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 12 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 12, there is a typographical error, “ the vertex”, in line 2. Thus, the limitation “the vertex” should be changed to —the vortex—.
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 9 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.
Regarding Claim 9, line 4, the claims cited the phrase "particularly" renders the claims indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). For purposes of examination, the limitations tied to the phrase "particularly” will not be considered as part of the claimed invention until this deficiency is cured.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-5, 8, 10 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1), (a)(2) as being anticipated by Suzuki et al. (US 20140204379 A1), hereafter Suzuki.
Regarding claim 1, Suzuki teaches a turbidity sensor (Fig. 1, [0038] and Fig. 12, [0071-0072]) for measuring turbidity of a fluid, [0037], wherein the turbidity sensor comprises:
a container (Fig. 12 element 4) delimiting a cavity of the container configured to receive said fluid (inner circumferential surface of element 4 generates a cavity (Sa) that receive a sample as water, [0037, 0039],
a first source of electromagnetic radiation (Fig. 12 element 5) configured and arranged to generate and emit electromagnetic radiation (Fig. 12 element L1) into the cavity of the container, [0039, 0077] and
a photodetector (Fig. 12 element 7) configured and arranged to detect electromagnetic radiation scattered by the fluid (“a scattered light detector 7 for detecting scattered light scattered in the measurement space Sa”, [0039, 0072])
characterized in that the container (4) comprises a concave inner surface (Fig. 12 element 4a) facing the cavity and facing the first source of electromagnetic radiation (5), (as shown in Fig. 12 the inner surface 4a face the inner space of element 4 and sections of the inner surface 4a face element 5), wherein the concave inner surface (4a) is configured to absorb at least a majority of the electromagnetic radiation impinging onto the concave inner surface (the inner surface 4a comprises absorbing members 15a-c, [0074, 0079, 0081-0082]) and wherein the container (4) further comprises a bottom surface (Fig. 12 element M1) arranged opposite of the concave inner surface, (since the all inner surface of element 4a is concave, the examiner is interpreting the window M1 as opposite to a section of the inner surface) and an exit (Fig. 12 element M3) for transmission of the electromagnetic radiation scattered by the fluid out of the cavity and towards the photodetector (7), [0044-0045, 0079].
PNG
media_image1.png
718
826
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Suzuki teaches the turbidity sensor according to claim 1, wherein the concave inner surface (Fig. 12 elements 4a + 15a-c) is configured to contain electromagnetic radiation reflected off the concave inner surface within the cavity, [0079, 0082].
Regarding claim 3, Suzuki teaches the turbidity sensor according to claim 1, wherein the first source of electromagnetic radiation (Fig. 1 element 5) is arranged such that the electromagnetic radiation (L1) is emitted into the cavity through a window (Fig. 12 element M1) forming at least a section of the bottom surface, (as shown in annotated Fig. 12 element 5 generated beam L1 that goes through element M1 to the cavity, [0045]).
Regarding claim 4, Suzuki teaches the turbidity sensor according to claim 1, wherein the exit (Fig. 12 element M3) is arranged adjacent to the concave inner surface, (as shown in annotated Fig. 12, [0045]).
Regarding claim 5, Suzuki teaches the turbidity sensor according to claim 1, wherein the exit (Fig.12 element M3) is arranged in a section of the container (Fig. 12 element 4) extending between the concave inner surface (4a) of the container and the bottom surface of the container, (as shown in annotated Fig.12, element M3 is in a section of element 4 between “bottom surface” and 4a, [0045]).
Regarding claim 8, Suzuki teaches the turbidity sensor according to claim 1, wherein the exit (Fig. 12 element M3) forms an optically transparent section of a lateral wall of the container, (“light optical window M3 for guiding scattered light L3 to the scattered light detector 7”, as shown in annotated fig. 12, [0045, 0068]).
Regarding claim 10, Suzuki teaches the turbidity sensor according to claim 1, wherein the container further comprises an inlet (Fig. 13 elements 12H) and an outlet (Fig. 13 elements 12H) configured to receive a fluid flow passing said fluid into and out of the cavity of the container, [0060].
Regarding claim 16, Suzuki teaches the turbidity sensor according to claim 1, wherein a section of the concave inner surface (Fig. 12 element 4a) of the container (4) comprises a cross-sectional contour in a plane normal to the bottom surface, wherein the cross-sectional contour is parabolic, piecewise linear or forms a circular arc, (as shown in Fig. 12 the inner surface of element 4 have a spere shape therefore a sectional section of 4a is parabolic and/or have a circular arc).
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.
Claims 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki et al. (US 2014/0204379 A1), hereafter Suzuki in view of Yamasaki et al. (US 2018/0306715 A1), hereafter Yamasaki.
Regarding claim 6, Suzuki teaches the turbidity sensor according to claim 1, further comprising a detection chamber (Fig. 3 element sb3) with an inner surface, scattered electromagnetic radiation transmitted through the exit (Fig. 3 element M3) to the photodetector (Fig. 3 element 7), [0044].
Suzuki is silent about a detection chamber with an inner surface configured to reflect the scattered electromagnetic radiation transmitted through the exit to the photodetector.
However, Yamasaki related to scattered light measuring devices and thus from the same field of endeavor teaches a detection chamber (Fig. 7) with an inner surface (Fig. 7 elements 14 + 14 B) configured to reflect the scattered electromagnetic radiation transmitted through the exit (Fig. 7 element 14A) to the photodetector (Fig. 7 element 13), [0058].
Therefore, it would been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Suzuki by including a detection chamber with an inner surface configured to reflect the scattered electromagnetic radiation transmitted through the exit to the photodetector, (as taught by Yamasaki) for several advantages such as: allows the incident light to be reflected to the detector with a total reflection due to the surface having a total reflection surface thus increase the device accuracy and the reflecting efficiency, ([0065], Yamasaki).
Regarding claim 7, Suzuki in the combination outlined above teaches the turbidity sensor according to claim 6.
Suzuki further teaches wherein the detection chamber (Fig. 3 element sb3) is filled with a gas, (watertight, [0039, 0062]).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki et al. (US 2014/0204379 A1), hereafter Suzuki in view of Schick et al. ( US 2012/0242993 A1), hereafter Schick.
Regarding claim 9, Suzuki teaches the turbidity sensor according to claim 1, wherein the exit (Fig. 12 element M3) forms an optically transparent section of a lateral wall of the container (as shown in annotated fig. 12, [0045, 0068]).
Even though Suzuki teaches the exit (Fig. 12 element M3) form an optically transparent section of a lateral wall of the container and form a waveguide that leads to the photodetector particularly ends thereon, (element M3 located in a lateral wall of the container form a waveguide that leads to the photodetector (Fig. 12 element 7), wherein the window M3 is integrally molded with a single material in the container, [0044]). However, Suzuki fails to teach the exit is extruded to form a waveguide.
Nevertheless, Schick related turbidity sensor and thus from the same field of endeavor teaches the exit is extruded to form a waveguide, (the scatter light detection window 226 in mechanically integrated by molded or extruded method, [0050]).
Therefore, it would been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Suzuki by including the exit is extruded to form a waveguide, (as taught by Schick) for several advantages such as: mechanically integrating the optical components into the liquid-carrying sensor tube allows to provides a physical separation between the fluid and the active electro-optical sensor components thus maintains a hermetically sealed sensor-solution interface increasing the device efficiency, ([0050]], Schick).
Claims 11-12 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki et al. (US 2014/0204379 A1), hereafter Suzuki in view of Tokhtuev et al. (US 2006/0103842 A1), hereafter Tokhtuev.
Regarding claim 11-12 and 14, Suzuki teaches the turbidity sensor according to claim 10.
Suzuki fails to teach:
(claim 11) wherein the cavity, the inlet (21) and the outlet (22) are configured to force the fluid to form a vortex (13) of the fluid flow.
(claim 12) wherein the outlet is arranged in a vicinity of the vertex of the concave inner surface, and the inlet is arranged in the lateral wall of the container, such that the fluid flow can be passed through the inlet to flow along the lateral wall so as to form a vortex.
(claim 14) wherein the outlet comprises a distance from the bottom surface (8) which is larger than a distance between the inlet and the bottom surface.
Tokhtuev related to turbidity sensor and thus from the same field of endeavor teaches:
(claim 11) wherein the cavity (Fig. 9), the inlet (Fig. 9 element 114) and the outlet (Fig. 9 element 115 and/or 116) are configured to force the fluid to form a vortex of the fluid flow, [0042, 0044].
(claim 12) wherein the outlet (Figs. 9-10 element 115) is arranged in a vicinity of the vertex of the concave inner surface (as shown in Fig. 10) and the inlet (Figs. 9-10 element 114) is arranged in the lateral wall (Figs. 9-10 element 110) of the container, such that the fluid flow can be passed through the inlet (114) to flow along the lateral wall so as to form a vortex (as shown in Figs. 9-10, [0042, 0044]).
(claim 14) wherein the outlet (Fig. 9 element 116) comprises a distance from the bottom surface which is larger than a distance between the inlet (Figs. 9-10 element 114) and the bottom surface, (as shown in Figs. 9-10 the inlet 114 is located in the bottom surface of the cavity and element 116 is located in the top of the cavity, [0042, 0044]).
Therefore, it would been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Suzuki by including wherein the cavity, the inlet and the outlet are configured to force the fluid to form a vortex of the fluid flow, wherein the outlet is arranged in a vicinity of the vertex of the concave inner surface, and the inlet is arranged in the lateral wall of the container, such that the fluid flow can be passed through the inlet to flow along the lateral wall so as to form a vortex, wherein the outlet comprises a distance from the bottom surface which is larger than a distance between the inlet and the bottom surface (as taught by Tokhtuev) for several advantages such as: allowing to increase testing efficiency by eliminating reflections into the detector, improving the sensitivity of the turbidity sensor form 0.1 NTU to 0.02 NTU thus enables the sensor reacts 10 time faster than the turbidity sensors known in the art, ([0042, Tokhtuev).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki et al. (US 2014/0204379 A1), hereafter Suzuki in view of Pleus et al. (EP 2133687 A2), hereafter Pleus.
Regarding claim 15, Suzuki teaches the turbidity sensor according to claim 1.
Suzuki fails to teach further comprising a second source of electromagnetic radiation configured to generate and emit ultraviolet (UV) electromagnetic radiation into the cavity of the container so as to prevent a formation of biofilms inside the container.
However, Pleus related to turbidity sensors and thus from the same field of endeavor teaches a second source of electromagnetic radiation (Fig. 2 element 27 “UV light source”, the first source in fig. 2 is element 19) configured to generate and emit ultraviolet (UV) electromagnetic radiation into the cavity of the container, [0027] so as to prevent a formation of biofilms inside the container, [0011-0012].
Therefore, it would been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Suzuki by including a second source of electromagnetic radiation configured to generate and emit ultraviolet (UV) electromagnetic radiation into the cavity of the container so as to prevent a formation of biofilms inside the container (as taught by Pleus) for several advantages such as: allows to decrease the frequency of maintenance to device thus increase the device efficiency, ([0003, 0007], Pleus).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 13 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.
Regarding Claims 13, the prior art of record, taken either alone or in combination, fails to disclose, teach, or suggest or render obvious “wherein the first source of electromagnetic radiation is arranged and configured such that the electromagnetic radiation is emitted into the cavity of the container along an axis which is offset from a vortex axis of the vortex.”, in the combination required by the claim.
Tokhtuev discloses the two insert channels 112, 113 have a reverse conical shape with cone angle approximately 12.degree. and they are arranged along of the optical axes of the light source optical means 28 and the detector optical means 29 to serve as light traps for excitation beam from the light source optical means 28 and for eliminating reflections into the detector optical means 29. The addition of the insert 110 improves the sensitivity of the turbidity sensor form 0.1 NTU to 0.02 NTU. The channel 112 serves as a light trap as well as water inlet enables the sensor reacts 10 times faster than the turbidity sensors known in the art. Therefore, an offset would affect the purpose the device of Tokhtuev to eliminating reflections into the detector, [0042].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CARLOS G PEREZ-GUZMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-3904. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30 am - 5:00 pm ET.
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 at (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 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.
/CARLOS PEREZ-GUZMAN/ Examiner, Art Unit 2877
