DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. 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
2. Claim 19 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding Claim 19, line 7, delete “may be”. Otherwise it will invoke 112 2nd para.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
3. 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.
4. Claims 1-4, 11-12, 16, 18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by DE2525701A1 by Langer (hereinafter Langer).
Regarding Claim 1, Langer teaches a method for performing a spectral measurement on a liquid sample (Fig. 3), comprising the steps of (Fig. 1-3):
providing the liquid sample (Fig. 3 @ 14, Par. [0020]);
wetting an optical wall (Fig. 3 @ 11, Par. [0020]) with the liquid sample to generate a liquid film (Fig. 3 @ 15, Par. [0021]) of the sample on the optical wall, wherein the optical wall is at least temporarily aligned such that the sample (Fig. 3 @ 14, Par. [0020]) flows off or down the wetted optical wall (Fig. 3 @ 11, Par. [0020]) due to an external force and a thickness of the liquid film changes over time (inherently teaches due to flow of sample 14 over the wall 11);
irradiating the liquid film (Fig. 3 @ 15, Par. [0021]) on the wetted optical wall with an optical beam (Fig. 3 @ 17, Par. [0021]) to generate an optical beam (Fig. 3 @ 18, Par. [0021]) containing spectral information of the sample (Fig. 3 @ 14, Par. [0020]);
acquiring the spectral information from the generated optical beam (Par. [0001-0002, 0007, 0021]).
Regarding Claim 2, Langer teaches the generated optical beam, which contains spectral information of the sample and from which the spectral information is acquired, has been transmitted through the optical wall or reflected therefrom (Fig. 3 @ 15 to 18, illustrates the configuration).
Regarding Claim 3, Langer teaches the external force is one of gravity, a force exerted by a fluid flow, a magnetic force, a centrifugal force and a shear force (Fig. 3 @ sample 14 flowing through the gap 13 to wall 11 (free fall due to gravity) thus teaches the limitation).
Regarding Claim 4, Langer teaches the liquid sample is provided in one of a container, a line, a line section, and a line system (Fig, 3 @ 12, Par. [0020]).
Regarding Claim 11, Langer teaches wetting the optical wall to generate the liquid film on the optical wall, the container is shaken or rotated (Fig. 1 @ 21, Abstract, Par. [0025]).
Regarding Claim 12, Langer teaches a device for performing a spectral measurement on a liquid sample (See Claim 1 rejection above. Note: a method claim can be used to implement an apparatus claim) comprising:
a container, a line, a line section or a line system for one or both of storing and providing a liquid sample (See Claim 4 rejection above);
an optical wall (See Claim 1 rejection above);
a wetting device for wetting the optical wall with the sample to generate a liquid film on the optical wall (See Claim 1 rejection above);
a radiation source for generating an optical beam which can irradiate the liquid film on the wetted optical wall and to which spectral information of the sample can be imprinted (See Claim 1 rejection above);
a device for acquiring spectral information of the sample which is imprinted on the optical beam (See Claim 1 rejection above).
Regarding Claim 16, Langer teaches said step of irradiating the liquid film on the wetted optical wall with an optical beam to generate said optical beam containing spectral information of the sample comprises transilluminating said liquid film (Fig. 3 @ 17).
Regarding Claim 18, Langer teaches said radiation source for generating said optical beam is configured to transilluminate the liquid film on the wetted optical wall (Fig. 3 @ 17).
Regarding Claim 20, Langer teaches a method for performing a spectral measurement on a liquid sample (See Claim 1 rejection above), comprising the steps of:
providing the liquid sample (See Claim 1 rejection above);
wetting an optical wall with the liquid sample to generate a liquid film of the sample on the optical wall, wherein the optical wall is at least temporarily aligned such that the sample flows off or down the wetted optical wall due to an external force and a thickness of the liquid film changes over time (See Claim 1 rejection above);
transilluminating the liquid film on the wetted optical wall with an optical beam to generate an optical beam containing spectral information of the sample (See Claim 1 rejection above);
acquiring the spectral information from the generated optical beam (See Claim 1 rejection above), wherein:
the generated optical beam, which contains spectral information of the sample and from which the spectral information is acquired, has been transmitted through the optical wall or reflected therefrom (See Claim 2 rejection above); and
said step of wetting said optical wall with the liquid sample to generate said liquid film of the sample on the optical wall is carried out in one of the following manners (i), (ii) and (iii):
(i) gas is introduced into the liquid sample provided, so that gas bubbles rise in the sample, lead to wetting of the optical wall arranged in the region of the surface of the sample and generate a liquid film thereon;
(ii) a negative pressure is generated in a tube section, wherein a wall of the tube section is formed at least in sections by the optical wall, so that at least a part of the sample is sucked into the tube section and the optical wall is wetted with the sample, and thereafter, the negative pressure in the tube section is removed, so that at least a part of the sample flows out of the tube section or is pushed out again and a liquid film is generated on the wetted optical wall;
(iii) the liquid sample is provided in a container, wherein for wetting the optical wall to generate the liquid film on the optical wall, the container is shaken or rotated (See Claims 4, 11 rejection above).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
5. 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.
6. Claims 5-6, 15 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Langer in view of “Investigation into injection and falling film flow processes of diesel”, Measurement, Institute of Measurement and Control, London, GB, June 02, 2023, by Huang et al. (hereinafter Huang) (Provided by Applicant in IDS).
Regarding Claim 5, Langer teaches the liquid film is irradiated with an optical beam (See Claim 1 rejection above) but does not explicitly teach at different times and the spectral information is acquired at different thicknesses of the irradiated liquid film.
However, Huang teaches at different times and the spectral information is acquired at different thicknesses of the irradiated liquid film (Fig. 5, 7, 10).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Langer by Huang as taught above such that the liquid film is irradiated with an optical beam at different times and the spectral information is acquired at different thicknesses of the irradiated liquid film is accomplished in order to generate an average film thickness to optimize the measurement accuracy of the imaging method.
Regarding Claim 6, Langer as modified by Huang teaches a viscosity information of the sample is determined based on a time profile of the spectral information (Huang, Fig. 5, 7, 10: thickness, i.e. the viscosity).
Regarding Claim 15, Langer as modified by Huang teaches a control and evaluation unit, wherein the control and evaluation unit is configured for an operation (inherently teaches. Huang, Fig. 2: Computer):
in which the liquid film is irradiated, in particular transilluminated, with an optical beam at different times and the spectral information is acquired at different thicknesses of the irradiated liquid film (See Claim 5 rejection above); or
in which a viscosity information of the sample is determined based on a time profile of the spectral information (See Claim 6 rejection above).
Regarding Claim 19, Langer as modified by Huang teaches a control and evaluation unit, wherein the control and evaluation unit is configured for an operation, in which the liquid film is transilluminated with said optical beam at different times and the spectral information is acquired in several spectral measurements at different thicknesses of the irradiated liquid film (See Claim 15 rejection above), and wherein said control and evaluation unit is configured for one of:
selecting, from said several spectral measurements, an optimum measurement at an optimum optical path length through the liquid film, in which the spectral information may be determined with the highest reliability (Huang, Fig. 3, 7, 9,10, Sec. 3.2, 5.4, 5.5, Page 2-3, 6-7. Page 7: In this work …. Simulation here. Also see Conclusion, Page 9);
averaging said several spectral measurements at different optical path lengths with suitable weightings (Huang, Fig. 3, 7, 9,10, Sec. 3.2, 5.4, 5.5, Page 2-3, 6-7. Page 7: In this work …. Simulation here. Also see Conclusion, Page 9).
7. Claims 13 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Langer.
Regarding Claim 13, Langer the wetting device (See Claim 1 rejection above) but does not explicitly teach comprises a pump for introducing gas into the sample or for generating a negative pressure in a tube section for sucking at least a part of the sample into the tube section.
However, it is considered obvious to try all known solutions when there is a recognized need in the art (a pump for introducing gas into the sample), there had been a finite number of identified, predictable solutions to the recognized need (without introducing gas into the sample, a pump for introducing gas into the sample), and when one of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued the known potential solutions with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP § 2143, E. Furthermore, such an arrangement would imply to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a pump for introducing gas into the sample in order to remove dissolved atmospheric gases (like oxygen or carbon dioxide). This prevents these gases from interfering with detectors.
Regarding Claim 17, Langer the external force (See Claim 1 rejection above) but does not explicitly teach the external force is a pressure force exerted by a gas flow.
However, it is considered obvious to try all known solutions when there is a recognized need in the art (external force is a pressure force exerted by a gas flow), there had been a finite number of identified, predictable solutions to the recognized need (external force is a pressure force exerted by gravity, external force is a pressure force exerted by a gas flow), and when one of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued the known potential solutions with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP § 2143, E. Furthermore, such an arrangement would imply to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use external force is a pressure force exerted by a gas flow because gases in motion have significant kinetic energy and momentum. When this flow is accelerated, decelerated, or constricted, the forces driving the flow are overwhelmingly pressure-based. The differences in pressure from one point to another (the pressure gradient) are the primary driver of fluid motion.
Allowable Subject Matter
8. Claims 7-10 and 14 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.
Reason for Allowance
9. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
10. As to claim 7, the prior arts of record alone or in combination fails to teach or suggest the claimed limitation of “wherein gas is introduced into the liquid sample provided, so that gas bubbles rise in the sample, lead to wetting of the optical wall arranged in the region of the surface of the sample and generate a liquid film thereon” along with all other limitations of claim 7.
11. As to claim 10, the prior arts of record alone or in combination fails to teach or suggest the claimed limitation of “generating a negative pressure in a tube section, wherein a wall of the tube section is formed at least in sections by the optical wall, so that at least a part of the sample is sucked into the tube section and the optical wall is wetted with the sample;
removing the negative pressure in the tube section, so that at least a part of the sample flows out of the tube section or is pushed out again and a liquid film is generated on the wetted optical wall” along with all other limitations of claim 10.
12. As to claim 14, the prior arts of record alone or in combination fails to teach or suggest the claimed limitation of “wherein the wetting device comprises an upstream container for storing a liquid such that gas, which is introduced into the upstream container, first flows through the liquid in the upstream container and then through the sample in the container when the containers are filled with the liquid or the sample, respectively” along with all other limitations of claim 14.
13. Langer (DE2525701A1) teaches a method for performing a spectral measurement on a liquid sample but fails to teach the claimed limitations.
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”.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMIL AHMED whose telephone number is (571)272-1950. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM.
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 on 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.
/JAMIL AHMED/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2877
Prosecution Insights