number is (571)270-1323. The examiner can normally be reached 11am-7pm.
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 at 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.
/JONATHON COOK/Examiner, Art Unit 2877 June 12, 2026
/Kara E. Geisel/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2877
Prosecution Insights