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
a. In regards to the 35 U.S.C 102 rejection anticipated by Johansen, Applicant submits it is respectfully submitted that the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. §102 is overcome. Because claims 2 and 5 depend from claim 1, the amendments to claim 1 also overcome the rejections of claims 2 and 5.
a. (Examiner’s response) Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 under Johansen US 7,880,133 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Johansen US 7,880,133 in view of paper of Zhi Q. Lu, “Non-contact Measurement of the Water Content in Crude Oil with All-Optical Detection” 2015 American Chemical Society in further view of Yamada US 20210239609. Further explanation is shown in the action below.
b. In regards to the 35 U.S.C 102 rejection anticipated by Mhana, Applicant submits disclose or suggest computing a "differential between the intensity measurements" of two discrete lights at two different wavelengths to quantify water content.
b. (Examiner’s response) Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 U.S.C 102 rejection of claim 1 anticipated by Mhana US 20240201075 has been withdrawn.
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.
Claim(s) 1-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johansen US 7,880,133 in view of paper of Zhi Q. Lu, “Non-contact Measurement of the Water Content in Crude Oil with All-Optical Detection” 2015 American Chemical Society in further view of Yamada US 20210239609.
With respect to claim 1, Johansen teaches a spectrophotometric system for quantifying water content in a liquid hydrocarbon stream, comprising:
at two light sources (fig 1, 311 & 312) that produces a first light having a first desired wavelength and a second light having a second desired wavelength;
a flow chamber (fig 1, 100) configured to allow passage of a sample of the liquid hydrocarbon stream “carbon-hydrogen bonds of the oil” (col 4 ,lines 53-55), wherein the first and second light are configured to pass through the liquid hydrocarbon stream within the chamber; and
at least one photosensitive detector array (fig 1, 301 & 302) configured to measure an intensity of the
light at one or more desired wavelengths of the first and second light after they pass through the liquid hydrocarbon stream “oil phase” (col 3, line 16) (fig 1, 110) in the flow chamber,
wherein the intensity measurement (fig 2, absorption) of the at least one photosensitive detector array is used to quantify the undissolved water content (fig 1, 108) (fig 2, 503) “water represented by curve 503” (col 4, lines 35-40) of the liquid hydrocarbon stream.
Examiner notes even though the prior art does not teach undissolved water. One of ordinary skill would understand the hydrocarbon stream which comprises oil would inherently not dissolve the water as shown by Shaw below (fig 1). To serve as an anticipation when the reference is silent about the asserted inherent characteristic, such gap in the reference may be filled with recourse to extrinsic evidence. Such evidence must make clear that the missing descriptive matter is necessarily present in the thing described in the reference, and that it would be so recognized by persons of ordinary skill.
PNG
media_image1.png
256
414
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Johansen does not teach a differential between the intensity measurements of the first light and of the second light.
Zhi, in the same field of endeavor as Johansen of crude oil (Zhi Title), teaches the water content ratio of crude oil in oil tanks, oil wells, and oil pipelines is a vital parameter to accurately measure the crude oil production, which has a direct impact on the mining, dehydration, transportation, measurement, marketing, and refining of the crude oil (pg. 1, col 1, ¶ 1, lines 1-5).
Zhi does not teach a differential between the intensity measurements of the first light and of the second light.
Yamada, in the field of endeavor of detecting water content ratio, teaches measuring (fig 1a, 23 & 25) a ratio i.e. differential between a first and second light intensity via two light sources, dichroic mirror, photosensitive detector arrays, and processor (fig 10, 32 & 30) (0020) (0055). Yamada also teaches detecting water at 1450 nm (fig 6) via the photosensitive detector array. At the time prior to the effective filing the invention, it would have been obvious to combine Yamada’s light sources, dichroic mirror, photosensitive detector arrays, and processor with the combination’s flow chamber to accurately measure crude oil production for refinery purposes.
With respect to claim 2 according to claim 1, the combination teaches the spectrophotometric system wherein the at least one photosensitive detector array (fig 1a, 23 & 25 Yamada) is configured to measure the intensity of the transmitted light across an array of detecting elements to provide a 1-dimensional output (fig 1, 100 Johansen) of light intensity (fig 1, 150 Johansen) across the width of the flow chamber.
With respect to claim 3 according to claim 1, the combination teaches at least one photosensitive detector array is configured to measure the specific wavelength of transmitted light via the inclusion of at least one bandpass filter (fig 1a, 27 Yamada) located between the flow chamber and the at least one photosensitive detector array.
With respect to claim 4 according to claim 1, the combination teaches the at least one photosensitive detector array (fig 1a, 23 & 25 Yamada).
The combination does not teach specific wavelengths of the transmitted light through using a prism.
Yamada, in the field of endeavor of detecting water content ratio, teaches a prism configured to merge additional light sources when it is desired to have three or more light sources for determining the water content ratio. At the time prior to the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to combine a prism and additional light source with the combination’s light source to enable measurements of water content using a larger wavelength band.
With respect to claim 5 according to claim 1, the combination teaches the spectrophotometric system wherein the at least one photosensitive detector array is configured to measure the intensity of light at a wavelength of approximately 1450 nm (fig 6 Yamada).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johansen US 7,880,133 in view of paper of Zhi Q. Lu, “Non-contact Measurement of the Water Content in Crude Oil with All-Optical Detection”, 2015 American Chemical Society in further view of Yamada US 20210239609 in further view or paper of Sanjay M. Nilapwar, “ABSORPTION SPECTROSCOPY”, 2011 hereafter Nilapwar
With respect to claim 6 according to claim 5, Johansen does not teach at least one photosensitive detector array is further configured to measure the intensity of light at a wavelength of approximately 700 nm.
Nilapwar, in the same field of endeavor as Johansen of absorption spectroscopy, teaches a photosensitive detector array (fig 4.2 B) receives wavelengths including light of approximately 700 nm transmitted through the prism (pg. 64. 3.1). At the time prior to the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Nilapwar’s prism and light source with the combination’s photosensitive detector array to characterize different types of contaminants due to a broader spectrum.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7-20 are allowed.
As to claim 7, the prior art of record, taken alone or in combination, fails to disclose or render obvious “the first photosensitive detector array is configured to measure an intensity of the first light at the wavelength of approximately 700 nm …and the second photosensitive detector array is configured to measure an intensity of the second light at the wavelength of approximately 1450 nm… wherein the differential between the measurement of the first photosensitive detector array and the measurement of the second photosensitive detector array enable the system to quantify a water content in the liquid hydrocarbon stream”, in combination with the rest of the limitations of claim 7.
As to claim 14, the prior art of record, taken alone or in combination, fails to disclose or render obvious “measuring, with a first photosensitive detector array, an intensity of the first light at the wavelength of approximately 700 nm after passing through the liquid hydrocarbon stream; measuring, with a second photosensitive detector array, an intensity of the second light at the wavelength of approximately 1450 nm after passing through the liquid hydrocarbon stream; and quantifying a water content in the liquid hydrocarbon stream based on the differential between the measurement of the first photosensitive detector array and the measurement of the second photosensitive detector array”, in combination with the rest of the limitations of claim 14.
Conclusion
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 MAURICE C SMITH whose telephone number is (571)272-2526. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-5pm EST.
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.
/MAURICE C SMITH/Examiner, Art Unit 2877
Prosecution Insights