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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 04/22/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed 04/22/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-7, 9-10, 12-15 and 17-23 are pending and being examined herein.
Status of Objections and Rejections
All rejections of claims 8, 11 and 16 are obviated by Applicant’s cancellation.
The objection to the claim 17 has been withdrawn in view of Applicant's amendment.
The rejection under 35 U.S.C 112(b) is being withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendment.
The rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 is being withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendment.
New grounds for rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 35 U.S.C. 103 are necessitated by Applicant’s amendments.
Claim Interpretation
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/are:
“fastening mechanism for pulling the first and second plates towards each other to deform a portion of the sample conduit…configured to provide a tunable optical path length for light passing through” in claims 1 and 21;
“fastening mechanism to deform a portion of the sample conduit” in claim 18; and
“sensing device configured to measure the optical pathlength for light as the optical pathlength varies in response to a change in a level of deformity of the sample conduit” in claim 22.
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, the corresponding structure for:
“fastening mechanism for pulling the first and second plates towards each other to deform a portion of the sample conduit…configured to provide a tunable optical path length for light passing through” in claims 1 and 21 and “fastening mechanism to deform a portion of the sample conduit” in claim 18 is a structure comprises two or more fasteners such as nuts and bolts, screws, pins and rivets, seams, crimps, snap-fits, shrink-fits (para. 0062) and equivalents thereof.
“sensing device configured to measure the optical pathlength for light as the optical pathlength varies in response to a change in a level of deformity of the sample conduit” does not have a corresponding structure. See 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and 112(b) below.
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 22 and 23 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.
Regarding claim 22, claim limitation ““sensing device configured to measure the optical pathlength for light as the optical pathlength varies in response to a change in a level of deformity of the sample conduit” wherein the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The disclosure is silent on what structure contributes to “to measure the optical pathlength for light as the optical pathlength varies in response to a change in a level of deformity of the sample conduit.” Paragraph 0059 in the specification describe the function of a sensing device, but fails to disclose any structure to perform the function. Therefore, the disclosure is devoid any structure of a “sensing device” that performs the function of the claim.
Claim 23 is rejection because of its dependency on claim 22.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 22 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 22, claim limitation ““sensing device configured to measure the optical pathlength for light as the optical pathlength varies in response to a change in a level of deformity of the sample conduit” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The disclosure is silent on what structure contributes to “to measure the optical pathlength for light as the optical pathlength varies in response to a change in a level of deformity of the sample conduit”. Paragraph 0059 in the specification describe the function of a sensing device, but fails to disclose any structure to perform the function. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Claim 23 is indefinite because of its dependency on claim 22.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1-2, 4-5, 9-10 and 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Komiyama et al. (JP2014209063).
Regarding claim 1, Komiyama teaches a device configured for monitoring nanomaterials fabricated in a microfluidic flow reactor under flowing conditions, the device comprising:
a sensor (see limitation below) coupled to a sample conduit (flexible tube 10) providing a path along which a fluid flows at a flow rate from an inlet (10a) to an outlet (10b) of the microfluidic flow reactor,
wherein the sample conduit (10) comprises a deformable material (para. 0033, flexible tube) and a substantially circular cross-section (para. 0038, close to circular),
wherein the fluid comprises a fabricated nanomaterial (the fluid is not positively recited and thus not part of the invention. Since this limitation is directed to the fluid, it does not further limit the structure of the invention),
the sensor comprising:
a sensing region comprising a first plate (clamp member 11) and an opposing second plate (clamp member 12)(Figs. 1, 2 and 4); and
a fastening mechanism (moving mechanism)(para. 0021, moving mechanism not shown, which indicating a moving mechanism is a part of the apparatus, and furthermore, a moving mechanism is required to move clamp 12) 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 (paras. 0020-0024) while the fluid is flowing through the portion of the sample conduit (para. 0028)(the moving mechanism perform the function specified in the claim, and thus an equivalent. See MPEP 2183(A)),
wherein the fastening mechanism is configured to provide a tunable optical pathlength for light passing through the fluid as the fluid flows (paras. 0021, 0024 and 28),
wherein pulling the first and second plates toward each other deforms the portion of the sample conduit such that opposed wall regions of the sample conduit at the portion are flattened and define a substantially uniform optical pathlength for light passing through the fluid as the fluid flows (para. 0024), thereby reducing light scattering through the wall of the sample conduit (the flattening of the sample conduit reduces light scattering through the wall), and
a detector (spectroscopic unit 16) coupled to the sensing region (para. 0030) that captures a spectroscopic signal from the fluid within the sample conduit while the fluid is flowing (para. 0028).
Regarding claim 2, Komiyama teaches all of the elements of the current invention as stated above with respect to claim 1. Komiyama further teaches wherein the deformed portion of the sample conduit includes substantially parallel and flat walls of the sample conduit (Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 4, Komiyama teaches all of the elements of the current invention as stated above with respect to claim 1. Komiyama further teaches wherein the detector (62) couples to the sensing region at or near the deformed portion of the sample conduit (Figs. 3 and 5 and para. 0027).
Regarding claim 5, Komiyama teaches all of the elements of the current invention as stated above with respect to claim 1. Komiyama further comprising an opening (12a) through one of the first and second plates for receiving the detector (Figs. 3 and 5 and para. 0027).
Regarding claim 9, Komiyama teaches all of the elements of the current invention as stated above with respect to claim 1. With regards to the limitation “wherein the fluid comprises a plurality of particles having an average particle size of 1 nm to 100 nm,” the fluidic is not positively recited. Since this limitation is directed to the fluid, it does not further limit the structure of the invention.
Regarding claim 10, Komiyama teaches all of the elements of the current invention as stated above with respect to claim 1. Komiyama further teaches wherein a length of the path, along which the fluid flows, is adjustable from the inlet to the outlet (flexible tube can be cut and thus length can be adjusted).
Regarding claim 13, Komiyama teaches all of the elements of the current invention as stated above with respect to claim 1. Komiyama further teaches wherein the deformed portion of the sample conduit comprises a void,
Regarding claim 14, Komiyama teaches all of the elements of the current invention as stated above with respect to claim 1. Komiyama further teaches wherein the detector (14) 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 (para. 28).
Regarding claim 15, Horiuchi teaches all of the elements of the current invention as stated above with respect to claim 1. Horiuchi teaches the device further comprising one or more of: a sample preparation element (preparation pot 26) fluidly connected to a sample inlet of the sample conduit (Fig. 2); and, a light source (light emitting element 52) configured to illuminate the sample conduit at the deformed portion (para. 0006).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 6, 22 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Komiyama et al. (JP 2014209063 A) in view of Horiuchi et al. (JP 2007322685 A).
Regarding claim 6, Komiyama teaches all of the elements of the current invention as stated above with respect to claim 1.
Komiyama further teaches the device is configured to control a force applied by the fastening mechanism to deform the portion of the sample conduit and thereby adjust the tunable optical pathlength (para. 0037).
Komiyama does not explicitly teach that a computer-controlled system that perform the above function.
However, Horiuchi teaches an apparatus for the adjusting optical pathlength by changing the distance of two plates that flattens a flexible tube. Horiuchi further teaches the apparatus further comprising a computer-controlled system (control mean 80) configured to control a force applied by the fastening mechanism to deform the portion of the sample conduit (para. 0026).
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 means of performing the recited function (controlling a force applied by the fastening mechanism to deform the portion of the sample conduit and thereby adjust the tunable optical pathlength) taught by Komiyama with a computer-controlled system as taught by Horiuchi (para. 0026) because one of ordinary skill in the art would accordingly have recognized the computer-controlled system would result in the predictable result of providing a means to controlling a force applied by the fastening mechanism to deform the portion of the sample conduit and thereby adjust the tunable optical pathlength, and simply substitution of one known element (Komiyama’s means) for another (computer controlled system) is likely to be obvious when predictable results (controlling a force applied by the fastening mechanism) are achieved (MPEP 2143)(I)(B). Furthermore, providing an automatic or mechanical means to replace a manual activity which accomplished the same result is not sufficient to distinguish over the prior art. See MPEP 2144 (III).
Regarding claim 22, modified Komiyama teaches all of the elements of the current invention as stated above with respect to claim 6.
Modified Komiyama further teaches the device comprises a computer-controlled system (Horiuchi, control means 80), but fails to teach the computer-controlled system includes a sensing device configured to measure the optical pathlength for light as the optical pathlength varies in response to a change in a level of deformity of the sample conduit.
However, Komiyama teaches a sensing device configured to measure the optical pathlength for light as the optical pathlength varies in response to a change in a level of deformity of the sample conduit and (paras. 0037- 0040) such that the optimal optical length for a sample can be set (para. 0038).
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 computer-controlled system taught by modified Komiyama to include a sensing device configured to measure the optical pathlength for light as the optical pathlength varies in response to a change in a level of deformity of the sample conduit (paras. 0037- 004) as taught by Komiyama in order to for the optimal pathlength for a sample to be determined by the computer-controlled system with a reasonable expectation of success. (Komiyama, para. 0037-0040, )(MPEP 2143)(I)(G). Furthermore, providing an automatic or mechanical means to replace a manual activity which accomplished the same result is not sufficient to distinguish over the prior art. See MPEP 2144 (III).
Regarding claim 23, modified Komiyama teaches all of the elements of the current invention as stated above with respect to claim 22. Modified Komiyama further teaches wherein the computer-controlled system is configured to adjust pressure applied by the fastening mechanism based on the measured optical pathlength (Komiyama, paras. 0037-0040).
Modified Komiyama teaches the device comprises a computer-controlled system (Horiuchi, control means 80) configured to measure the optical pathlength for light as the optical pathlength varies in response to a change in a level of deformity of the sample conduit (claim 22), but fails to teach the computer-controlled system is configured to adjust pressure applied by the fastening mechanism based on the measured optical pathlength, such that the optimal optical length for a sample can be set (para. 0038).
However, Komiyama teaches adjusting pressure applied by the fastening mechanism based on the measured optical pathlength (para. 0037-0040).
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 computer-controlled system taught by modified Komiyama to be configured to adjusting pressure applied by the fastening mechanism based on the measured optical pathlength (para. 0037-0040) to as taught by Komiyama in order to for the pathlength for a sample to be set to the optimal by the computer-controlled system with a reasonable expectation of success. (Komiyama, para. 0037-0040, )(MPEP 2143)(I)(G). Furthermore, providing an automatic or mechanical means to replace a manual activity which accomplished the same result is not sufficient to distinguish over the prior art. See MPEP 2144 (III).
Claims 1-5, 7, 9-10 and 13-15 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), 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 1, 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),
wherein the sample conduit comprises 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),
wherein the fluid comprises 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,
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, wherein pulling the first and second plates toward each other deforms the portion of the sample conduit such that opposed wall regions of the sample conduit at the portion are flattened and define a substantially uniform optical pathlength for light passing through the fluid as the fluid flows, thereby reducing light scattering through the wall of the sample conduit.
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, 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), wherein pulling the first and second plates toward each other deforms the portion of the sample conduit such that opposed wall regions of the sample conduit at the portion are flattened (Olsen, Fig. 2) and define a substantially uniform optical pathlength for light passing through the fluid as the fluid flows (col. 2, lns. 22-34), thereby reducing light scattering through the wall of the sample conduit (the flattening of the sample conduit results in reducing light scattering through the wall).
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 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 9, modified Epps teaches all of the elements of the current invention as stated above with respect to claim 1. With regards to the limitation “wherein the fluid comprises a plurality of particles having an average particle size of 1 nm to 100 nm,” the fluidic is not positively recited. Since this limitation is directed to the fluid, it does not further limit the structure of the invention.
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 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).
Claim 6 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), 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) as applied to claim 1 and further in view of Horiuchi et al. (JP 2007322685 A).
Regarding claim 6, modified Epps teaches all of the elements of the current invention as stated above with respect to claim 1.
Modified Epps teaches the device is configured to control a force applied by the fastening mechanism to deform the portion of the sample conduit and thereby adjust the tunable optical pathlength (Olsen, col. 2, lns. 22-34 and col. 5, lns. 3-15), but modified Epps does not teach it is a computer-controlled system that perform the above function.
However, Horiuchi teaches an apparatus for the adjusting optical pathlength by changing the distance of two plates that flattens a flexible tube. Horiuchi further teaches the apparatus further comprising a computer-controlled system (control mean 80) configured to control a force applied by the fastening mechanism to deform the portion of the sample conduit (para. 0026).
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 device of modified Epps to include a computer-controlled system to perform the function of controlling a force applied by the fastening mechanism to deform the portion of the sample conduit and thereby adjust the tunable optical pathlength as taught by Horiuchi (para. 0026) in order to provide control optical pathlength (Horiuchi, para. 0026 and Komiyama, para. 0037) with a reasonable expectation of success (MPEP 2143)(I)(G). Furthermore, providing an automatic or mechanical means to replace a manual activity which accomplished the same result is not sufficient to distinguish over the prior art. See MPEP 2144 (III).
Claim 17 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), 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) as applied to claim 1 and further in view of Abolhasani et al. (“Oscillatory Microprocessor for Growth and in Situ Characterization of Semiconductor Nanocrystals.” Chem. Mater. (2015) 27 (17): 6131–6138).
Regarding claim 17, 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 microfluidic flow reactor further comprises:
the sample conduit extending from a sample inlet to a sample outlet, the sample conduit being 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), each of the one or more modules comprising a fluid flow path of a predetermined length such that the sample conduit is configured to have a desired length 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);
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 to align the detector with one or more of the plurality of measurement regions (sampling ports)(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); and
Modified Epps does not teaches the flow cell further comprise a heating element thermally connected to the thermal housing and configured to control a temperature of the thermal housing.
However, Abolhasani teaches some nanocrystal reactions require elevated temperature (abstract), and teaches a device for nanocrystal reaction that requires heating (abstract). Abolhasani further teaches the device comprises a sample conduit enclosed by a thermal housing (aluminum chunk). Abolhasani further teach the thermal housing is connected to a heating element to control temperature of the reaction (p. 6132, Experimental Section, cartridge heaters embedded/connected to for heating reactor conduit).
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 thermal housing of the flow cell taught by Epps include heating element embedded within (p. 6132, Experimental Section, cartridge heaters embedded/connected to for heating reactor conduit) in order to for the apparatus to perform nanocrystal synthesis that required an elevated temperature with a reasonable expectation of success (Abolhasani, abstract and p. 6132, Experimental Section) (MPEP 2143)(I)(G).
Claim 18-20 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), 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) as applied to claim 1 and further in view of Komiyama et al. (JP 2014209063 A).
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:
flowing a fluid comprising fabricated nanomaterial (nanocrystals, abstract) through a sample conduit of the microfluidic flow reactor from an inlet to an outlet (Fig. 2), wherein the sample conduit comprises 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);
Epps teaches the sample conduit is coupled to a sensor comprising a sensing region (the region where the translational flow cell occupies) comprising a translational flow cell (Fig. 2), but 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 thus fails to pulling a first plate and an opposing second plate of a sensing region toward each other with a fastening mechanism to deform a portion of the sample conduit while the fluid is flowing through the portion, such that opposed wall regions of the sample conduit at the portion are flattened and define a substantially uniform optical pathlength for light passing through the fluid as the fluid flows, thereby reducing light scattering through the wall of the sample conduit.
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 system 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). Olsen teaches pulling a first plate and an opposing second plate of a sensing region toward each other using a stepper motor to deform a portion of the sample conduit, such that opposed wall regions of the sample conduit at the portion are flattened and define a substantially uniform optical pathlength for light passing through (col. 2, lns. 22-34 and col 5, lns. 3-15). 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 stepper motor for pulling a first plate and an opposing second plate of a sensing region toward each other using a stepper motor to deform a portion of the sample conduit such that opposed wall regions of the sample conduit at the portion are flattened and define a substantially uniform optical pathlength for light passing through to provide a tunable optical pathlength for light passing through fluid 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 method including pulling a first plate and an opposing second plate (Olsen, flattening plates) of a sensing region toward each other with a fastening mechanism (Olsen’s stepper motor modified by Kitagawa with a feed screw for each plate) to deform a portion of the sample conduit (Olsen, col. 2, lns. 22-34 and col 5, lns. 3-15) while the fluid is flowing through the portion (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), such that opposed wall regions of the sample conduit at the portion are flattened and define a substantially uniform optical pathlength for light passing through the fluid (Olsen, col. 2, lns. 22-34) as the fluid flows (see above), thereby reducing light scattering through the wall of the sample conduit (the flattening of the sample conduit results in reducing light scattering through the wall).
Modified Epps further capturing, with a detector coupled to the sensing region (Epps, p. 4042 under “Reactor Design”, photospectrometer is coupled to the translational flow cell which is in the sensing region), a spectroscopic signal from the fluid within the portion of the sample conduit while the fluid is flowing (Fig. 3; Fig. 5 shows the captured spectroscopic data).
Modified Epps fails to teach adjusting, while capturing the spectroscopic signal, a degree of deformation of the portion of the sample conduit to vary the optical pathlength for light passing through the fluid flowing through the portion.
However, Komiyama teaches a method for adjusting optical pathlength by changing the distance between two plates that flattens a flexible tube. Komiyama further teaches adjusting, while capturing the spectroscopic signal, a degree of deformation of the portion of the sample conduit to vary the optical pathlength for light passing through the fluid flowing through the portion (paras. 0037- 0040) such that the optimal optical length for a sample can be set (para. 0038).
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 method taught by Epps to include adjusting, while capturing the spectroscopic signal, a degree of deformation of the portion of the sample conduit to vary the optical pathlength for light passing through the fluid flowing through the portion (paras. 0037- 0040) as taught by Komiyama in order that the optimal optical pathlength for a sample can be set (Komiyama, para. 0038) with a reasonable expectation of success (MPEP 2143)(I)(G).
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 spectroscopic signal is captured at or near the 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 detector (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 21 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 Abolhasani et al. (“Oscillatory Microprocessor for Growth and in Situ Characterization of Semiconductor Nanocrystals.” Chem. Mater. (2015) 27 (17): 6131–6138), 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), 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).
Regarding claim 21, Epps teaches a device configured for monitoring nanomaterials fabricated in a microfluidic flow reactor under flowing conditions, the device comprising:
a sample conduit providing a path along which a fluid comprising fabricated nanomaterial flows from a sample inlet to a sample outlet (abstract), 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), each module comprising a fluid flow path of a predetermined length such that the sample conduit is configured to have a desired length 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”);
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) and comprising a plurality of measurement regions (sampling ports);
Epps teaches nanocrystals that are fabricated in room temperature (abstract) and thus does not teaches a heating element thermally connected to the thermal housing and configured to control a temperature of the thermal housing;
However, Abolhasani teaches some nanocrystal reactions require elevated temperature (abstract), and thus teaches a device for nanocrystal reaction that requires heating (abstract). Abolhasani further teaches the device comprises a sample conduit enclosed by a thermal housing (aluminum chunk). Abolhasani further teach the thermal housing is connected to a heating element to control temperature of the reaction (p. 6132, Experimental Section, cartridge heaters embedded/connected to for heating reactor conduit).
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 thermal housing of the flow cell taught by Epps include heating element embedded within (p. 6132, Experimental Section, cartridge heaters embedded/connected to for heating reactor conduit) in order to provide the apparatus with the capability to perform nanocrystal synthesis that required an elevated temperature with a reasonable expectation of success (Abolhasani, abstract and ) (MPEP 2143)(I)(G).
Epps teaches a sensor comprises a sensing region comprises a translational flow cell, and the translational flow cell is positioned at or near at least one of the plurality of measurement regions (Fig. 2).
Epps fails to teach the translational flow cell comprising a first plate and an opposing second plate; and the sensor further comprises a fastening mechanism for pulling the first plate and the second plate toward each other to deform a portion of the sample conduit and provide a tunable optical pathlength for light transmitted through fluid in the sample conduit.
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 plate and the second plate toward each other to deform a portion of the sample conduit and provide a tunable optical pathlength for light transmitted through fluid in the sample conduit (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.
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 a sensor comprises a sensing region (comprises a translational flow cell) comprising a first plate and an opposing second plate (Olsen, flattening plates); and the sensor further comprises a fastening mechanism (Olsen’s stepper motor modified by Kitagawa with a feed screw for each plate) for pulling the first plate and the second plate toward each other to deform a portion of the sample conduit and provide a tunable optical pathlength for light transmitted through fluid in the sample conduit (col. 2, lns. 22-34).
Epps teaches 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).
Epps teaches a detector 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 to sequentially align the detector with two or more of the plurality of measurement regions (sampling ports) and capture spectroscopic signals from fluid within 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).
Claim 12 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), 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) as applied to claim 1 and further in view of Fujino (JP2005221298), and further in view of Leyden (US 5036204 A).
Regarding claim 12, modified Epps teaches all of the elements of the current invention as stated above with respect to claim 1.
Epps teaches the sample conduit is made with fluorinated ethylene propylene (FEP)(a flexible, deformable polymer) and thus fails to wherein the deformed portion is substantially optically transparent to light over a wavelength range of about 250 nm to about 1100 nm.
However, Fujino teaches a variable pathlength flow cell (1) for spectrometry (abstract, Fig. 5). Fujino teaches the flow cell comprises of a sample conduit (16) and the variable pathlength is achieved by deforming a portion of the sample conduit to varying distance (Fig. 5). Fujino teaches the sample conduit is made of flexible material (para. 0026) with the deformation portion of the sample conduit comprises two opposite plates (11a, 11b).
In addition Leyden teaches a variable pathlength flow cell comprises two opposing plates (10 and 13) what are adjustably mounted and are made with quartz (col. 4, lns. 28-35 and lns. 44-45).
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 flexible sample conduit taught by Epps to comprises two plates at the deformed portion as taught by Fujino (Fujino, Fig. 5) and wherein the plates are made with quartz as taught by Leyden (Leyden para. 0032) because one of ordinary skill in the art would accordingly have recognized the deformed portion of the sample conduit made with two plates of the quartz would result in the predictable result of providing sample conduit that can be move toward each other to define a pathlength for spectrometry measurement, and simple substitution of one known element (sample conduit made with a flexible material) for another (sample conduit of flexible material with deformed portion made with quartz plates) is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see p. 8, filed 04/22/2026, with respect to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b( have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of 041/27/2026 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see pp. 9-13 , filed 04/22/2026, with respect to the rejection of claims 1 and 18 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are not persuasive.
The Applicant argues that the cited references individually or in combination do not teach the newly amended claimed features which requires “a conduit with a substantially circular cross-section whose curved wall regions are flattened in place to create a spectroscopic sensing region with a substantially uniform optical pathlength and reduced wall scattering while a detector captures a spectroscopic signal from the fluid within the conduit” (p.11, 2nd para.) In particular, the Applicant argues that Olsen does not disclose spectroscopic measurement through the flattened region and Epps teaches a fixed measurement path.
The examiner respectfully disagrees. Epps teaches a translational cell with a fixed spectroscopic measurement path as the Applicant mentioned. In view of Hoffman, a POTISA would be motivated to modify Epps’ translational cell with a variable pathlength. The teachings of Olsen discloses a method in providing a variable measurement path, which is deforming a flexible conduit with two plates. Consequently, in view of Olsen’s teaching, a POSITA is motivated to modify Epps’ translational cell to include two plates such that a variable measurement path can be achieved as explained in the 103 section. The teachings of modified Epps yield a translation cell capable of varying the measurement pathlength. Since Epps’ translation cell is for spectroscopic measurement, it will continued be used for spectroscopic measurement after the motivation. Olsen’s teaching is therefore not relied up for teach disclose spectroscopic measurement. Furthermore, as discussed in the 103 section above, modified Epps does teaches a conduit with a substantially circular cross-section (Epps, p. 4042, tubing with an outer and inner diameter) whose curved wall regions are flattened in place to create a spectroscopic sensing region (Epps, Figs. 3 and 5) with a substantially uniform optical pathlength (Olesen, Fig. 2, col. 2, lns. 22-34). As explained above, the flattening of the conduit would result in reduced wall scattering, and it is also indicated by “thereby” in the recited limitation. The examiner notes that claim 1 does not require the flattening of the conduit while a detector captures a spectroscopic signal. For claim 18 (method), an additional reference (Komiyama, et al) is relied upon for teaching the limitation “adjusting, while capturing the spectroscopic signal, a degree of deformation of the portion of the sample conduit to vary the optical pathlength for light passing through the fluid flowing through the portion ” as shown above in the 35 U.S.C. 103 section.
Therefore, this argument is unpersuasive.
Applicant’s arguments, see pp. 13-14 , filed 04/22/2026, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) has been fully considered and are not persuasive.
The Applicant argues that Olesen's stepper motor (Col. 4, lns. 53-57) as modified by Kitagawa's feed screw is not a equivalent to the fastening mechanism.
The examiner respectfully disagrees. Olesen’s stepper motor as modified by Kitagawa’s feed screw performs the function of pulling the first and second plates towards each other to deform a portion of the sample conduit and providing a tunable optical path length for light passing through (Olesen, col. 2, lns. 22-34, and col. 4., lns. 53-57), and thus is an equivalent structure (see MPEP 2138). Therefore, this argument is unpersuasive.
Applicant’s arguments, see pp. 14-15, filed 04/22/2026, with respect to the newly independent claim 21 fully considered and are not persuasive.
The Applicant argues that claim 21 is patentable because the cited references in the OA of 01/27/2026 does not teach the limitation relating to a heating element.
The examiner respectfully disagrees. With, an additional reference Abolhasani et al. (“Oscillatory Microprocessor for Growth and in Situ Characterization of Semiconductor Nanocrystals.” Chem. Mater. (2015) 27 (17): 6131–6138, modified Epps teaches the limitation relating to the heating element as discussed above. Therefore, this argument is unpersuasive.
Applicant’s arguments, see p. 15, filed 04/22/2026, with respect to the rejection of the dependent claims fully considered and are not persuasive.
The Applicant argues the dependent claims are patentable either on the basis on their dependency on the alleged patentable claim 1 or 18, or on newly added features.
The examiner respectfully disagrees. As the explained above, independent claims 1 and 18 are not patentable, and the newly added features are taught in references cited in the 35 U.S.C. 103 section above. In addition, the argument does not provide any specific supposed errors in the examiner's action. Therefore, this argument is unpersuasive.
Conclusion
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
Prosecution Insights