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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 28 July 2022 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because of the following:
Figure 1: Reference numeral “5” needs to be closer to the lead lines the numeral represents.
Figure 1: Reference numeral “1” appears to be representing many different structures, such as the shell containing the device, an outer portion of the sample feeding tube, and some larger tube. All of these structures are not “shells.”
Figure 1: Blank reference boxes (8-16) should also be labeled with their representative structure in order to more easily identify the structure quickly that is utilized in the invention without having to read through the specification. For example, reference box (9) should also be labeled -- Display --. See 37 C.F.R. 1.83(a) below.
1.83 Content of drawing.
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(a) The drawing in a nonprovisional application must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. However, conventional features disclosed in the description and claims, where their detailed illustration is not essential for a proper understanding of the invention, should be illustrated in the drawing in the form of a graphical drawing symbol or a labeled representation (e.g., a labeled rectangular box). In addition, tables that are included in the specification and sequences that are included in sequence listings should not be duplicated in the drawings.
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(b) When the invention consists of an improvement on an old machine the drawing must when possible exhibit, in one or more views, the improved portion itself, disconnected from the old structure, and also in another view, so much only of the old structure as will suffice to show the connection of the invention therewith.
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(c) Where the drawings in a nonprovisional application do not comply with the requirements of paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section, the examiner shall require such additional illustration within a time period of not less than two months from the date of the sending of a notice thereof. Such corrections are subject to the requirements of § 1.81(d).
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[31 FR 12923, Oct. 4, 1966; 43 FR 4015, Jan. 31, 1978; paras. (a) and (c) revised, 60 FR 20195, Apr. 25, 1995, effective June 8, 1995; para. (a) revised, 69 FR 56481, Sept. 21, 2004, effective Oct. 21, 2004; para. (a) revised, 78 FR 62368, Oct. 21, 2013, effective Dec. 18, 2013]
PLEASE NOTE THAT A REFERENCE NUMERAL IS NOT A LABEL.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Paragraph [0004], line 2: A – comma – should be inserted prior to the term “such.”
Paragraph [0004], line 3: A – comma – should be inserted after the term “like.”
Paragraph [0005], line 9: A – comma – should be inserted prior to the term “such” and after the term “temperature.”
Paragraph [0010], line 1: The article – a – should be inserted prior to the term “micro-fine.”
Paragraph [0037], line 4: The article – a – should be inserted prior to the term “high.”
Paragraph [00045], line 3: The specification references a Figure 3, but no Figure 3 exists. Figures 3a-3c are shown in this application.
Paragraph [0050], line 1: The conjunction -- and – should be inserted after the semicolon.
Paragraph [0054], line 1: Reference numeral – 1 – should be inserted after the term “shell.”
Paragraph [0054], line 2: The term – electrical – should be inserted prior to the term “circuit.”
Paragraph [0054], line 3: A – period – should replace the “semicolon.”
Paragraph [0055], line 1: The article “the” should be replaced with – The – as the first word of the paragraph should be capitalized.
Paragraph [0055], line 3: Reference numeral – 2 – should be inserted after the term “needle.”
Paragraph [0055], line 5: A -- period – should replace the comma.
Paragraph [0055], line 6: The term – After – should replace the term “after.”
Paragraph [0056], line 6: The article “a” should be corrected to read – the – as both the micro-flow pump and micro-fine metal tube have been previously disclosed.
Paragraph [0056], line 9: The article “a” should be corrected to read – the – as both the sample transportation pipeline and the micro-fine metal tube have been previously disclosed.
Paragraph [0058], line 5: When did the permanent magnet (line 2) become a plurality of magnets?
Paragraph [0059], line 2: The article “a” should be corrected to read – the – as the powder coating has previously been disclosed.
Paragraph [0060], line 3: The article “a” should be corrected to read – the – as the powder coating has previously been disclosed.
Paragraph [0063], line 2: The article – a – should be inserted prior to the term “vein”; or the term “vein” should be corrected to read – veins --; and the article – a – should be inserted prior to the term “human.”
Paragraph [0064], lines 11-15: The sentence “The guided wave excitation unit is mainly composed of a guided wave excitation unit 11… and an echo receiving unit 14” does not make sense. How does the guided wave excitation unit comprise a guided wave excitation unit? Shouldn’t the larger device be called something different than a component of the larger device?
Paragraph [0069], line 2: The numeral “3” should be spelled out as whole numerals less than ten should be spelled out given this numeral is not a measurement value.
Paragraph [0074], lines 2 and 5: Each occurrence of the numeral “10” should be spelled out as whole numerals less than ten should be spelled out given this numeral is not a measurement value.
Paragraph [0074], line 5: The abbreviation – FIGS. – should replace the abbreviation “figs.” to remain consistent with other recitations of the abbreviation.
Paragraph [0092], line 3: The numeral “1%” should be spelled out as whole numerals less than ten should be spelled, which is consistent with paragraph [0098].
Paragraph [0098], line 5: The numeral “1” should be spelled out as whole numerals less than ten should be spelled out given this numeral is not a measurement value.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Re claim 1, claim line 1: The term – configured – should be inserted prior to the term “for” to positively recite the intended use/functionality of the device.
Re claim 1, claim line 1: The article – a – should be inserted prior to the term “micro-fine.”
Re claim 1, claim line 2: The article – a – should be inserted prior to the term “torsional.”
Re claim 2, claim line 1: The term – configured – should be inserted prior to the term “for” to positively recited the intended use/functionality of the device.
Re claim 2, claim line 1: The article – a – should be inserted prior to the term “micro-fine”; and the term – tube – should be inserted after the term “metal.”
Re claim 2, claim line 2: The article – a – should be inserted prior to the term “torsional.”
Re claim 3, claim line 1: The term – configured – should be inserted prior to the term “for” to positively recited the intended use/functionality of the device.
Re claim 3, claim line 1: The article – a – should be inserted prior to the term “micro-fine.”
Re claim 3, claim line 2: The article – a – should be inserted prior to the term “torsional.”
Re claim 3, claim line 7: The phrase “the display” lacks antecedent basis.
Re claim 4, claim line 1: The term – configured – should be inserted prior to the term “for” to positively recited the intended use/functionality of the device.
Re claim 4, claim line 1: The article – a – should be inserted prior to the term “micro-fine.”
Re claim 4, claim line 2: The article – a – should be inserted prior to the term “torsional.”
Re claim 4, claim line 7: The phrase “the guided wave signal” lacks antecedent basis.
Re claim 4, claim line 9: The phrases “the guided wave” and “the received echo signal” lack antecedent basis.
Re claim 4, claim line 10: The term – configured – should be inserted prior to the term “for” to positively recite the intended use/functionality of the main control unit.
Re claim 4, claim lines 11-12: The phrase “the result” lacks antecedent basis.
Re claim 5, claim line 4: The phrase “the liquid-filled micro-fine metal tube” lacks antecedent basis.
Re claim 5, claim line 23: The conjunction – and – should be inserted after the semicolon.
Re claim 5, claim line 27: The term – configured – should be inserted prior to the term “for” to positively recite the intended use/functionality of the linear regression model.
Re claim 10, claim line 4: The phrase “the liquid-filled micro-fine metal tube” lacks antecedent basis.
Re claim 10, claim line 23: The conjunction – and – should be inserted after the semicolon.
Re claim 10, claim line 27: The term – configured – should be inserted prior to the term “for” to positively recite the intended use/functionality of the linear regression model.
Re claim 15, claim line 4: The phrase “the liquid-filled micro-fine metal tube” lacks antecedent basis.
Re claim 15, claim line 23: The conjunction – and – should be inserted after the semicolon.
Re claim 15, claim line 27: The term – configured – should be inserted prior to the term “for” to positively recite the intended use/functionality of the linear regression model.
Re claim 20, claim line 4: The phrase “the liquid-filled micro-fine metal tube” lacks antecedent basis.
Re claim 20, claim line 23: The conjunction – and – should be inserted after the semicolon.
Re claim 20, claim line 27: The term – configured – should be inserted prior to the term “for” to positively recite the intended use/functionality of the linear regression model.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 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.
Re claim 1, claim line 1: The term “rapid” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “rapid” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Specifically, it is unclear how fast or slow the detection of the blood viscosity is performed; and thus, the term “rapid” is undefined. As the metes and bounds of the term “rapid” are unknown, the term, and therefore, the claim are indefinite.
Re claim 1, claim lines 7 and 13-14: The term “micro-flow” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “micro-flow” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Specifically, it is unclear what amount of flow classifies as micro-flow as the specification fails to provide any flow parameters for this “micro-flow” pump. As the metes and bounds of the term “micro-flow” are unknown, the term, and therefore, the claim are indefinite.
Re claim 1, claim line 10: Is this “a” device shell the same device shell previously recited in line 2? The Examiner only recalls the specification disclosing one device shell in the device.
Re claim 1, claim line 21: It is unclear when the permanent magnet (line 18) became a plurality of magnets.
Re claim 3, claim line 3: Is this “a” blood sampling electrical circuit the same blood sampling electrical circuit previously recited in claim 1, claim lines 2-3? The Examiner only recalls the specification disclosing one blood sampling electrical circuit.
Re claim 4, claim line 7: Is this “a” coil the same coil previously recited in claim 1, claim line 18? The Examiner only recalls the specification disclosing one coil.
Re claim 4, claim line 7: Is this “a” permanent magnet the same magnet previously recited in claim 1, claim line 18? Moreover, when did the plurality of magnets become a single magnet?
Re claim 5, claim line 24: Is this “a” micro-fine metal tube the same micro-fine metal tube previously recited in claim 1, claim line 7? The Examiner only recalls the specification disclosing one micro-fine metal tube in the device.
Re claim 10, claim line 24: Is this “a” micro-fine metal tube the same micro-fine metal tube previously recited in claim 1, claim line 7? The Examiner only recalls the specification disclosing one micro-fine metal tube in the device.
Re claim 15, claim line 24: Is this “a” micro-fine metal tube the same micro-fine metal tube previously recited in claim 1, claim line 7? The Examiner only recalls the specification disclosing one micro-fine metal tube in the device.
Re claim 20, claim line 24: Is this “a” micro-fine metal tube the same micro-fine metal tube previously recited in claim 1, claim line 7? The Examiner only recalls the specification disclosing one micro-fine metal tube in the device.
Allowable Subject Matter
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Prior art was not relied upon to reject claims 1-20 because the prior art of record fails to teach and/or make obvious a device configured for detection of blood viscosity, comprising a blood sampling unit and the blood sampling electrical circuit are arranged on a device shell and are electrically connected to each other; the blood sampling unit comprises an external blood sampling module, an inlet of a sample feeding tube is communicated with the outside of the device shell and is used for being connected with the external blood sampling module, an outlet of the sample feeding tube is communicated with an inlet of the blood micro-flow pump through the micro-fine metal tube, an outlet of the blood micro-flow pump is communicated with an inlet of the sample discharging tube, and an outlet of the sample discharging tube is communicated with the outside of the device shell; and a magnetostrictive component arranged outside the micro-fine metal tube, the magnetostrictive component comprises a permanent magnet, a coil and a magnetostrictive powder coating, the magnetostrictive powder coating is coated on an outer surface of the micro-fine metal tube, the coil is wound outside the magnetostrictive powder coating, and the permanent magnets are symmetrically arranged on two sides outside the coil in combination with all of the remaining limitations of the claim.
The closest prior art, CN102854090, discloses a liquid viscosity coefficient detection device based on ultrasonic guided waves (claims 1 and 2, description paragraphs [0002] and [0009] through [0025], and figure 1), comprising: a metal probe rod 2, a magnetostriction sensor 3 and a comprehensive function module 7, a detection probe head being formed by a combination of the metal probe rod and magnetostriction sensor in the device; a stimulus receiving device 8 in the comprehensive function module 7 is connected to the magnetostriction sensor 3 (magnetostriction component); the stimulus receiving device 8, a temperature measurement device 9 and an infiltration depth measurement device 10 are connected to a data processing module 11, and provide received signals and necessary measurement parameters to the data processing module 11; the data processing module 11 is connected to a result display module 12, which displays a computed result and related parameters; the outside of the metal probe rod 2 successively comprises, from the inside out, an iron cobalt band 6, a plastic sleeve 5 and a coil 4; the detection device uses the magnetostriction sensor for metal probe rod excited torsional mode ultrasonic guided waves, and establishes a relationship between a guided wave energy reflection coefficient of ultrasonic guided waves which have passed through and been affected by a liquid, and a liquid viscosity coefficient, thus determining a liquid viscosity coefficient; the viscosity coefficient represents an important physical measure within the properties of a liquid, for instance, in medicine, the viscosity coefficient is used for analyzing and researching the viscosity of blood.
Claims 1-20 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
The prior art disclose various blood viscosity detection devices.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL SEAN LARKIN whose telephone number is 571-272-2198. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 AM - 5:30 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, Laura Martin can be reached at 571-272-2160. 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.
/DANIEL S LARKIN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855