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 Amendment filed 10/27/2025 has been entered. Claims 1-20 remain pending in the application are being examined herein.
Status of Objections and Rejections
The claim objection is being withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendment.
New grounds of objection are necessitated by the amendment.
The rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112 (b) are being withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendment.
New grounds of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) are necessitated by the amendments.
The rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 are being withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendment.
New grounds of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 are necessitated by the amendments.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 09/11/2025 is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 17 is objected to because of the following informalities:
lines 1- 8, “… wherein the microfluidic flow reactor further comprises: wherein the sample conduit… module; and” does not read properly. Please consider rearranging the order of paragraphs in the claim.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is:
“fastening mechanism for pulling the first and second plates towards each other” in claims 1 and 18.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
In this instant case,
“fastening mechanism” is being interpreted as two or more fasteners such as nuts and bolts, screws, pins and rivets, seams, crimps, snap-fits, shrink-fits and equivalents thereof. (para. 0062)
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 12 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.
Claim 12 recites the limitation “wherein the deformed portion is substantially optically transparent to light in the wavelength range of about 250 nm to about 1100 nm" in lines 2-3. It is unclear whether the limitation requires the deformed portion to be substantially optically transparent to light in any of the wavelengths within the range or all the wavelengths within the range. If the Applicant intends to include all the wavelengths within the range, then it suggested that the limitation to be amended to “over a wavelength range of about 250 nm - 1100 nm” (para. 0071). For the purpose of examination, it is being interpreted the deformed portion is substantially optically transparent to light in any of the wavelengths within the range of about 250 nm to 1100 nm.
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 (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 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.
Claims 1-7, 10 and 12-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Epps et al. (“Automated microfluidic platform for systematic studies of colloidal perovskite nanocrystals: towards continuous nano-manufacturing”, Lab Chip 2017, 17, 4040) in view of Huffman et al. (“UV-Vis Based Determination of Protein Concentration: Validating and Implementing Slope Measurements Using Variable Pathlength Technology”, BioProcess International, 12(8), September 2014, pp. 66-73), and further in view of Olesen (US 9250176 B2)(Provided in the Applicant’s IDS of 04/15/2022), and further in view of Kitagawa et al. (US 4576475 A).
The examiner notes that in the previous office Huffman was misspelled as Hoffman.
Regarding claim 1, Epps teaches a device for monitoring quality of nanomaterials fabricated in a microfluidic flow reactor (abstract), the device comprising:
Epps teaches a device configured for monitoring nanomaterials fabricated in a microfluidic flow reactor under flowing conditions (abstract), the device comprising:
a sensor (see the limitations below) coupled to a sample conduit (the tubing that extends from where the precursor 1, precursor 2 and continuous phase flow merge to the end of the reactor length) providing a path along which a fluid flows at a flow rate from an inlet to an outlet (Fig. 2C) of the microfluidic flow reactor (Fig. 2, “Reactor Design” on p. 4042),
the fluid comprising a fabricated nanomaterial (abstract, nanocrystals in liquid),
the sensor comprising:
a sensing region (the region where the translational flow cell occupies) comprising a translational flow cell, wherein a detector (fiber-coupled photospectrometer) coupled to the sensing region (“Reactor Design” on p. 4042) that captures spectroscopic signal from the fluid within the sample conduit while the fluid is flowing (Fig. 3 and captured spectroscopic signal is shown in Fig. 5).
Epps fails to teach the translational flow cell comprising a first plate and an opposing second plate; and the sensor comprises a fastening mechanism for pulling the first and second plates towards each other to deform a portion of the sample conduit to a predetermined and variably adjustable level while the fluid is flowing through the portion of the sample conduit, wherein the fastening mechanism is configured to provide a tunable optical pathlength for light passing through the fluid as the fluid flows.
However, Huffman teaches a variable pathlength technology for absorbance spectroscopy which involves employing sample cups of different pathlengths. Huffman teaches that by utilizing different pathlength, the instrument can obtain spectroscopic measurements of samples of a wider concentration range without needing sample dilution while the absorbance is still within the linear range. Huffman further teaches using a sample cup of a reduced pathlength for a concentrated sample to obtain accurate spectroscopic measurements (Huffman, pp. 66-68).
Therefore, It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Epps device to have a variable pathlength taught by Huffman in order to monitor sample spectroscopically with a wider concentration range without the need of sample dilution with a reasonable expectation of success. (Huffman, pp. 66-68) (MPEP 2143)(I)(G).
In addition, Olesen teaches a device for monitoring fluid sample flow in a microscale (col. 1, lns. 4-7 and col. 4, lns 14-20). The system comprises a sensor coupled to a sample conduit (flexible tube), the sample conduit configured for providing a path for fluid flow, the sensor comprising: a sensing region comprising a first plate (flattening element 201) and an opposing second plate (flattening elements 202); and a stepper motor (col. 4., lns. 53-57) for pulling the first and second plates towards each other to deform a portion of the sample conduit (col 2., lns. 7-21) to a predetermined and variably adjustable (col 5, lns. 3-15; a stepper motor allows for predetermined and variable adjustments), wherein the fastening mechanism is configured to provide a tunable optical pathlength for light passing through fluid (col. 2, lns. 22-34).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the translational flow cell taught by Epps to have the translational flow cell constructed with a first plate and an opposing second plate, t and a fastening mechanism for pulling the first and second plate towards each to deform a portion of the sample conduit to a predetermined and variably adjustable level in order to provide a tunable pathlength of light taught by Oleson in order to acquire UV-vis spectra in the linear range for a wider range of sample concentrations without the need of sample dilution with a reasonable expectation of success. (Huffman, pp. 66-68 and Olesen, col. 2, lns. 22-34) (MPEP 2143)(I)(G).
Furthermore, Olesen is silent in regards to how the stepper motor move the first plate and second plate upward or downward to pull them toward each other.
However, Kitagawa (US 4576475 A) teaches an apparatus for control vertical movements for contacting printing wafers with photomask. Kitagawa further teaches a feed screw 5 is rotated by the step motor 6 to move the vertically movable member 9 upwardly (or downwardly) (para. 3, Fig 1).
Therefore, It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substituted the stepper motor taught by Olesen with two step motor and two feed screws (one step and one feed screw for each plate) because one of ordinary skill in the art would accordingly have recognized the use of the step motors and the feed screws (fastening mechanism) would result in the predictable result of providing upward and downward motion for the flattening elements.
The teachings of modified Epps would yield the translational flow cell comprising a first plate and an opposing second plate (Olsen, flattening plates); and the sensor comprises a fastening mechanism (Olsen’s stepper motor modified by Kitagawa with a feed screw for each plate) for pulling the first and second plates towards each other to deform a portion of the sample conduit to a predetermined and variably adjustable level (Olsen, col. 5, lns. 3-15) while the fluid is flowing through the portion of the sample conduit (Epps teaches absorbance measurement is performed as the fluid is flowing through. The modification of the transition flow cell would be constructed such that the deforming of the sample conduit would still allow the fluid to flow through), wherein the fastening mechanism is configured to provide a tunable optical pathlength for light passing through the fluid (col. 2, lns. 22-34) as the fluid flows (as stated above the modification of the transition flow cell would be constructed such that the deforming of the sample conduit would still allow the fluid to flow through).
Regarding claim 2, modified Epps teaches all of the elements of the current invention as stated above with respect to claim 1.
Modified Epps does not explicitly teach the deformed portion of the sample conduit includes substantially parallel and flat walls of the sample conduit.
However, Olsen teaches the deformed portion of the sample conduit includes substantially parallel and flat walls of the sample conduit (Olsen, Fig. 2) in a compressed state for optical measurements (col. 6 lns. 26-47).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the deformed portion of the sample conduit taught by modified Epps to includes substantially parallel and flat walls of the sample conduit taught by Olsen (Fig. 2) in order to be in a compressed state for optical measurements with a reasonable expectation of success (Olsen, col. 6 lns. 26-47) (MPEP 2143)(I)(G).
Regarding claim 3, modified Epps teaches all of the elements of the current invention as stated above with respect to claim 1. Modified Epps further teaches at least one plate includes a groove (Olesen, positioning groove) for receiving a portion of the sample conduit and positioning the flatten tube (Olesen, col. 6, lns. 54-60, Fig. 3)
Modified Epps fails to teach that groove is of a rectangular cross-section.
However, Olesen teaches the positioning grooves can be different shapes such as ones shown in Fig. 3. Olesen further teaches the grooves in Figure 3D and 3E have cross-sections similar to rectangular.
It has been held that a mere change in shape without affecting the function of the part would have been within the level of ordinary skill in the art, In re Dailey et al. , 149 USPQ 47 (MPEP 2144.04 (IV)(B)).
Modified Epps discloses the groove except for a rectangular cross-section. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have construct a groove with a rectangular cross-section instead the shapes shown in Fig. 3D or Fig. 3E in Olesen since it has been held that a mere change in shape of an element is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art when the change in shape is no significant to the function of the combination. Further, one would have been motived to select the shape of the cross section to be rectangular for the purpose of easier to machining.
Regarding claim 4, modified Epps teaches all of the elements of the current invention as stated above with respect to claim 1. The device of claim 1, wherein the detector couples to the sensing region at or near the deformed portion of the sample conduit (Fig. 2 the detector is coupled to the translational flow cell, where the deformed portion is).
Regarding claim 5, modified Epps teaches all of the elements of the current invention as stated above with respect to claim 1. Modified Epps further teaches the device of claim 1, further comprising an opening through one of the first and second plates for receiving the detector (after the modification, the transitional flow cell comprises of two plates instead of being one single piece, but the plates continue to have ports for coupling the fiber-coupled fluorescence and absorption characterization light sources, and the fiber-coupled photospectrometer, Fig. 2A and p.4042 under “Reactor design”).
Regarding claim 6, modified Epps teaches all of the elements of the current invention as stated above with respect to claim 1. Modified Epps The device of claim 1, wherein a force applied by the fastening mechanism to deform the portion of the sample conduit is computer controlled (interpreted as an intended use. Computer is not positively recited. The fastening mechanism, which is a part of a stepper motor, can be controlled by a computer) so as to adjust the tunable optical pathlength (see claim 1).
Regarding claim 7, modified Epps teaches all of the elements of the current invention as stated above with respect to claim 6.
Modified Epps fails to explicitly teach one of the first and second plates includes two light paths and the other of the first and second plates includes a single light path.
However, modified Epps teaches the translational flow includes 3 ports, and comprises two plates. There are the options of (1) all three ports are on same plate (the first or the second plate ) or (2) two ports on one of the first and second plates and one port on the other of the first and second plates. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the options of choosing configuration in the list of finite options.
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to try each of the identified configuration options. The results would have been predictable since there are a known limited number of configuration options as listed above. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select two ports on one of the first and second plates and one port on the other of the first and second plates from the finite number of identified configuration options with a reasonable expectation of success (MPEP 2143(I)(E)).
The teachings of modified Epps would yield one of the first and second plates includes two light paths and the other of the first and second plates includes a single light path because each of the port is either connected to a light source or connected to the photospectrometer (Epps, p. 4042, under “Reactor design”).
Regarding claim 10, modified Epps teaches all of the elements of the current invention as stated above with respect to claim 1. Epps further teaches, wherein a length of the path, along with the fluid flows is adjustable (Epps, Abstract, microreactor with an adjustable length, p. 4042 under Reactor Design teaches Teflon tubing is adjustable length.).
Regarding claim 12, modified Epps teaches all of the elements of the current invention as stated above with respect to claim 1. Modified Epps further teaches wherein the deformed portion is substantially optically transparent to light in the wavelength range of about 250 nm to 1100 nm (Epps shows LED at 365nm penetrating tubing at Fig. 3. See 35 U.S.C. 112 (b) above.).
Regarding claim 13, modified Epps teaches all of the elements of the current invention as stated above with respect to claim 1.
Modified Epps does not explicitly teach the deformed portion of the sample conduit comprises a void, a window comprising a substantially optically transparent material, or a combination thereof.
However, Olsen teaches the deformed portion of the sample conduit comprises a window comprising a substantially optically transparent material to allow light pass through the material for optical measurements (col. 2, lns. 51-55 and col. 6 lns 26-47).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the deformed portion of the sample conduit taught by modified Epps to includes substantially parallel and flat walls of the sample conduit taught by Olsen (Fig. 2) in order to be in a compressed state for optical measurements with a reasonable expectation of success (Olsen, col. 2, lns. 51-55 and col. 6 lns 26-47) (MPEP 2143)(I)(G).
Regarding claim 14, modified Epps teaches all of the elements of the current invention as stated above with respect to claim 1. Modified Epps further teaches the device of claim 1, wherein the detector comprises a spectrometer, wherein the spectrometer comprises: a Raman spectrometer, a UV-vis absorption spectrometer, an IR absorption spectrometer, a fluorescence spectrometer, or combinations thereof (Epps, p. 4042 under “Reactor design,” photospectrometer, which is a UV-vis absorption spectrometer).
Regarding claim 15, modified Epps teaches all of the elements of the current invention as stated above with respect to claim 1. Modified Epps further teaches the device of claim 1, further comprising one or more of: a sample preparation element fluidly connected to a sample inlet of the sample conduit (Epps, Figs. 2A, C)(the inlet of the sample conduit is where precursor 1, precursor2 and continuous flow merge.); and, a light source (Epps, p. 4042 under “Reactor Design”, the fluorescence light source or the absorption characterization light) configured to illuminate the sample conduit at the deformed portion (Epps, the light sources are connected to the translational flow cell where the sample conduit would be deformed in modified Epps).
Regarding claim 16, modified Epps teaches the device of claim 1. Modified Epps further teaches wherein the flow rate of the fluid flow is from 0.1 mL/ min to 25,000 mL/min. (Epps, “Reactor design”, avg. fluid velocity of 0.6 mm/s – 13 cm/s in a 0.04” ID tube, which yield a volumetric flow rate of ~30 – 6300 mL/ min).
Regarding claim 17, modified Epps teaches all of the elements of the current invention as stated above with respect to claim 1. Modified Epps teaches the device of claim 1, wherein the microfluidic flow reactor further comprises:
wherein the sample conduit is formed from one or more modules (Fig. 2, the sample conduit inlet is where the precursor 1, precursor and continuous phase merge as shown in 2A and 2C. The sample conduit continues through the flow cell and into the modular reactor extension), wherein each of the one or more modules comprises a fluid flow path of a predetermined length such that the sample conduit providing the path for fluid flow of a desired length can be assembled by fluidly connecting one or more of the modules (Fig. 2A and p. 4043 under “Reactor design”, “with the reactor extension modules, samples can be taken from 3 to 196 cm of microreactor length”); and
a thermal housing (“thermal” is interpreted as an intended use. Fig. 2 and p. 4042 under “Reactor design”, sampling track is made of aluminum) enclosing the sample conduit (Fig. 2, sample track encloses the sample conduit), wherein the thermal housing comprises a plurality of measurement regions (sampling ports); and a motorized stage (translational stage) translatable along the thermal housing from a first location to a second location (interpreted as an intended use. Fig. 2 and pp.4042- 4043 under “Reactor design”, translational stage automatically positions the flow cell along each of the 20 sampling ports of the flow cell track), wherein the detector is coupled to the motorized stage (pp. 4042 under “Reactor design”) such that the motorized stage is configured to translate the detector along the thermal housing aligning the detector with one or more of the deformed portions of the sample conduit (Fig. 2 and pp.4042- 4043 under “Reactor design”, translational stage automatically positions the flow cell, which is coupled to the detector, along each of the 20 sampling ports, where the sample tube can deformed by the flow cell which comprises the first plate and the second plate).
Regarding claim 18, Epps teaches a method of monitoring quality of nanomaterials fabricated in a microfluidic flow reactor under flowing conditions using a device (Abstract), the method comprising:
providing the device comprising a sensor coupled to a sample conduit (the tubing that extends from where the precursor 1, precursor 2, continuous phase flow merge to the end of the reactor length) of a microfluidic flow reactor (Fig. 2 and Abstract), the sample conduit configured for providing a path along which fluid flows at a flow rate from an inlet to an outlet, wherein the fluid comprises fabricated nanomaterial (Abstract teaches the microreactor is tubular microreactor for nanocrystals),
the sensor comprising a sensing region (the region where the translational flow cell occupies) comprising a translational flow cell (Fig. 2)
providing a detector coupled to the sensing region (p. 4042 under “Reactor Design”, photospectrometer is coupled to the translational flow cell which is in the sensing region) for capturing a spectroscopic signal from the fluid within the sample conduit while the fluid is flowing (Fig. 3).
capturing a spectroscopic signal from the sample conduit (Fig. 3; Fig. 5 shows the captured spectroscopic data).
Epps fails to teach the translational flow cell comprising a first plate and an opposing second plate; and the sensor comprises a fastening mechanism for pulling the first and second plates towards each other to deform a portion of the sample conduit and wherein the fastening mechanism is configured to provide a tunable optical pathlength for light passing through the fluid as the fluid flows. Consequently, Epps fails to teaches adjusting, while capturing the spectroscopic signal from the fluid within the portion of the sample conduit, a degree of deformation of the portion of the sample conduit to vary the tunable optical pathlength for light passing through the fluid flowing along the path.
However, Huffman teaches a variable pathlength technology for absorbance spectroscopy which involves employing sample cups of different pathlengths. Huffman teaches that by utilizing different pathlength, the instrument can obtain spectroscopic measurements of samples of a wider concentration range without the need of sample dilution while the absorbance is still within the linear range. Huffman further teaches using a sample cup of a reduced pathlength for a concentrated sample to obtain accurate spectroscopic measurements (Huffman, pp. 66-68).
Therefore, It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Epps device to have a variable pathlength taught by Huffman in order to monitor sample spectroscopically with a wider range of concentration without the need to sample dilution with a reasonable expectation of success. (Huffman, pp. 66-68) (MPEP 2143)(I)(G).
In addition, Olesen teaches a device for monitoring fluid sample flow in a microscale (col. 1, lns. 4-7 and col. 4, lns 14-20). The system comprises a sensor coupled to a sample conduit (flexible tube), the sample conduit configured for providing a path for fluid flow, the sensor comprising: a sensing region comprising a first plate (flattening element 201) and an opposing second plate (flattening elements 202); and a stepper motor (col. 4., lns. 53-57) for pulling the first and second plates towards each other to deform a portion of the sample conduit (col 2., lns. 7-21) to a predetermined and variably adjustable (col. 5, lns. 3-15 ), wherein the fastening mechanism is configured to provide a tunable optical pathlength for light passing through fluid (col. 2, lns. 22-34).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the translational flow cell taught by Epps to have the translational flow cell constructed with a first plate and an opposing second plate, and a fastening mechanism for pulling the first and second plate towards each to deform a portion of the sample conduit to a predetermined and variably adjustable level in order to provide a tunable pathlength of light taught by Oleson in order to acquire UV-vis spectra in the linear range for a wider range of sample concentrations without the need of sample dilution with a reasonable expectation of success. (Huffman, pp. 66-68 and Olesen, col. 2, lns. 22-34) (MPEP 2143)(I)(G).
Furthermore, Olesen is silent in regards to how the stepper motor move the first plate and second plate upward or downward to pull them toward each other.
Furthermore, Olesen is silent in regards to how the stepper motor move the first plate and second plate upward or downward to pull them toward each other.
However, Kitagawa (US 4576475 A) teaches an apparatus for control vertical movements for contacting printing wafers with photomask. Kitagawa further teaches a feed screw 5 is rotated by the step motor 6 to move the vertically movable member 9 upwardly (or downwardly) (para. 3, Fig 1).
Therefore, It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substituted the stepper motor taught by Olesen with two step motor and two feed screws (one step and one feed screw for each plate) because one of ordinary skill in the art would accordingly have recognized the use of the step motors and the feed screws (fastening mechanism) would result in the predictable result of providing upward and downward motion for the flattening elements.
The teachings of modified Epps would yield the translational flow cell comprising a first plate and an opposing second plate (Olsen, flattening plates); and the sensor comprises a fastening mechanism (Olsen’s stepper motor modified by Kitagawa with a feed screw for each plate) for pulling the first and second plates towards each other to deform a portion of the sample conduit to a predetermined and variably adjustable level (Olsen, col. 5, lns. 3-15) while the fluid is flowing through the portion of the sample conduit (Epps teaches absorbance measurement is performed as the fluid is flowing through. The modification of the transition flow cell would be constructed such that the deforming of the sample conduit would still allow the fluid to flow through), wherein the fastening mechanism is configured to provide a tunable optical pathlength for light passing through the fluid (col. 2, lns. 22-34) as the fluid flows (as stated above the modification of the transition flow cell would be constructed such that the deforming of the sample conduit would still allow the fluid to flow through), and adjusting, while capturing the spectroscopic signal from the fluid within the portion of the sample conduit, a degree of deformation of the portion of the sample conduit to vary the tunable optical pathlength for light passing through the fluid flowing along the path (modified Epps, with the Olsen’s stepper motor would deform sample conduit at a predetermined and variable adjustable level as Epps’ photospectrometer captures spectroscopic signal).
Regarding claim 19, modified Epps teaches all of the elements of the current invention as stated above with respect to claim 18. Epps further teaches the method of claim 18, wherein the signal is captured at or near the deformed portion of the sample conduit (Epps, Fig. 2, the sensor region, where the sample conduit is deformed by the first plate and second plate is where the detector captured a signal).
Regarding claim 20, modified Epps teaches all of the elements of the current invention as stated above with respect to claim 19. Modified Epps further teaches wherein the method further comprises: sending the captured signal to a server in electronic communication with the device (Epps, p. 4042 under “Reactor Design” teaches using LabView script to control light sources and the spectrometer. LabView has to run by a computer. Figs. 5-6 shows captured spectroscopic signals).
Claim 8 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Epps et al. (“Automated microfluidic platform for systematic studies of colloidal perovskite nanocrystals: towards continuous nano-manufacturing”, Lab Chip 2017, 17, 4040) in view of Huffman et al. (“UV-Vis Based Determination of Protein Concentration: Validating and Implementing Slope Measurements Using Variable Pathlength Technology”, BioProcess International, 12(8), September 2014, pp. 66-73), and further in view of Olesen (US 9250176 B2)(Provided in the Applicant’s IDS of 04/15/2022), and further in view of Kitagawa et al. (US 4576475 A) as evidenced by Mariaulle et al. (US 20040265773 A1).
Regarding claim 8, modified Epps teaches all of the elements of the current invention as stated above with respect to claim 1. Modified Epps the deforming of the portion of the sample conduit is one or more of tunable and reversible (Epps, p. 4042 under “Reactor Design” teaches sample conduit is made of fluorinated ethylene propylene FEP. Mariaulle, para. 0019 and 0028 teaches FEP is elastic, and thus the deforming of the portion the sample conduit is reversible).
Regarding claim 11, modified Epps teaches all of the elements of the current invention as stated above with respect to claim 1. Modified Epps further teaches wherein the sample conduit comprises one or more of a deformable material (Epps, p. 4042 under “Reactor Design” teaches sample conduit is made of fluorinated ethylene propylene FEP. Mariaulle, para. 0019 and 0028 teaches FEP is elastic, and thus deformable), and a substantially circular cross-section (Epps, p. 4042 under “Reactor Design” teaches sample conduit is a FEP tubing with an outer and an inner diameter, demonstrating that the tubing has a substantially circular cross-section). ).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Epps et al. (“Automated microfluidic platform for systematic studies of colloidal perovskite nanocrystals: towards continuous nano-manufacturing”, Lab Chip 2017, 17, 4040) in view of Huffman et al. (“UV-Vis Based Determination of Protein Concentration: Validating and Implementing Slope Measurements Using Variable Pathlength Technology”, BioProcess International, 12(8), September 2014, pp. 66-73), and further in view of Olesen (US 9250176 B2)(Provided in the Applicant’s IDS of 04/15/2022), and further in view of Kitagawa et al. (US 4576475 A), and further in view of Smith et al. (“Semiconductor Nanocrystals: Structure, Properties, and Band Gap Engineering”, Acc Chem Res. 2010 Feb 16;43(2):190–200).
Regarding claim 9, modified Epps teaches all of the elements of the current invention as stated above with respect to claim 1. Epps further teaches the device of claim 1, wherein the fluid comprises a plurality of particles.
Epps does not explicitly teach the plurality of the particles having an average particle size of 1 nm to 100 nm.
However, Smith teaches semiconductor nanocrystals are tiny crystalline particles that exhibit size-dependent optical and electronic properties with typical dimensions in the range of 1-100 nm (Introduction on p.1)
Therefore, It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the dimensions of nanocrystals taught Epps to have dimensions in the range of 1-100 nm as shown by Smith (Introduction on p.1) because one of ordinary skill in the art would accordingly have recognized the nanocrystals with dimensions in the range of 1-100 nm would result in the predictable result of providing nanocrystals.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pp. 7-13, filed 10/27/2025, with respect to the rejections under 103 have been fully considered and are not persuasive.
In the argument under “All The References Not Taught or Suggested,” the Applicant argues that Epps, Huffman, Olesen, Kitagawa, Smith, or their combination fail to teach or suggest the newly-amended limitations of Claims 1 and 18, nor would their combination have rendered the claimed device obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. In particular, the Applicant argues Olsen does not disclose or suggest the movement of the pair of flattening element occurs while fluid is flowing or that the amount of compression is quantitatively adjustable or predetermined. The Applicant further argues that “Olesen's flattening elements are also not described as controlling an optical pathlength, nor does the reference disclose any spectroscopic measurement through the compressed region.” Furthermore, the Applicant argues that Huffman’s system is a static cell and does not alter the a physical conduit operate under flow condition, and Epps employs a translational flow cell with a fixed optical spacing, and none of the other references provides a fastening mechanism which deforms a tube while in use or configured to provide a tunable optical pathlength while the fluid is flowing.
The examiner respectfully disagrees. As states by the Applicant, Epps employ a translational flow cell with a fixed optical spacing. In fact, Epps’s translation flow cell is coupled to a photospectrometer that captures spectroscopic signal from the fluid within the sample conduit while the fluid is flowing (Epps, Fig. 3 and captured spectroscopic signal is shown in Fig. 5). Therefore, the missing features from Epps’ teaching is the transitional cell comprising a first plate and an opposing second plate and a fastening mechanism for pulling the first and second plates towards each other to deform a portion of the sample conduit to a predetermined and variably adjustable level to provide a tunable optical pathlength.
However, Huffman teaches the benefit and motivation of providing different pathlengths for spectroscopic measurements of samples in order to accommodate for a wider concentration range without the need of sample dilution. (Huffman, pp. 66-68). As such, a POSITA would be motivated to find ways to modify Epp’s translation flow cell to provide different pathlengths. Since Olsen teaches a device that provide a tunable pathlength capturing optical signal (images) in a flow system, a POSITA would be motivated to modify Epps’ transition flow cell with the structure taught by Olsen to provide different pathlengths.
As mentioned by the Applicant, Olesen describes a pair of "flattening elements" that may be moved relative to one another to compress a tube which is the sample conduit. However, in contrary to Applicant’s remarks, Olsen does teach the level of compression as the pair of flattening elements as they moved toward each other by a stepper motor (Olsen, col. 4., lns. 53-57) is predetermined and variably adjustable (Olsen, col. 5 lns. 3-15, distance between plates adjusted based on the content of the sample, e.g. palettes vs. white blood cells. The examiner also notes that “quantitatively adjustable“ is not required by the claims nor was it disclosed in the original disclosure). A stepper motor is also structured to move objects to a predetermined and variably adjustable level.
Since Olsen’s teachings is relied upon for the structure that would provide different pathlength, it is unnecessary that Olsen teaches the movement of the pair of flattening element occurs while fluid is flowing, or any spectroscopic measurement is obtained through the compressed region. Epps has already provided teachings on those limitations. Modifying Epps with Olsen, a POSITA would continue to perform spectroscopic measurement with photospectrometer in Epps’ system, and measurements will still be taken while the sample flows. Therefore, in combination, Epps, Huffman, Olesen and Kitagawa does teach the limitations of claims 1 and 18 as discussed in this section and the 35 U.S.C. 103 section. Therefore this argument is unpersuasive.
In the argument under “Lack of Motivation and Reasonable Expectation of Success, ” the Applicant argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art would not be motivated to combine the cited references as suggested due to a lack of a reasonable expectation of success. In particular, the Applicant argues that “Epps already achieves consistent, in-flow spectroscopic accuracy through instrumental and computational calibration, not by mechanical adjustment,” and thus a deformable region would be redundant. The Applicant further argues that “A POSITA attempting to implement the features of Hoffman, Olesen, or Kitagawa into the continuous-flow reactor of Epps would face a host of unpredictable engineering and scientific challenge ” for the reasons that Epps explicitly maintains a fixed, rigid and precise geometry, and a deformable region would undermine the ability to having reproducible alignment, maintaining a steady-state and laminar flow and stable residence time, controlling light scattering, and thus a deformable region would cause issues with data normalization/calibration and nanocrystal growth. The Applicant further argues that a POSTIA would have no reasonable expectation of success in modifying Epps's microfluidic flow reactor because the teachings of the cited reference are in static or macro-scale context. In addition, the Applicant argues that Epps system is fabricated from rigid fluoropolymer or glass precisely to ensure fluid tightness and chemical compatibility under pressure. Converting those channels into deformable sections would require an entirely different construction approach, risking leaks, delamination, or contamination of the reaction stream.
The examiner respectfully disagrees. With regards to Epps has already achieved consistent calibration by computer means, and thus having a deformable region would be redundant, the motivation to having a deformable region is to provide variable pathlengths for accommodating a wider concentration range of samples without the need of sample dilution. It would be beneficial to having both consistent results and the ability to accommodate a wider concentration range of samples. With regards to Epps explicitly maintains a fixed, rigid and precise geometry, this statement is speculative. In fact, Epps uses off-the-shelf Teflon tubing (Microsolv, fluorinated ethylene propylene (FEP), which is deformable and thus not rigid. Furthermore, Epps teaches also adjustable microreactor length, which is indicates flexibility instead of rigidity. Regarding a deformable region would undermine the ability to having reproducible alignment, maintaining a steady-state and laminar flow and stable residence time, controlling light scattering, this is also speculative. Reproducible alignment can be achieved by employing a consistent mechanism in performing the deformation of the sample conduit. Maintaining a steady-state and laminar flow and stable residence time, controlling light scattering depends also on flow velocity and the speed the fastening mechanism alters the spacing between the plate. Both parameters can be optimized, and a POSITA would be motivated through routine optimization to find to find the optimal flow velocity and speed of alternating spacing by the fastening mechanism. Regarding to the argument that the cited reference are in static or macro-scale context and thus a POSTIA would have no reasonable expectation of success in modifying Epps's microfluidic flow reactor, this is inaccurate. Huffman’s teaching that absorbance value is dependent on pathlength applies to both static and flow systems, as well as the sample volumes in Epps and Huffman’s teachings. Olsen’s device is designed for handling samples that micro-liter volume (col. 1, lns. 4-7) containing micron-size blood cells (col. 5, lns. 3-15), and thus is microfluidic in context. With regards to Epps’s system being fabricated from rigid fluoropolymer or glass to ensure fluid tightness and chemical compatibility under pressure, which would be compromised by deformable sections, Epps, Epps uses fluorinated ethylene propylene (FEP) tubing (“Reactor design”), which is deformable, and thus compatible with forming deformable sections. Therefore, the arguments are unpersuasive.
The Applicant argues that “the Applicant's system produces an unexpected technical effect” and that the “unexpected stability and precision further support the non-obviousness of the claimed invention.”
The examiner respectfully disagrees. Overcoming a §103 rejection based on unexpected results requires the combination of three different elements: the results must fairly compare with the prior art, the claims must be commensurate in scope and the results must truly be unexpected. (See MPEP §716.02) Applicant' s showing of allegedly unexpected results does not satisfy these requirements. Arguments presented by the applicant cannot take the place of evidence in the record. In re Schulze, 346 F.2d 600, 602, 145 USPQ 716, 718 (CCPA 1965) and In re De Blauwe, 736 F.2d 699, 705, 222 USPQ 191, 196 (Fed. Cir. 1984). Examples of statements which are not evidence and which must be supported by an appropriate affidavit or declaration include statements regarding unexpected results, commercial success, solution of a long-felt need, inoperability of the prior art, invention before the date of the reference, and allegations that the author(s) of the prior art derived the disclosed subject matter from the inventor or at least one joint inventor. Therefore this argument is unpersuasive.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Fujino et al. (JP2005221298A) teaches absorbance analyzer for semiconductor manufacturing comprising flow cell (1) comprising a first plate (11a) and an opposing second plate (11b); and the sensor comprises a optical path length changing mechanism (13)(abstract) for pushing the first and second plates towards each other to deform a portion of the sample conduit to a predetermined and variably adjustable level (paras. 0006-0007) while the fluid is flowing through the portion of the sample conduit (para. 0008), wherein the fastening mechanism is configured to provide a tunable optical pathlength for light passing through the fluid as the fluid flows (paras. 0007-0008). Leyden et al. (US 5036204 A) an apparatus for continuous concentration monitor of a flow stream using absorbance. The apparatus includes quartz plate 13 and quartz plate 10 defines a path length and is adjustable. Choat et al. ("Variable Path Length Flow-Through Cell for Spectrophotometry Analytical Chemistry", vol. 58, 1986, pp. 2570-2571) teaches a variable pathlength flow cell for spectrophotometry.
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 MAY CHIU whose telephone number is (571)272-1054. The examiner can normally be reached 9 am - 5 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, Maris Kessel can be reached at 571-270-7698. 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.
/M.L.C./Examiner, Art Unit 1758
/MARIS R KESSEL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1758