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, see Page 8, filed 24 June 2026, with respect to claims 1-4 and 16 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the objections to claims 1-4 and 16 have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see Page 8, filed 24 June 2026, with respect to claims 8 and 15 have been fully considered, but are not persuasive. Therefore, the §112(b) rejections of claims 8 and 15 have been maintained.
The Examiner had previously rejected the claims as being indefinite for use of the phrase “optionally” in each of claims 8 and 15. Applicant states that “the claims have been amended to remove the indefiniteness while maintaining the intended breadth.” However, the amendments to these claims create the same indefiniteness issues because the amendments (i.e. “for example” in claim 8, “such as” in claim 15) are synonymous with “optionally”. Therefore, the claims continue to be rejected under §112(b).
Applicant’s arguments, see Pages 8-9, filed 24 June 2026, with respect to claims 1-2, 5-6, 8-10, 12, and 14-17 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the §102/103 rejections of claims 1-2, 5-6, 8-10, 12, and 14-17 have been withdrawn.
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 8 and 15 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.
Regarding claim 8, the phrase "for example" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation following the phrase is part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). Therefore, for purposes of examination, the Examiner assumes that the diffuse reflecting surface does not need to be an arced section of a cylinder.
Regarding claim 15, the phrase "such as" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation following the phrase is part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). Therefore, for purposes of examination, the Examiner assumes that the fluid does not need to be water.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Applicant amended claim 1 to incorporate the limitations of claim 7, thus making claim 1 allowable. However, in failing to cancel claim 7, Applicant has created redundancy in that claim 7 is not further limiting claim 1.
Applicant may cancel the claim, amend the claim to place the claim in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim complies with the statutory requirements.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-6, 9-14, and 16-17 are allowed.
The following is an Examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Claims 1-2,5-6,9-10,12,14,16-17: None of the prior art of record, alone or in combination, teaches or discloses an apparatus for measuring at least one optical property of a fluid, the apparatus comprising:
a processing unit for processing at least one signal received from the at least one photodetector for use in determining at least one optical property of a fluid, wherein the at least one optical property includes color of the fluid, turbidity of the fluid, or both the color of the fluid and the turbidity of the fluid,
in combination with the rest of the limitations of independent claim 1.
Claim 3: None of the prior art, alone or in combination, teaches or discloses an apparatus for measuring at least one optical property of a fluid, the apparatus comprising:
at least one light source, wherein:
the light emitted by the at least one light source passes along an optical axis which is parallel to the normal to the diffuse reflecting surface or passes along an optical axis which is perpendicular to an axis of the conduit comprising a cylindrical conduit,
in combination with the rest of the limitations of independent claim 3.
Claim 4: None of the prior art, alone or in combination, teaches or discloses an apparatus for measuring at least one optical property of a fluid, the apparatus comprising:
at least one light source, wherein:
light emitted by the at least one light source passes along an optical axis which is perpendicular to a plane containing an axis of the conduit comprising a cylindrical conduit,
in combination with the rest of the limitations of independent claim 4.
Claim 11: None of the prior art, alone or in combination, teaches or discloses an apparatus for measuring at least one optical property of a fluid, the apparatus comprising:
at least one light source; and
at least one photodetector, wherein:
wherein the at least one light source is or is substantially monochromatic and the at least one photodetector is broadband or vice versa,
in combination with the rest of the limitations of independent claim 11.
Claim 13: None of the prior art, alone or in combination, teaches or discloses an apparatus for measuring at least one optical property of a fluid, the apparatus comprising:
at least one light source; and
at least one photodetector, wherein:
at least one of the at least one light source, or at least one of the at least one photodetector, or both, are operable in an infrared band of an electromagnetic spectrum,
in combination with the rest of the limitations of independent claim 13.
Any comments considered necessary by Applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Claims 8 and 15 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new grounds 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.
NOTE: The Examiner placed a call to Francis Maguire, Reg. No. 31, 391 on 06 July 2026 to resolve the §112 issues, but did not receive a response.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to HINA F AYUB whose telephone number is (571)270-3171. The Examiner can normally be reached on 9am-5pm ET Mon-Fri.
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, Tarifur Chowdhury can be reached on 571-272-2287. 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 the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Hina F Ayub/
Primary Patent Examiner
Art Unit 2877
Prosecution Insights