DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim 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.
Claim(s) 1-7, 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seifert et al. (U.S. PGPub No. 2008/0231854 A1) in view of Beil et al. (U.S. PGPub No. 2017/0315039 A1) further in view of Perrault, Jr. et al. (U.S. PGPub No. 2013/0334407 A1).
As to claim 1, Seifert discloses and shows in figure 5 an optical imaging system, adapted for presenting an image of a particle, the optical imaging system comprising ([0006]):
a collimated light source (via collimation optics disclosed but not shown), ([0043], ll. 1-6);
a flow channel (6), arranged on a transmission path of the beam and adapted for allowing the particle to pass through ([0037]); and
a telecentric lens (23 or 25), arranged on the transmission path of the parallel beam, wherein the parallel beam passes through the flow channel before transmitted to the telecentric lens (explicitly shown in figure 5), and the telecentric lens is adapted for converging (i.e. a focus range requires some amount of convergence) the parallel beam onto an imaging plane (surface area of detectors 19 and 20) ([0013]; [0051]),
wherein the optical imaging system does not include a holographic optical tweezer system (explicitly shown in figure 5), and
wherein the imaging plane is located at the output end of the telecentric lens (this is being interpreted as shown via the detectors (19 and 20) being directly attached to the telecentric lenses (23 and 25) ([0051]).
Seifert does not explicitly disclose where the collimated light source produces a parallel beam.
However, Beil does disclose and show in figure 7 and in ([0098], ll. 5-9) the use again a collimator lens (34) which as both explicitly disclosed and shown produces parallel light to image a sample under test.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Seifert where the collimated light source produces a parallel beam in order to provide the advantage of increased efficiency as well-known in the art providing collimated light to the sample under test reduces optical losses relative to divergent light as all the light from the source reaches the sample area under test resulting in a higher signal to noise ratio during measurement.
Seifert in view of Beil does not explicitly disclose a microfluidic chip, wherein the flow channel is arranged on the microfluidic chip.
However, Perrault Jr. does disclose and show in figure 5 and in ([0074], ll. 1-4; [0076]; [0125], ll. 5-8; [0139]) the use of a microfluidic chip, where the flow channel under processing is within said chip.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Seifert in view of Beil with a microfluidic chip, wherein the flow channel is arranged on the microfluidic chip in order to provide the advantage of increased versatility and efficiency as explicitly noted in Perrault Jr. microfluidic chips allow for processing at high speeds, and deliver particles with high yield and high purity ([0076], ll. 12-14).
As to claim 2, Seifert as modified by Beil discloses and shows in figure 7 of Beil an optical imaging system, wherein a beam angle of the parallel beam ranges from -5 degrees to 5 degrees of a central optical axis of the parallel beam (Fig. 7 explicitly shows the divergence angle as 0 thus between the range [0098], ll. 5-9, again the same motivation and modification as applied above is applied hereinwith).
As to claim 3, Seifert discloses an optical imaging system, wherein the collimated light source comprises a point light source (16) and a collimated lens (collimation optics) ([0041], ll. 1-3; [0043], ll. 1-6; where an LED is known in the art as a point light source).
As to claim 4, Seifert discloses an optical imaging system, wherein an included angle between the parallel beam and the flow channel ranges from -5 degrees to 5 degrees off 90 degrees (Fig. 5; [0034], where the angle is shown as 0 degrees off of 90).
As to claim 5, Seifert disclose an optical imaging system, wherein a portion of the flow channel irradiated by the parallel beam is located within a depth of field of the telecentric lens (i.e. area M) ([0045], ll. 1-11).
As to claim 6, Seifert in view of Beil does not explicitly disclose an optical imaging system, wherein a beam diameter of the parallel beam at the flow channel is greater than an inner diameter of the flow channel.
However, Seifert does disclose in ([0041], ll. 3-6; [0043], ll. 6-12; [0052]) what appears to be a teaching that if rectangular based flow is used, however the examiner notes that the disclosure in paragraph 43, is not particularly precise as to if the measurement zone M is the size of the flow channel or not. However the examiner further notes that in paragraph 52, it appears that Seifert discloses the channel width can vary from .7 um to 1mm. As such a beam diameter of 3 mm from the citation noted above would appear to read on the noted claim limitation. The examiner notes that in figure 2 of Seifert the channel is shown as cylindrical so the .7um-1mm would clearly be a measure of diameter. Nevertheless for compact prosecution the examiner further takes Office notice of running a beam diameter larger than that of the measurement area obviously ensures every area desired to be measured in flooded with the appropriate photons for optical measurement.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Seifert in view of Beil with an optical imaging system, wherein a beam diameter of the parallel beam at the flow channel is greater than an inner diameter of the flow channel in order to provide the advantage of increased accuracy, in obviously providing a beam larger than the measurement area (inner diameter of the flow channel) one can ensure no particles are missed during measurement vs a beam being larger than the inner diameter of the flow channel.
As to claim 7, Seifert in view of Beil does not explicitly disclose an optical imaging system, wherein a beam diameter of the parallel beam at the flow channel ranges from 10 millimeters to 80 millimeters.
However, Seifert does disclose in ([0041], ll. 3-6; [0043], ll. 8-12) the use of a beam diameter of 3 mm, in a rectangular 6-20mm. It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use a range of 10-80 mm. Since it has been held that where the general condition of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Seifert in view of Beil with an optical imaging system, wherein a beam diameter of the parallel beam at the flow channel ranges from 10 millimeters to 80 millimeters in order to provide the advantage of expected results in optimizing the beam diameter to ensure it matches that of the fluid flow under test, one can ensure the sample under test is accurately measured.
As to claim 13 Seifert discloses an optical imaging system, wherein a size of the particle ranges from 1 micrometer to 100 micrometers ([0050]).
As to claim 14, Seifert discloses an optical imaging system, wherein the optical imaging system further comprises an image sensing apparatus (cameras 19 and 20) arranged on the imaging plane ([0051]).
Claim(s) 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seifert et al. in view of Beil et al. in view of Perrault Jr. et al. further in view of Schmidt et al. (U.S. PGPub No. 2007/0146704 A1).
As to claim 8, Seifert in view of Beil further in view of Perrault Jr. does not explicitly disclose an optical imaging system, wherein an inner diameter of the flow channel ranges from 0.1 millimeter to 1 millimeter.
However, Schmidt does disclose in ([0091], ll. 14-21) that it is well-known to make the channel width inner diameter at least up to 1 mm in order to provide clogging and adhesion of particles flowing through the channel.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Seifert in view of Beil further in view of Perrault Jr. with an optical imaging system, wherein an inner diameter of the flow channel ranges from 0.1 millimeter to 1 millimeter in order to provide the advantage of increased efficiency as noted by Schmidt, producing such a common inner diameter of 1mm reduces clogging and adhesion issues.
Claim(s) 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seifert et al. in view of Beil et al. in view of Perrault Jr. et al. further in view of Wu et al. (U.S. PGPub No. 2018/0246029 A1).
As to claim 9, Seifert in view of Beil further in view of Perrault Jr. does not explicitly disclose an optical imaging system according to claim 1, wherein a distance between the collimated light source and the flow channel ranges from 100 millimeters to 500 millimeters.
However, Wu does disclose in ([0064]) where the light source can be placed a position of 100 mm from the flow channel.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Seifert in view of Beil further in view of Perrault Jr. with an optical imaging system, wherein a distance between the collimated light source and the flow channel ranges from 100 millimeters to 500 millimeters in order to provide the advantage of expected results in using one of many known source location distances one can increase versatility in the measurement systems design in allowing many locations for mounting said source while still efficiently illuminating the sample under test.
Claim(s) 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seifert et al. in view of Beil et al. in view of Perrault Jr. et al. further in view of Berner et al. (CA 2640819 A1).
As to claim 10, Seifert in view of Beil further in view of Perrault Jr. does not disclose the optical imaging system further comprising of a circular polarizer, arranged on the transmission path of the parallel beam, and the parallel beam passes through the flow channel before transmitted to the telecentric lens through the circular polarizer.
However, Berner discloses in (page 7, ll. 11-24) the basic concept of using a circular polarizer (11) to removed unwanted interference or stray light. The examiner further takes Office Notice on the basic concept of using circular polarization based rejection in optical measurement systems to remove/reduce ambient light from reaching the detector surface
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing date of the invention to modify Seifert in view of Beil further in view of Perrault Jr. with a circular polarizer, arranged on the transmission path of the parallel beam, and the parallel beam passes through the flow channel before transmitted to the telecentric lens through the circular polarizer in order to eliminate an influence of stray/interference light as described by Berner. (Page 7, Il. 11-24).
Claim(s) 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seifert et al. in view of Beil et al. in view of Perrault Jr. et al. further in view of Chen et al. (U.S. Patent No. 11,053,540 B1).
As to claims 11-12, Seifert in view of Beil further in view of Perrault Jr. does not explicitly disclose an optical imaging system, wherein the particle is mixed in fluid, and the optical imaging system further comprises a fluid pump, adapted for driving the fluid for the particle to pass through the flow channel or optical imaging system, wherein the fluid pump cooperates with the flow channel so that a flow rate of the fluid ranges from 0.3 ml/min to 3 ml/min.
However, Chen does disclose in (col 77, ll. 13-18 and ll. 42-58) the basic concept of using a pump to the sample fluid into a flow cell under test. Further that the flow rate can fall within the claimed range as one obvious design choice.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Seifert in view of Beil further in view of Perrault Jr. with an optical imaging system, wherein the particle is mixed in fluid, and the optical imaging system further comprises a fluid pump, adapted for driving the fluid for the particle to pass through the flow channel or optical imaging system, wherein the fluid pump cooperates with the flow channel so that a flow rate of the fluid ranges from 0.3 ml/min to 3 ml/min in order to provide the advantage of expected results and increased accuracy, as obviously a pump allows precise flow control as noted by Chen, further the flow rate as disclosed in one obvious choice to measure the samples under test, where obviously one having ordinary skill in the art recognizes that varying rates are used simply to ensure accurate imaging (i.e. if enough light has interacted with the particles under test or not), as such the flow rate as claimed is one obvious choice to result in accurate measurement of a particular particle size under test.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-14 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
As to applicant’s argument that Seifert cannot be adapted for use with microfluidic channels, the examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant’s argument is inconsistent with the explicit disclosure of Seifert ([0028]) which states “The apparatus according to the invention and the method according to the invention are suitable, in particular, to determine particle sizes of pourable and/or dispersible materials in the range of from 0.7 .mu.m to 3 mm.” As such the rejection is maintained as applicant’s argument is incorrect relative to the explicit disclosure of Seifert. The examiner notes for compact prosecution that even if the examiner would agree applicant’s argument was persuasive (which is not the case), Perrault Jr. could also be relied upon as a primary reference to easily teach the limitations of the instant independent claim in view of its extremely broad nature. As such even if the argument were found persuasive, the case would in no way be in condition for allowance.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL P LAPAGE whose telephone number is (571)270-3833. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8-5:30.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Tarifur Chowdhury can be reached at 571-272-2287. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Michael P LaPage/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2877