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
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 Amendment
The amendments and remarks, filed on 9/17/2025, has been entered. The prior art rejection is modified to address the claim amendments.
The amendments and remarks, filed on 9/17/2025, has been entered. The claim amendments overcome the previous claim objection of claim 461 and 468 and 112(b) rejection of claims 463 and 464.
Claim Status
Claims 458,460-464 and 466-486 are pending and being examined.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 458, 460-464, 466-473, 475 and 480-486 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 458 recites the limitation “the sector shape comprising an annular sector geometry defined by inner and outer radial boundaries and configured to align with a centrifugal field” in lines 6-8. The applicant cites the paragraphs [0024] and [0617] in the instant specification, but the citations fail to provide evidence teaching the “inner and outer radial boundaries” and does not disclose the sector shape being configured to align with a centrifugal field. The terminology of “the centrifugal field” is not disclosed in the specification. The amended claims fail to comply with the written description requirement. Claims 460-464, 466-473, 475, 480, and 483-486 are rejected by virtue of dependency on claim 458.
Claim 480 recites the limitation “wherein the sector shape is aligned with the centrifugal field to facilitate a balanced placement of the interrogation cell in the centrifuge rotor, thereby enabling transverse orientation of the interrogation cell relative to a plane of rotation of the centrifuge rotor” in lines 1-4. The applicant does not provide support or disclose where the amendments can be found in the specification. Specifically, there is no teaching with regards to “the centrifugal field” and the functional limitation of “thereby enabling transverse orientation of the interrogation cell relative to a plane of rotation of the centrifuge rotor” found in the specification. The amended claims fail to comply with the written description requirement.
Claim 481 recites the limitation “wherein the sector shape is aligned with the centrifugal field to facilitate a balanced placement of the interrogation cell in the centrifuge rotor, thereby enabling transverse orientation of the interrogation cell relative to a plane of rotation of the centrifuge rotor” in lines 1-4. The applicant does not provide support or disclose where the amendments can be found in the specification. Specifically, there is no teaching with regards to “the centrifugal field” and the functional limitation of “thereby enabling transverse orientation of the interrogation cell relative to a plane of rotation of the centrifuge rotor” found in the specification. The amended claims fail to comply with the written description requirement.
Claim 482 recites the limitation “wherein the sector shape is aligned with the centrifugal field to facilitate a balanced placement of the interrogation cell in the centrifuge rotor, thereby enabling transverse orientation of the interrogation cell relative to a plane of rotation of the centrifuge rotor” in lines 1-4. The applicant does not provide support or disclose where the amendments can be found in the specification. Specifically, there is no teaching with regards to “the centrifugal field” and the functional limitation of “thereby enabling transverse orientation of the interrogation cell relative to a plane of rotation of the centrifuge rotor” found in the specification. The amended claims fail to comply with the written description requirement.
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 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) 458, 460-461, 476, 480, and 482-486 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Lee (US 20180195938 A1; hereinafter “Lee”; filed 6/16/2016; already of record on IDS filed 10/16/2020).
Regarding claim 458, Lee teaches an interrogation cell (Lee; Abstract; biological material measuring instrument having cuvettes) comprising:
a source of electromagnetic radiation at a first position of the interrogation cell (Lee; Fig. 4; para [27]; a light emitting part 310; examiner notes that the light emitting part 310 is located to the left of the interrogation cell/cartridge 100 as seen in Fig. 4) source of electromagnetic radiation configured to emit electromagnetic radiation at one or more wavelengths within an ultraviolet and visible electromagnetic frequency range (Lee; Fig. 4; para [27, 37]; the light emitting part 310 may be a light emitting diode…the light emitting parts 310 may have different light wavelengths… a wavelength of 630 nm, and a second light emitting part-light receiving part pair may use light with a wavelength of 800 nm);
a sample region (Lee; Fig. 2; para [29]; the cartridge holder 210) comprising a sector shape (Lee; Fig. 3, 4; the examiner notes that the cartridge holder is divided into separate sections as seen in Fig. 3 and 4, where each holder comprises its own sector) that allows the electromagnetic radiation to pass through the sample region (Lee; para [33]; the light emitting part 310 and the light receiving part 320 are positioned in a direction in which centrifugal force acts on the cuvette 110, i.e., outside the rotating body 200), the sector shape comprising an annular sector geometry defined by inner and outer radial boundaries (Lee; Image 1) and configured to align with a centrifugal field (Lee; Fig. 1; para [34]; the rotating body 200 are configured to be inclined with respect to a rotational axis of the rotating body 200 so that the cartridge 100 is loaded to be inclined towards the inside of the rotating body 200); and
a detector configured to receive electromagnetic radiation from the sector shape (Lee; Fig. 4; para [27]; the light receiving part 320; examiner notes that the light receiving part 320 is located to the right of the interrogation cell/cartridge 100 as seen in Fig. 4), the electromagnetic radiation spanning the ultraviolet and visible electromagnetic frequency range, that traverses at least a portion of the sample region (Lee; para [27, 37]; the light emitting part 310 serves to emit light to the cuvette 110, and the light receiving part 320 serves to receive light from the cuvette 110…a wavelength of 630 nm, and a second light emitting part-light receiving part pair may use light with a wavelength of 800 nm), wherein the interrogation cell is dimensioned for removably positioning in a rotor cavity of a centrifuge rotor (Lee; para [29]; The cuvette 110 may be rotatably installed in the cartridge holder 210 of the rotating body 200).
PNG
media_image1.png
668
876
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Image 1. Annotated Figure 3 of Lee.
Regarding claim 460, Lee teaches the interrogation cell of claim 458, wherein the sample region comprises a sample chamber (Lee; Fig. 3; para [29]; The cuvette 110 is a container that may be made of a transparent plastic and allows a reaction between a liquid reagent and an analyte in a sample) and wherein the sample chamber comprise a removable liner (Lee; para [26]; A sealing film 117 seals the cuvette 110; examiner notes sealing film may be ruptured).
Regarding claim 461, Lee teaches the interrogation cell of claim 458, wherein interrogation cell is configured to provide spectroscopic information of the sample region based on the stored information collected by the detector, consistent with a collective of data suitable for deconvolution resulting in a determination of size distribution profiles in fluid samples in a manner of the analytical ultracentrifugation (AUC) assay1 (Lee; para [28, 61]; control module for optical measurement and overall control…RF tag stores measurement cartridge information of the cartridge), and wherein the interrogation cell is configured to provide at least one type of spectroscopic information from the group consisting of: hyperspectral image data, Schlieren images, fluorescence images, and quantitative fluorescence emission data comprising a spatial arrangement of the sample region, or combinations thereof (Lee; para [35; 36]; In the case of fluorescence measurement, excitation light is emitted to the light irradiation surface 113 of the cuvette 110 and emission light generated by a fluorescent material or phosphorescent material present in the cuvette 110 is measured in the light receiving measurement surface 114).
1 The limitation is directed to the function and/or the manner of operating the interrogation cell, all the structural limitations of the claim has been disclosed by Lee and the interrogation cell of Lee is capable of “providing spectroscopic information of the sample region based on the stored information collected by the detector, consistent with a collective of data suitable for deconvolution resulting in a determination of size distribution profiles in fluid samples in a manner of the analytical ultracentrifugation (AUC) assay”. As such, it is deemed that the claimed interrogation cell is not differentiated from the interrogation cell of Lee (see MPEP §2114).
Regarding claim 476, Lee teaches an interrogation cell comprising:
a source of electromagnetic radiation at a first position of the interrogation cell (Lee; Fig. 4; para [27]; a light emitting part 310; examiner notes that the light emitting part 310 is located to the left of the interrogation cell/cartridge 100 as seen in Fig. 4), the source of electromagnetic radiation configured to emit electromagnetic radiation at one or more wavelengths (Lee; Fig. 4; para [27, 37]; the light emitting part 310 may be a light emitting diode…the light emitting parts 310 may have different light wavelengths… a wavelength of 630 nm, and a second light emitting part-light receiving part pair may use light with a wavelength of 800 nm);
a sample region (Lee; Fig. 2; para [29]; the cartridge holder 210) wherein the sample region comprises a sector shape (Lee; Fig. 3, 4; the examiner notes that the cartridge holder is divided into separate sections as seen in Fig. 3 and 4, where each holder comprises its own sector) allows the electromagnetic radiation to pass through the sample region (Lee; para [33]; the light emitting part 310 and the light receiving part 320 are positioned in a direction in which centrifugal force acts on the cuvette 110, i.e., outside the rotating body 200); and
a detector at a second position of the interrogation cell (Lee; Fig. 4; para [27]; the light receiving part 320; examiner notes that the light receiving part 320 is located to the right of the interrogation cell/cartridge 100 as seen in Fig. 4), the detector configured to receive electromagnetic radiation from the sector shape (Lee; para [27, 37]; the light emitting part 310 serves to emit light to the cuvette 110, and the light receiving part 320 serves to receive light from the cuvette 110…a wavelength of 630 nm, and a second light emitting part-light receiving part pair may use light with a wavelength of 800 nm), wherein the interrogation cell is dimensioned for removably positioning in a rotor cavity of a centrifuge rotor (Lee; para [29]; The cuvette 110 may be rotatably installed in the cartridge holder 210 of the rotating body 200)).
Regarding claim 480, Lee teaches the interrogation cell of claim 458, wherein the sector shape is aligned with the centrifugal field to facilitate a balanced placement of the interrogation cell in the centrifuge rotor, thereby enabling transverse orientation of the interrogation cell relative to a plane of rotation of the centrifuge rotor (Lee; para [34]; inner walls of the cartridge holders 210 of the rotating body 200 are configured to be inclined with respect to a rotational axis of the rotating body 200 so that the cartridge 100 is loaded to be inclined towards the inside of the rotating body 200). The limitation is directed to the function and/or the manner of operating the sector shape, all the structural limitations of the claim has been disclosed by Lee and the sector shape of Lee is capable of “to facilitate a balanced placement of the interrogation cell in the centrifuge rotor, thereby enabling transverse orientation of the interrogation cell relative to a plane of rotation of the centrifuge rotor”. As such, it is deemed that the claimed sector shape is not differentiated from the sector shape of Lee (see MPEP §2114).
Regarding claim 482, Lee teaches the interrogation cell of claim 476, wherein the sector shape is aligned with the centrifugal field to facilitate a balanced placement of the interrogation cell in the centrifuge rotor, thereby enabling transverse orientation of the interrogation cell relative to a plane of rotation of the centrifuge rotor (Lee; para [34]; inner walls of the cartridge holders 210 of the rotating body 200 are configured to be inclined with respect to a rotational axis of the rotating body 200 so that the cartridge 100 is loaded to be inclined towards the inside of the rotating body 200). The limitation is directed to the function and/or the manner of operating the sector shape, all the structural limitations of the claim has been disclosed by Lee and the sector shape of Lee is capable of “to facilitate a balanced placement of the interrogation cell in the centrifuge rotor, thereby enabling transverse orientation of the interrogation cell relative to a plane of rotation of the centrifuge rotor”. As such, it is deemed that the claimed sector shape is not differentiated from the sector shape of Lee (see MPEP §2114).
Regarding claim 483, Lee teaches the interrogation cell of claim 458, wherein the sample region is disposed between a first optical access region and a second optical access region, both integrated within the cell and aligned to permit interrogation along an interrogation axis (Lee; Fig. 5; para [35]). The examiner notes that the light is emitting part 310 through waveguide optical 220 and onto the light irradiation surface. The light receiving optical waveguide 230 faces a light receiving measurement surface 114 of the cuvette 110 and directs the light to the light receiving part 320. The examiner interprets the first optical access region to be the light received at the light irradiation surface 113 and the second optical access region to be the light receiving measurement surface 114. The interrogation is along the interrogation of the cuvette
Regarding claim 484, Lee teaches the interrogation cell of claim 483, wherein the interrogation axis is parallel to an axis of rotation of the centrifuge motor (Lee; Fig. 5). The cuvette positioning may be positioned based on the light emitting part and the light receiving part. Thus, the orientation of the cuvette can be parallel to the axis of rotation as seen in Fig. 5.
Regarding claim 485, Lee teaches the interrogation cell of claim 458, further comprising at least one optical access region oriented to permit passage of electromagnetic radiation along an interrogation path (Lee; Fig. 5; para [35]).
Regarding claim 486, Lee teaches the interrogation cell of claim 485, wherein the interrogation path is substantially perpendicular to a plane of rotation of the centrifuge rotor (Lee; Fig. 5). The cuvette positioning may be positioned based on the light emitting part and the light receiving part. Thus, the orientation of the cuvette can be perpendicular to the plane of rotation as seen in Fig. 5.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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 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 462 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of Wong et al (US 20100137120 A1; hereinafter “Wong”; already of record).
Regarding claim 462, Lee teaches the interrogation cell of claim 461, with the source of electromagnetic radiation and the detector.
Lee does not teach the interrogation cell further comprising at least one component optically coupled with the source of electromagnetic radiation and the detector, the at least one component serving to condition light consistent with a collective of data suitable for deconvolution resulting in a determination of size distribution profiles in fluid samples in a manner of the analytical ultracentrifugation (AUC) assay2, the at least one component being at least one component selected from a group consisting of: at least one Fabry-Perot interferometer, one or more optical filters, one or more optical lenses, one or more mirrors, one or more optical diffusers, or one or more optical collimators, or combinations thereof.
However, Wong teaches an analogous art of a spinning force system (Wong; Abstract) comprising an interrogation cell (Wong; Fig. 1, 2A; para [53]; a sample 140) further comprising at least one component optically coupled with the source of electromagnetic radiation (Wong; Fig. 1; para [54]; light source 130 suitable for use in system 100) and the detector (Wong; Fig. 1; para [58]; Images formed by objective 150 are received by detector 160), the at least one component being at least one component selected from a group consisting of: one or more optical filters, one or more optical lenses, one or more mirrors, one or more optical diffusers (Wong; Fig. 1; para [54, 58]; Light source 130 may also include a set of optical components such as lenses, mirrors, and filters). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the interrogation cell of Lee to comprising at least one component optically coupled with the source of electromagnetic radiation and the detector as taught by Wong, because Wong teaches that the set of optical components such as lenses, mirrors, and filters control characteristics of its outgoing beam (Wong; para [54]).
2 The limitation is directed to the function and/or the manner of operating the at least one optical component, all the structural limitations of the claim has been disclosed by Lee in view of Wong and the at least one optical component of modified Lee is capable of “the at least one optical component serving to condition light consistent with a collective of data suitable for deconvolution resulting in a determination of size distribution profiles in fluid samples in a manner of the analytical ultracentrifugation (AUC) assay”. As such, it is deemed that the claimed at least one optical component is not differentiated from the at least one optical component of modified Lee (see MPEP §2114).
Claims 463-464 and 477-478 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of Kimura (US 20140063495 A1; hereinafter “Kimura”).
Regarding claim 463, Lee teaches the interrogation cell of claim 461, with the source of electromagnetic radiation and the detector.
Lee does not teach the interrogation cell further comprising at least one component optically coupled with the source of electromagnetic radiation and the detector, the at least one component comprising one or more optical collimators which comprises at least one self-collimating photonic crystal.
However, Kimura teaches an analogous art of an optical device (Kimura; Abstract) comprising at least one component optically coupled with the source of electromagnetic radiation and the detector (Kimura; Fig. 4), the at least one component comprising one or more optical collimators which comprises at least one self-collimating photonic crystal (Kimura; Fig. 4; para [42]; a polarization-preserving photonic crystal fiber 142). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the interrogation cell of Lee to comprise the self-collimating photonic crystal as taught by Kimura, because Kimura teaches that the crystal converts the incident light beam into a light beam (Kimura; para [42]). Examiner notes that optical device focus a sample focused through a pinhole (Kimura; para [7]) similar to the light receiving measurement surface of Lee.
Regarding claim 464, Lee teaches the interrogation cell of claim 461 with the source of electromagnetic radiation and the detector.
Lee does not teach the interrogation cell further comprising at least one component optically coupled with the source of electromagnetic radiation and the detector, the at least one component comprising one or more optical collimators which comprises at least one micro-Fresnel lens.
However, Kimura teaches an analogous art of an optical device (Kimura; Abstract) comprising at least one component optically coupled with the source of electromagnetic radiation and the detector (Kimura; Fig. 8), the at least one component comprising one or more optical collimators which comprises at least one micro-Fresnel lens (Kimura; Fig. 8; para [50]; a Fresnel rhomb wave plate 217). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the interrogation cell of Lee to comprise the micro-Fresnel lens as taught by Kimura, because Kimura teaches that the Fresnel rhomb wave changes the polarized light (Kimura; para [50]). Examiner notes that optical device focus a sample focused through a pinhole (Kimura; para [7]) similar to the light receiving measurement surface of Lee.
Regarding claim 477, Lee teaches the interrogation cell of claim 476.
Lee does not teach the interrogation cell further comprising a self-collimating photonic crystal.
However, Kimura teaches an analogous art of an optical device (Kimura; Abstract) comprising a self-collimating photonic crystal (Kimura; Fig. 4; para [42]; a polarization-preserving photonic crystal fiber 142). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the interrogation cell of Lee to comprise the self-collimating photonic crystal as taught by Kimura, because Kimura teaches that the crystal converts the incident light beam into a light beam (Kimura; para [42]). Examiner notes that optical device focus a sample focused through a pinhole (Kimura; para [7]) similar to the light receiving measurement surface of Lee.
Regarding claim 478, Lee teaches the interrogation cell of claim 476.
Lee does not teach the interrogation cell further comprising a micro-Fresnel lens.
However, Kimura teaches an analogous art of an optical device (Kimura; Abstract) comprising a micro-Fresnel lens (Kimura; Fig. 8; para [50]; a Fresnel rhomb wave plate 217). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the interrogation cell of Lee to comprise the micro-Fresnel lens as taught by Kimura, because Kimura teaches that the Fresnel rhomb wave changes the polarized light (Kimura; para [50]).
Claims 466-469 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of Yoo (US 20150328633 A1; hereinafter “Yoo”; already of record).
Regarding claim 466, Lee teaches the interrogation cell of claim 458, with the sample region.
Lee does not teach the interrogation cell further comprising a temperature control system configured to modify a temperature of the sample region.
However, Yoo teaches an analogous art of disk apparatus (Yoo; Abstract) comprising a temperature control system configured to modify a temperature of a sample region (Yoo; Fig. 4; para [17, 298]; the temperature controller for controlling chamber temperature of the nucleic acid amplification disk…temperature controller 302). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art by the effective filing date to have modified the interrogation cell of Lee to comprise the temperature control system as taught by Yoo, because Yoo teaches that the temperature controller controls the heats/cools the disk to change the thermochromic ink at the predetermined temperature (Yoo; para [86]).
Regarding claim 467, modified Lee teaches the interrogation cell of claim 466 (the interrogation cell of Lee is modified to further comprise the temperature control system as taught by Yoo discussed above in claim 466), wherein the temperature control system is configured to maintain the temperature of the sample region (Yoo; para [43]; the temperature controller directly controls the nucleic acid amplification chamber), wherein maintaining the temperature comprises heating the sample region, and wherein maintaining the temperature comprises cooling the sample region (Yoo; para [44]; The temperature controller directly or indirectly heats and/or cools the nucleic acid amplification chamber).
Regarding claim 468, modified Lee teaches the interrogation cell of claim 466 (the interrogation cell of Lee is modified to further comprise the temperature control system as taught by Yoo discussed above in claim 466), wherein the temperature control system comprises a temperature sensor that comprises at least one item from a group consisting of: at least one thermocouple, at least one optical sensor, at least one infrared sensor, or combinations thereof (Yoo; para [34]; optical temperature sensor for measuring the temperature of the inside of the nucleic acid amplification chamber).
Regarding claim 469, modified Lee teaches the interrogation cell of claim 466 (the interrogation cell of Lee is modified to further comprise the temperature control system as taught by Yoo discussed above in claim 466), wherein the temperature control system comprises a thermoelectric or Peltier device (Yoo; para [44]; The temperature controller directly or indirectly heats and/or cools the nucleic acid amplification chamber temperature by selecting one or more combinations of Peltier device that can heat or cool).
Claim 470-471 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of Burford et al (US 20180029047 A1; hereinafter “Burford”; already of record).
Regarding claim 470, Lee teaches the interrogation cell of claim 458, with the interrogation cell.
Lee does not teach wherein the interrogation cell comprising a power source, and wherein the power source comprises at least one battery.
However, Burford teaches an analogous art of a centrifuge (Burford; Abstract) wherein the interrogation cell comprises a power source (Burford; para [9, 10]; a power source), and wherein the power source comprises at least one battery (Burford; para [15]; battery power source). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art by the effective filing date to have modified the interrogation cell of Lee to comprise the power source as taught by Burford, because Burford teaches that the battery provides self-powering capabilities applied to a rotation sensor, fill sensor, optical sensor, or capacitance sensor (Burford; para [15, 16]).
Regarding claim 471, Lee teaches the interrogation cell of claim 470 (the interrogation cell of Lee is modified to further comprise the power source as taught by Burford discussed above in claim 470), wherein the power source comprises a recharging mechanism constructed and arranged to convert rotational energy of the interrogation cell into electrical current (Burford; para [30]; A permanent magnet 60 is also fixed to the rotor cover 24. It also passes the stationary coil 41 at each revolution of the rotor 20 and induces a current (a varying current) in the stationary circuit which is used, via the processor/rectifier, to charge the battery 43).
Claim 473 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of Heinrichs et al (US 20180304277 A1; hereinafter “Heinrichs”).
Regarding claim 473, Lee teaches the interrogation cell of claim 458, with the interrogation cell.
Lee does not teach wherein the interrogation cell comprises a power source, wherein the power source comprises at least one battery, and wherein the at least one battery is at least one voltaic cell and is driven by a radio-isotopic decay.
However, Heinrichs teaches an analogous art of a system within a centrifuge (Heinrichs; Abstract) comprising a power source, wherein the power source comprises at least one battery (Heinrichs; para [28]; an onboard battery for the detector), and wherein the at least one battery is at least one voltaic cell and is driven by a radio-isotopic decay (Heinrichs; para [94]; detectors 34 discussed herein may comprise self-powered RF-emitting wireless micro-transmitters, e.g., comprising radioisotope batteries). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the interrogation cell of Lee to comprise the power source as taught by Heinrichs, because Heinrichs teaches that the battery power the detectors (Heinrichs; para [75]).
Claim 475 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of Wong, and in further view of Hoang (US 20170065985 A1; hereinafter “Hoang”; already of record).
Regarding claim 475, Lee teaches the interrogation cell of claim 462, further comprising a light source (Lee; para [27]; light emitting part 310).
Modified Lee does not teach the interrogation cell further comprising a housing, wherein the light source, the detector, and the at least one component are co-located in the housing for removably positioning in the rotary cavity of the centrifuge rotor.
However, Hoang teaches an analogous art of instrument modules (Hoang; Abstract) comprising a housing (Hoang; para [69]; separation sampling module 3200), wherein a light source (at least one light source 3360), the detector (at least one light detector 3610), and at least one component (Hoang; para [72]; at least one mirror may be employed for redirecting light into the sample from a light source) are co-located in the housing for removably positioning in the rotary cavity of the centrifuge rotor (Hoang; para [69]; a housing 3300 operable for supporting the container for containing the sample and removably positionable within the bucket of the centrifuge). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art by the effective filing date to have modified the interrogation cell of modified Lee to comprise the housing as taught by Hoang, because Hoang teaches that the housing makes it easily receivable and removable from the centrifuge (Hoang; para [106]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 479 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim 476, respectively, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Lee in view of Burford fails to disclose “the power source comprises at least one voltaic cell, wherein the at least one voltaic cell comprises two electrodes separated by an electrolyte solution, in the form of a concentration cell, the concentration cell being aligned radially such that when subjected to a centrifugal force by the outer rotor, an electrolyte concentration difference in the electrolyte solution is induced by centrifugation, and wherein the concentration cell provides electrical power directly to the interrogation cell, and provides electrical power to a battery for recharging the battery”.
Claim 474 is allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Lee in view of Burford fails to disclose “wherein the power source comprises a recharging mechanism constructed and arranged to convert rotational energy of the interrogation cell into electrical current, and wherein the recharging mechanism comprises at least one voltaic cell, wherein the at least one voltaic cell comprises two electrodes separated by an electrolyte solution, in the form of a concentration cell, and wherein the electrical current is driven by an electrolyte concentration difference in the electrolyte solution that is induced by centrifugation”.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered, and the arguments are not found to be persuasive. The non-persuasive arguments are addressed below.
In the Applicant’s arguments, on pp 10-11, the Applicant argues Lee fails to disclose “that allows the electromagnetic radiation to pass through the sample region, the sector shape comprising an annular sector geometry defined by inner and outer radial boundaries and configured to align with a centrifugal field”. The examiner respectfully disagrees. The amended claims are not supported by the specification. Further, Lee teaches the claims as seen in Image 1 which is depicted above.
In the Applicant’s arguments, on pp 11-12, the Applicant argues Lee does not disclose an interrogation cell that is dimensioned for removably positioning in a rotor cavity of the centrifuge. The examiner respectfully disagrees. The examiner interprets the interrogation cell to be the cuvette. Lee teaches the cuvette 110 may be rotatably installed in the cartridge holder 210 of the rotating body 200 (Lee; para [29]).
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 Austin Q Le whose telephone number is (571)272-7556. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9am - 5pm.
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, Elizabeth Robinson can be reached at (571)272-7129. 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.
/A.Q.L./Examiner, Art Unit 1796
/ELIZABETH A ROBINSON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1796
Prosecution Insights