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 Objections
Claim 21 is objected to because of the following informalities:
As to claim 21: The claim begins with “The system according to claim 15” and is grammatically incorrect. For the purpose of expedient examination, the examiner is interpreting the claim to instead read as --The system according to claim 15-- and could constitute a proper correction.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 25 is 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 25: The claim recites in lines 1 and 2 in part “further comprising an agitator, the controller activating the actuator in response” but there is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation “the actuator” in the claim or in parent claims 15, 22, or 23. Although Applicant’s as-filed specification recites “the actuator” in ¶ 82, it appears that this may be a typographical mistake as this instance of an actuator is the only instance of such a limitation throughout the specification. Conversely, ¶ 47 of Applicant’s as-filed specification discloses “the agitator 250 may be activated in response to detecting a difference in density between two regions” and is silent regarding an actuator.
Because there are two conflicting recitations in Applicant’s as-filed specification as noted above, the scope of the claim is rendered unclear. However, for the purpose of expedient examination, the examiner is interpreting from context that “the actuator” in claim 25 instead refers to “the agitator” because such an agitator is recited in all of ¶ 37, 47, 48, 51, 53, 61, 62, 75, and 76.
The examiner recommends either explaining in remarks how Applicant believes the scope of “the actuator” to be definite, preferably by providing evidence from Applicant’s disclosure, and/or amending the claim so as to obviate the above identified issue.
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 1, 2, 4-16, and 18-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Jamison et al. US PG-PUB 2018/0223658 A1 (hereafter Jamison).
As to claim 1: Jamison discloses a stir chamber (110; see fig. 1 and ¶ 13) comprising:
a housing (112; see fig. 1 and ¶ 13) defining an internal cavity configured to receive an agricultural sample, the internal cavity extending along a longitudinal axis from a bottom end to a top end (not labeled but see ¶ 13 regarding the cavity within sidewalls 128 and bottom surface 126 that contains a fluid);
a first sensor (206A; see fig. 2A and ¶ 17) fluidly coupled to the internal cavity of the housing at a first location (see fig. 2A) with respect to the longitudinal axis (see ¶ 16 and 17);
a second sensor (206B; see fig. 2A and ¶ 17) fluidly coupled to the internal cavity of the housing at a second location (see fig. 2A) with respect to the longitudinal axis (see ¶ 16 and 17); and
a third sensor (206C; see fig. 2A) fluidly coupled to the internal cavity of the housing at a third location (see fig. 2A) with respect to the longitudinal axis (see ¶ 16 and 17);
wherein the second location is located between the first and third locations (see fig. 2A regarding the position of second sensor 206B between sensor 206A and 206C); and
wherein the first, second, and third sensors (206A-206C) are configured to monitor one of a fluid level or a density of the agricultural sample (see ¶ 39 and 44).
As to claim 2: Jamison discloses the stir chamber according to claim 1, wherein the first sensor (206A; see fig. 2A and ¶ 17) has a fluid passage therethrough (see fig. 2A and ¶ 17).
As to claim 4: Jamison discloses the stir chamber according to claim 1 further comprising an agitator (122; see fig. 1 and ¶ 14) configured to agitate the agricultural sample (see ¶ 14).
As to claim 6: Jamison discloses the stir chamber according to claim 1, wherein the first, second, and third sensors (206A-206C) are pressure sensors (see ¶ 11 and 30).
As to claim 7: Jamison discloses the stir chamber according to claim 1, wherein the first, second, and third sensors (206A-206C) are the same (see ¶ 17; the sensors are considered to be the same at least by virtue of being disposed on a common sensor assembly 200 as depicted in fig. 2A).
As to claim 8: Jamison discloses the stir chamber according to claim 1, wherein the stir chamber further comprises a controller (208 and/or 215; see ¶ 17) operably coupled to the first, second, and third sensors (206A-206C) (see ¶ 17).
As to claim 9: Jamison discloses the stir chamber according to claim 8 wherein the controller (208 and/or 215; see ¶ 17) receives a plurality of signals from the first, second, and third sensors (206A-206C) (see ¶ 17) and computes a density within the stir chamber using one or more of the plurality of signals from the first, second, and third sensors (206A-206C) (see ¶ 39).
As to claim 10: Jamison discloses the stir chamber according to claim 9 wherein the controller (208 and/or 215; see ¶ 17) computes a density of the agricultural sample in a first region of the internal cavity located between the first (206A) and second (206B) sensors (see ¶ 39).
As to claim 11: Jamison discloses the stir chamber according to claim 10 wherein the controller (208 and/or 215; see ¶ 17) computes a density of the agricultural sample in a second region of the internal cavity located between the second (206B) and third (206C) sensors (see ¶ 39).
As to claim 12: Jamison discloses the stir chamber according to claim 9 wherein the controller (208 and/or 215; see ¶ 17) computes a density of the agricultural sample in a third region located between the first (206A) and third (206C) sensors (see ¶ 39).
As to claim 13: Jamison discloses the stir chamber according to claim 8 wherein the controller (208 and/or 215; see ¶ 17) receives signals (see ¶ 28) from the first (206A), second (206B), and third (206C) sensors and computes a fluid level with the stir chamber (see ¶ 44).
As to claim 14: Jamison discloses the stir chamber according to claim 1 wherein the third location is adjacent the bottom end of the internal cavity (see fig. 1 in view of fig. 2A and the details in ¶ 15 and further in ¶ 17).
As to claim 15: Jamison discloses a system (fig. 1) for analyzing an agricultural sample (see ¶ 13) comprising:
a stir chamber (110; see fig. 1 and ¶ 13), the stir chamber comprising:
a housing (112; see fig. 1 and ¶ 13) defining an internal cavity configured to receive an agricultural sample, the internal cavity extending along a longitudinal axis from a bottom end to a top end (not labeled but see ¶ 13 regarding the cavity within sidewalls 128 and bottom surface 126 that contains a fluid);
a first sensor (206A; see fig. 2A and ¶ 17) fluidly coupled to the internal cavity of the housing at a first location (see fig. 2A) with respect to the longitudinal axis (see ¶ 16 and 17);
a second sensor (206B; see fig. 2A and ¶ 17) fluidly coupled to the internal cavity of the housing at a second location (see fig. 2A) with respect to the longitudinal axis (see ¶ 16 and 17);
a controller (208 and/or 215; see ¶ 17) configured to receive a plurality of signals from the first (206A) and second (206B) sensors,
at least one of the plurality of signals used to compute a density of a first region of the internal cavity located between the first (206A) and second sensors (206B) (see ¶ 39).
As to claim 16: Jamison discloses the system according to claim 15 wherein the first sensor (206A) has a fluid passage therethrough (see fig. 2A and ¶ 17).
As to claim 18: Jamison discloses the system according to claim 15 further comprising an agitator (122; see fig. 1 and ¶ 14) configured to agitate the agricultural sample (see ¶ 14).
As to claim 20: Jamison discloses the system according to claim 15 wherein the first (206A) and second (206B) sensors are pressure sensors (see ¶ 11 and 30).
As to claim 21: Jamison discloses the system according to claim 15 wherein the first (206A) and second (206B) sensors are the same (see ¶ 17; the sensors are considered to be the same at least by virtue of being disposed on a common sensor assembly 200 as depicted in fig. 2A).
As to claim 22: Jamison discloses the system according to claim 15 further comprising a third sensor (206C) fluidly coupled to the internal cavity of the housing at a third location (see fig. 2A) with respect to the longitudinal axis (see ¶ 16 and 17), the second location being between the first and third locations with respect to the longitudinal axis (see fig. 2A regarding the position of second sensor 206B between sensor 206A and 206C), and the controller (208 and/or 215; see ¶ 17) configured to receive a signal from the third sensor (see ¶ 15 and 28).
As to claim 23: Jamison discloses the system according to claim 22 wherein the controller (208 and/or 215; see ¶ 17) computes a density of the agricultural sample in a second region of the internal cavity located between the second (206B) and third sensors (206C) (see ¶ 39).
As to claim 24: Jamison discloses the system according to claim 23 wherein the controller (208 and/or 215; see ¶ 17) computes a density of the agricultural sample in a third region located between the first (206A) and third (206C) sensors (see ¶ 39).
As to claim 25: Jamison discloses the system according to claim 23 further comprising an agitator (122; see fig. 1 and ¶ 14), the controller (208 and/or 215; see ¶ 17) activating the agitator (see the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection of the instant claim above) in response to a difference between the density in the first region and the density in the second region (see ¶ 26).
As to claim 26: Jamison discloses the system according to claim 22 wherein the controller (208 and/or 215; see ¶ 17) computes a fluid level within the stir chamber (see ¶ 44).
As to claim 27: Jamison discloses the system according to claim 22 wherein the third location is adjacent the bottom end of the internal cavity (see fig. 1 in view of fig. 2A and the details in ¶ 15 and further in ¶ 17).
As to claim 28: Jamison discloses a method for analyzing a sample (see ¶ 9 and 10), the method comprising;
providing a chamber (110; see fig. 1 and ¶ 13) comprising an in internal cavity, the internal cavity extending along a longitudinal axis from a bottom end to a top end (not labeled but see ¶ 13 regarding the cavity within sidewalls 128 and bottom surface 126 that contains a fluid);
fluidly coupling a first sensor (206A; see fig. 2A and ¶ 17) to the internal cavity at a first location with respect to the longitudinal axis and a second sensor (206B; see fig. 2A and ¶ 17) to the internal cavity at a second location with respect to the longitudinal axis (see ¶ 16 and 17);
adding a sample (not labeled but see the disclosed fluid in ¶ 13) to the internal cavity;
reading a plurality of signals from the first and second sensors (see ¶ 28); and
computing a density or a fluid level of the sample using the plurality of signals from the first and second sensors (see ¶ 39).
As to claim 29: Jamison discloses the method according to claim 28 wherein the first (206A) and second (206B) sensors are pressure sensors (see ¶ 11 and 30).
As to claim 30: Jamison discloses the method according to claim 28 wherein the step of computing comprises computing a density in a first region of the internal cavity located between the first (206A) and second (206B) sensors (see ¶ 39).
As to claim 31: Jamison discloses the method according to claim 28 wherein the step of fluidly coupling further comprises a third sensor (206C) fluidly coupled to the internal cavity at a third location (see fig. 2A) with respect to the longitudinal axis (see ¶ 16 and 17).
As to claim 32: Jamison discloses the method according to claim 31 wherein the step of reading further comprises reading at least one signal from the third sensors (206C) and the step of computing further comprises computing a density in a first region of the internal cavity between the first (206A) and second sensors (206B) (see ¶ 39) and computing a density in a second region of the internal cavity located between the second (206B) and third sensors (206C) (see ¶ 39).
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.
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 5 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jamison et al. US PG-PUB 2018/0223658 A1 (hereafter Jamison) in view of Ruby et al. US PG-PUB 2023/0182133 A1 (hereafter Ruby).
As to claim 5: Jamison teaches all of the limitations of the claimed invention as described above regarding claim 4, including an agitator (122; see fig. 1 and ¶ 14) configured to agitate an agricultural sample (see ¶ 14), but does not explicitly teach:
wherein the agitator comprises a blade and a motor, the motor configured to drive the blade to agitate the agricultural sample.
However, Ruby teaches an agitator that comprises a blade (122; see fig. 6 and ¶ 49) and a motor (110; see fig. 6 and ¶ 49), the motor configured to drive the blade to agitate a sample (see ¶ 49).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Jamison’s stir chamber to include an agitator that comprises a blade and a motor, the motor configured to drive the blade to agitate the agricultural sample because such a construction allows a user to adjust and control how long a sample is processed which is measured by a variety of sensors in a fluid chamber, such as suggested in ¶ 52 of Ruby. Accordingly, such a construction would be useful to Jamison’s stir chamber by allowing a user to control how long a sample is processed by such an agitator and blade if necessary to prepare the sample before making said measurements as also suggested in Ruby ¶ 52.
As to claim 19: Jamison teaches all of the limitations of the claimed invention as described above regarding claim 18, including an agitator (122; see fig. 1 and ¶ 14) configured to agitate an agricultural sample (see ¶ 14), but does not explicitly teach:
wherein the agitator comprises a blade and a motor, the motor configured to drive the blade to agitate the agricultural sample.
However, Ruby teaches an agitator that comprises a blade (122; see fig. 6 and ¶ 49) and a motor (110; see fig. 6 and ¶ 49), the motor configured to drive the blade to agitate a sample (see ¶ 49).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Jamison’s stir chamber to include an agitator that comprises a blade and a motor, the motor configured to drive the blade to agitate the agricultural sample because such a construction allows a user to adjust and control how long a sample is processed which is measured by a variety of sensors in a fluid chamber, such as suggested in ¶ 52 of Ruby. Accordingly, such a construction would be useful to Jamison’s stir chamber by allowing a user to control how long a sample is processed by such an agitator and blade if necessary to prepare the sample before making said measurements as also suggested in Ruby ¶ 52.
Claim 33 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jamison et al. US PG-PUB 2018/0223658 A1 (hereafter Jamison) in view of Atalla et al. US PG-PUB 2017/0341043 A1 (hereafter Atalla).
As to claim 33: Jamison teaches all of the limitations of the claimed invention as described above regarding claim 32, including subsequent to the computing step (see ¶ 39), a step of mixing the sample using an agitator (see ¶ 14 and ¶ 26) in a first region and second region (see ¶ 39), but does not explicitly teach:
the step of mixing performed when the density in the first region differs from the density in the second region by a predetermined threshold.
However, Atalla teaches that a step of mixing may be performed with a density in a region differs from density in another region by a predetermined threshold (see ¶ 12, further see ¶ 67, and see fig. 10).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Jamison’s step of mixing such that the step of mixing performed when the density in the first region differs from the density in the second region by a predetermined threshold because such a design can be used in a feedback manner so as to correct any mixing abnormalities and adjusting the drive of a mixing means in response to sensed fluid properties, such as suggested in ¶ 67 of Atalla. Accordingly, such a step would be useful in Jamison’s method by ensuring that any desired mixing is having the intended effect or whether mixing is ineffective and further by increasing mixing if needed to achieve the proper level of desired mixing in a sample.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3 and 17 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
As to claim 3: The prior art of record does not disclose or render obvious to the skilled artisan a stir chamber wherein the fluid passage of the first sensor is coupled to a purge fluid source, the purge fluid source configured to supply purge fluid to the internal cavity via the fluid passage of the first sensor, when considered in combination with the limitations of parent claim 1.
In particular, while it known from the art (see, for example, Jasperse US PG-PUB 2021/0285868 A1 ¶ 34) to utilize a pump to move a sample in a vessel to a waste storage component, there does not appear to be any obvious modification of Jamison nor the other cited prior art of record in light of the teaching of Jasperse that would arrive at Applicant’s claimed invention as set forth by the limitations of claim 3 which requires that the purge fluid source is configured to supply purge fluid to the internal cavity via the fluid passage of the first sensor (emphasis added) and accordingly the instant claim is objected to as containing the aforementioned allowable features as previously indicated above.
As to claim 17: The claim depends from claims 15 and 16 and recites features similar to claim 3 above. Accordingly, the claim is 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 for reasons similar to claim 3 but not repeated herein for brevity.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN M ROYSTON whose telephone number is (571)270-7215. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-4:30 E.S.T..
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, Peter Macchiarolo can be reached at 571-272-2375. 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.
/JOHN M ROYSTON/ Examiner, Art Unit 2855
Prosecution Insights