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 .
Detailed Action
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 6 & 9 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.
In Claim 6 the applicant claims a second angle without a prior antecedent basis for a first angle in the claim chain which leaves one to question if there is a first angle or not. This leaves the scope indefinite.
In Claim 9 the applicant claims both a first and second angle without a prior antecedent basis in the claim chain for either which leaves one to question if there is a first and second angle or not. Further, they define the third angle in terms of the first and second angle. All of this leaves the scope indefinite.
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, 7, 9, 10, 13, 14, 18, & 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by DiFoggio (PGPub 2007/0068242) (DiFoggio).
Regarding Claims 1 & 18, DiFoggio discloses a device of testing a substance in a liquid (30) under test through plasma optical emission spectrum (Fig. 3), comprising:
an electrode (36) having at least a portion adapted to be disposed inside the liquid under test and adapted to be in contact with the liquid under test, wherein the electrode is adapted to produce a plasma in the liquid under test under an applied voltage (Paragraph 30), and the plasma is located in a bubble generated under the applied voltage; and
a light detection element (22 & 34) adapted to detect an optical emission spectrum generated from the plasma in the bubble (Paragraph 30), the light detection element being an optical fiber (Paragraph 30), wherein no light-focusing component is present between the light detection element and the plasma (See fig. 3). The probe in figure 3 is mislabeled as 24 but it’s 22 in the text.
The method of claim 18 is also met by this disclosure.
Regarding Claim 2, DiFoggio discloses the aforementioned. Further, DiFoggio discloses wherein the light detection element has at least a portion adapted to be disposed inside the liquid under test (See figs. 3 & 7) and comprising a light-receiving end (Fig. 7, 23) adapted to be located in the bubble to detect the optical emission spectrum generated from the plasma in the bubble (Paragraphs 16 & 70). As illustrated the end is in the bubble. Further, given the pointed tip and the optically-transparent coating (25) which may be tin oxide or indium tin oxide it is adapted to be located in the bubble.
Regarding Claim 3, DiFoggio discloses the aforementioned. Further, DiFoggio discloses wherein the light detection element is oriented at a first angle to a normal of a contact surface between the electrode and the liquid under test, with an included angle of 0° defined between the first angle and the normal of the contact surface (see fig. 3). This limitation is claimed in such a way that all angles work. Thus, it is met by the disclosure.
Regarding Claim 4, DiFoggio discloses the aforementioned. Further, DiFoggio discloses wherein the light detection element has at least a portion adapted to be disposed inside the liquid under test (See figs. 3 & 7) and comprising a light-receiving end (Fig. 7, 23) separated from the electrode by a distance configured to allow the light-receiving end to be adapted to be located within scope of the bubble (Paragraphs 16 & 70). As illustrated the end is in the bubble. Further, given the pointed tip and the optically-transparent coating (25) which may be tin oxide or indium tin oxide it is adapted to be located in the bubble.
Regarding Claim 6, DiFoggio discloses the aforementioned. Further, DiFoggio discloses wherein the light detection element is oriented at a second angle to a normal of a contact surface between the electrode and the liquid under test, with an included angle of 90° defined between the second angle and the normal of the contact surface (See fig. 3). This limitation is claimed in such a way that all angles work. Thus, it is met by the disclosure.
Regarding Claim 7, DiFoggio discloses the aforementioned. Further, DiFoggio discloses wherein the light detection element has at least a portion adapted to be disposed inside the liquid under test (See figs. 3 & 7) and comprising a light-receiving end (Fig. 7, 23) separated from the electrode by a distance configured to allow the light-receiving end to be adapted to be located within scope of the bubble (Paragraphs 16 & 70). As illustrated the end is in the bubble. Further, given the pointed tip and the optically-transparent coating (25) which may be tin oxide or indium tin oxide it is adapted to be located in the bubble.
Regarding Claim 9, DiFoggio discloses the aforementioned. Further, DiFoggio discloses bwherein the light detection element is oriented at a third angle to a normal of a contact surface between the electrode and the liquid under test, allowing an included angle defined between the third angle and the normal of the contact surface to fall between a first angle and a second angle, with an included angle of 0° defined between the first angle and the normal of the contact surface, with an included angle of 90° defined between the second angle and the normal of the contact surface (See fig. 3). This limitation is claimed in such a way that all angles work. Thus, it is met by the disclosure.
Regarding Claim 10, DiFoggio discloses the aforementioned. Further, DiFoggio discloses wherein the light detection element has at least a portion adapted to be disposed inside the liquid under test (See figs. 3 & 7) and comprising a light-receiving end (Fig. 7, 23) separated from the electrode by a distance configured to allow the light-receiving end to be adapted to be located within scope of the bubble (Paragraphs 16 & 70). As illustrated the end is in the bubble. Further, given the pointed tip and the optically-transparent coating (25) which may be tin oxide or indium tin oxide it is adapted to be located in the bubble.
Regarding Claim 13, DiFoggio discloses the aforementioned. Further, DiFoggio discloses a sample chamber (Fig. 3, 42, this is mislabeled as 32 in the figure but is fluid conduit 42 in the disclosure) configured to retain the electrode and the light detection element and receive the liquid under test;
a spectrometer (32) coupled to the light detection element and configured to analyze an optical emission spectrum generated from a plasma in the bubble and detected by the light detection element (Paragraph 30); and
a power coupled to the electrode and configured to provide the applied voltage to the electrode (inherent). While there is not disclosed power coupled to the electrode to provide applied voltage to it this must be the case in order to generate a spark.
Regarding Claim 14, DiFoggio discloses the aforementioned. Further, DiFoggio discloses an electronic device (32) electrically connected to the spectrometer and configured to analyze the optical emission spectrum through the spectrometer (Paragraph 30).
Regarding Claim 19, DiFoggio discloses the aforementioned. Further, DiFoggio discloses wherein the step of detecting, by a light detection element, an optical emission spectrum generated from the plasma further comprises the steps of:
placing at least a portion of the light detection element in the liquid under test (See fig. 3);
placing a light-receiving end included in at least a portion of the light detection element in a bubble (Fig. 7, Paragraphs 16 & 70). As illustrated the end is in the bubble.; and
detecting directly an optical emission spectrum generated from the plasma in the bubble (Paragraph 30).
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, 8, 11, 12, & 15-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DiFoggio.
Regarding Claim 5, DiFoggio discloses the aforementioned but fails to explicitly disclose wherein at least a portion of the light detection element comprises a light-receiving end separated from the electrode by a distance ranging from 0.1 mm to 4 mm;
However, it has been held that where the general conditions of the claims are discloses in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable range by routine experimentation. See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955);
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify DiFoggio with wherein at least a portion of the light detection element comprises a light-receiving end separated from the electrode by a distance ranging from 0.1 mm to 4 mm because it would be common sense to locate the light-receiving end of the light detection element as related to the electrode within a working range that would provide optimum luminosity detection while still being far enough to allow for a bubble and plasma to form.
Regarding Claims 8 & 11, DiFoggio discloses the aforementioned but fails to explicitly disclose wherein at least a portion of the light detection element comprises a light-receiving end separated from the electrode by a distance ranging from 0.05 mm to 3.5 mm;
However, it has been held that where the general conditions of the claims are discloses in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable range by routine experimentation. See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955);
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify DiFoggio with wherein at least a portion of the light detection element comprises a light-receiving end separated from the electrode by a distance ranging from 0.05 mm to 3.5 mm because it would be common sense to locate the light-receiving end of the light detection element as related to the electrode within a working range that would provide optimum luminosity detection while still being far enough to allow for a bubble and plasma to form.
Regarding Claim 12, DiFoggio discloses the aforementioned but fails to explicitly disclose wherein at least a portion of the light detection element is adapted to be disposed inside the liquid under test and comprises a light-receiving end separated from the electrode by a distance ranging from 0.05 mm to 10 mm;
However, it has been held that where the general conditions of the claims are discloses in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable range by routine experimentation. See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955);
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify DiFoggio with wherein at least a portion of the light detection element is adapted to be disposed inside the liquid under test and comprises a light-receiving end separated from the electrode by a distance ranging from 0.05 mm to 10 mm because it would be common sense to locate the light-receiving end of the light detection element as related to the electrode within a working range that would provide optimum luminosity detection while still being far enough to allow for a bubble and plasma to form.
Regarding Claim 15, DiFoggio discloses the aforementioned but fails to explicitly disclose wherein the electronic device is configured to be signal-connected to an external device to provide an analysis result about the optical emission spectrum of the liquid under test to the external device in real time;
However, the examiner takes official notice 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 DiFoggio with wherein the electronic device is configured to be signal-connected to an external device to provide an analysis result about the optical emission spectrum of the liquid under test to the external device in real time because it is common sense for a down borehole device for measuring a liquid to transmit the results to a device readable by a user at the top of the borehole for making real time decisions based upon the measurements.
Regarding Claim 16, DiFoggio discloses the aforementioned but fails to explicitly disclose an electronic device electrically connected to the power and configured to set a parameter of the applied voltage through the power to adjust the plasma produced in the liquid under test;
However, the examiner takes official notice 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 DiFoggio with an electronic device electrically connected to the power and configured to set a parameter of the applied voltage through the power to adjust the plasma produced in the liquid under test because this allows one to optimize the creation of the plasma to achieve the optimum illumination for detection and improve the signal to noise ratio.
Regarding Claim 17, DiFoggio discloses the aforementioned but fails to explicitly disclose an electronic device electrically connected to the power and the spectrometer and configured to synchronize the power and the spectrometer so as to synchronize production of the plasma and reception of the optical emission spectrum;
However, the examiner takes official notice 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 DiFoggio with an electronic device electrically connected to the power and the spectrometer and configured to synchronize the power and the spectrometer so as to synchronize production of the plasma and reception of the optical emission spectrum because it’s common sense to turn on the spectrometer at the same time you turn on the plasma generating electrode.
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 January 29, 2026
/Kara E. Geisel/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2877