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 .
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claims 1 – 14 are presented for examination.
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.
The limitation “applying unit” recited in L2 of claim 1 invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) means (unit) + function (for applying). A review of the specification reveals that the corresponding structure is a laser, an LED, an argon ion (Ar) laser, a helium neon (He- Ne) laser, a dye laser, a krypton (Cr) laser, a semiconductor laser, and a solid-state laser combining a semiconductor laser and a wavelength conversion optical element as described in para. [0028]. Therefore, the limitation is interpreted as requiring: a laser, an LED, an argon ion (Ar) laser, a helium neon (He- Ne) laser, a dye laser, a krypton (Cr) laser, a semiconductor laser, and a solid-state laser combining a semiconductor laser and a wavelength conversion optical element or its equivalent.
The limitation “detection unit” recited in L4 of claim 1 invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) means (unit) + function (for detection). A review of the specification reveals that the corresponding structure is a PMT array or a photodiode array, PMTs and photodiodes are one-dimensionally arranged, CCD, CMOS as described in para. [0033]. Therefore, the limitation is interpreted as requiring a PMT array or a photodiode array, PMTs and photodiodes are one-dimensionally arranged, CCD, CMOS or its equivalent.
The limitation “excitation light detection unit” recited in L4 of claim 1 invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) means (unit) + function (excitation light detection). A review of the specification reveals that the corresponding structure is CCD camera, a CMOS camera, various types of imaging elements such as a photoelectric conversion element. Therefore, the limitation is interpreted as requiring CCD camera, a CMOS camera, various types of imaging elements such as a photoelectric conversion element or its equivalent.
The limitation “processing unit” recited in L3 of claim 3 invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) means (unit) + function (for processing). A review of the specification reveals that the corresponding structure is not present. Therefore, the claim cannot be interpreted and is indefinite.
The limitation “oscillation element” recited in L3 of claim 4 invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) means (element) + function (oscillation). A review of the specification reveals that the corresponding structure is piezoelectric as described in para. [0045]. Therefore, the limitation is interpreted as requiring a piezoelectric or its equivalent.
The limitation “isolation unit” recited in L5 of claim 4 invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) means (unit) + function (for isolation). A review of the specification reveals that the corresponding structure is not present. Therefore, the claim cannot be interpreted and is indefinite.
The limitation “excitation light calibration unit” recited in L3 of claim 10 invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) means (unit) + function (for excitation light calibration). A review of the specification reveals that the corresponding structure is not present. Therefore, the claim cannot be interpreted and is indefinite.
The limitation “abnormality detection unit” recited in L2 of claim 11 invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) means (unit) + function (for abnormality detection). A review of the specification reveals that the corresponding structure is not present. Therefore, the claim cannot be interpreted and is indefinite.
The limitation “control unit” recited in L3 of claim 12 invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) means (unit) + function (for control). A review of the specification reveals that the corresponding structure is not present. Therefore, the claim cannot be interpreted and is indefinite.
The limitation “information processing device” recited in L10 of claim 13 invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) means (device) + function (for information processing). A review of the specification reveals that the corresponding structure is not present. Therefore, the claim cannot be interpreted and is indefinite.
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 3-4, 10-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 3 recites “processing unit”, the corresponding structure is missing in the specification.
Claim 4 recites “isolation unit”, the corresponding structure is missing in the specification.
Claim 10 recites “excitation light calibration unit”, the corresponding structure is missing in the specification.
Claim 11 recites “abnormality detection unit”, the corresponding structure is missing in the specification.
Claim 12 recites “control unit”, the corresponding structure is missing in the specification.
Claim 13 recites “information processing device”, the corresponding structure is missing in the specification.
Claims 4-9 are rejected on the same basis as claim 3 for dependency reasons.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim limitation “processing unit” 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. A corresponding structure to “processing unit” is not present in the specification. 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.
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.
Claims 4-9 are rejected on the same basis as claim 3 for dependency reasons.
Claim limitation “insolation unit” 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. A corresponding structure to ”isolation unit” is not present in the specification 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.
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 limitation “excitation light calibration unit” 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. A corresponding structure to ”excitation light calibration unit” is not present in the specification. 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.
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 limitation “abnormality detection unit” 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. A corresponding structure to ”abnormality detection unit” is not present in the specification. 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.
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 limitation “control unit” 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. A corresponding structure to “control unit” is not present in the specification. 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.
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 limitation “information processing device” 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. A corresponding structure to ”information processing device” is not present in the specification. 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.
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
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 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, 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nitta et al. (US 2023/0039539 A1; pub. Feb. 9, 2023).
Regarding claim 1, Nitta et al. disclose: A particle detection device comprising:
a light applying unit (fig.1 item 20) that applies excitation light to a particle contained in fluid (para. [0048]);
a light detection unit (fig.1 item 30) that detects light emitted by application of the excitation light; and
an excitation light detection unit (fig.1 item 50) that has an imaging element that detects the excitation light applied to the particle.
Regarding claim 12, Nitta et al. disclose: a control unit (fig.1 item 5026) that controls the light applying unit in reference to excitation light intensity acquired by the excitation light detection unit.
Regarding claim 13, Nitta et al. disclose: a particle detection device that includes a light applying unit that applies excitation light to a particle contained in fluid, a light detection unit that detects light emitted by application of the excitation light, and an excitation light detection unit that has an imaging element that detects the excitation light applied to the particle; and an information processing device that has a processing unit that processes information detected with time by the excitation light detection unit (the claim is rejected on the same basis as claim 1, plus see para. [0030]).
Regarding claim 14, Nitta et al. disclose: A particle detection method comprising: a light applying step of applying excitation light to a particle contained in fluid; a light detection step of detecting light emitted by application of the excitation light; and an excitation light detection step of detecting, by using an imaging element, the excitation light applied to the particle (the claim is rejected on the same basis as claim 1).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nitta et al. (US 2023/0039539 A1; pub. Feb. 9, 2023) in view of Ortyn et al. (US 2007/0146873 A1; pub. Jun. 28, 2007).
Regarding claim 2, Nitta et al. disclose: the light applying unit is configured to apply multiple rays of excitation light having different wavelengths from different positions in a flow direction of the fluid (para. [0050]).
Nitta et al. are silent about: the excitation light detection unit detects position information associated with the multiple rays of excitation light.
In a similar field of endeavor, Ortyn et al. discloses: the excitation light detection unit detects position information associated with the multiple rays of excitation light (para. [0076]-[0077]) motivated by the benefits to better visualization of the sample (Ortyn et al. para. [0076]).
In light of the benefits for better visualization of the sample as taught by Ortyn et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Nitta et al. with the teachings of Ortyn et al.
Regarding claim 3, Nitta et al. and Ortyn et al. disclose: a processing unit that identifies an interval of the multiple rays of excitation light in reference to the position information detected by the excitation light detection unit (the claim is rejected on the same basis as claim 2).
Claims 4-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nitta et al. (US 2023/0039539 A1; pub. Feb. 9, 2023) in view of Ortyn et al. (US 2007/0146873 A1; pub. Jun. 28, 2007) and further in view of Kanda (US 2010/0297759 A1; pub. Nov. 25, 2010).
Regarding claim 4, the combined references are silent about: an oscillation element that applies oscillation to the fluid; and
an isolation unit that isolates a droplet containing the particle and formed by the oscillation, wherein
the processing unit identifies a delay time from excitation light application to the particle to formation of the droplet containing the particle in reference to the identified interval of the multiple rays of excitation light.
In a similar field of endeavor, Kanda discloses: an oscillation element that applies oscillation to the fluid (para. [0043]); and
an isolation unit that isolates a droplet containing the particle and formed by the oscillation (para. [0043]), wherein
the processing unit identifies a delay time from excitation light application to the particle to formation of the droplet containing the particle in reference to the identified interval of the multiple rays of excitation light (para. [0079]) motivated by the benefits for an improved particle sorter (Kanda para. [0009]).
In light of the benefits for an improved particle sorter as taught by Kanda, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Nitta et al. and Ortyn et al. with the teachings of Kanda.
Regarding claim 5, Nitta et al., Ortyn et al. and Kanda disclose: the processing unit determines a speed of the particle in reference to the interval of the multiple rays of excitation light and detection timing at which the particle is detected by the light detection unit, and
the processing unit identifies the delay time in reference to the speed of the particle (the claim is rejected on the same basis as claim 4, especially see para. [0076], [0084] of Kanda).
Regarding claim 6, Nitta et al., Ortyn et al. and Kanda disclose: the processing unit identifies the delay time during isolation by using a feature value identified in reference to two or more delay times calculated for two or more different particle speeds (the claim is rejected on the same basis as claim 4, especially see para. [0079] of Kanda).
Regarding claim 7, Nitta et al., Ortyn et al. and Kanda disclose: the processing unit identifies the delay time during isolation by using a feature value identified in reference to a first delay time calculated in a condition of a constant particle speed and a second delay time calculated in a condition where a particle speed difference is produced (the claim is rejected on the same basis as claim 4, especially see para. [0053]-[0054], [0061] of Kanda).
Regarding claim 8, Nitta et al., Ortyn et al. and Kanda disclose: the second delay time is a delay time calculated with use of light information from particles flowing at two or more different particle speeds in the condition where a particle speed difference is produced (the claim is rejected on the same basis as claim 7).
Regarding claim 9, Nitta et al., Ortyn et al. and Kanda disclose: the processing unit identifies the delay time during isolation by using a feature value identified in reference to two or more delay times calculated for two or more different particle speeds in a condition where a particle speed difference is produced (the claim is rejected on the same basis as claim 7).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nitta et al. (US 2023/0039539 A1; pub. Feb. 9, 2023) in view of Ortyn et al. (US 2007/0146873 A1; pub. Jun. 28, 2007) and further in Church et al. (US 2019/0209718 A1; pub. Jul. 11, 2019).
Regarding claim 10, the combined references are silent about: an excitation light calibration unit that calibrates an interval of the rays of excitation light applied to the particle.
In a similar field of endeavor, Church et al. disclose: an excitation light calibration unit that calibrates an interval of the rays of excitation light applied to the particle (para. [0017]-[0018]) motivated by the benefits for inactivating pathogen in a biological fluid (Church et al. para. [0042]).
In light of the benefits for inactivating pathogen in a biological fluid as taught by Church et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Nitta et al. and Ortyn et al. with the teachings of Church et al.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nitta et al. (US 2023/0039539 A1; pub. Feb. 9, 2023) in view of Krelboim et al. (US 2019/0346537 A1; pub. Nov. 14, 2019).
Regarding claim 11, the combined references are silent about: an abnormality detection unit that detects abnormality of the light applying unit in reference to excitation light intensity acquired by the excitation light detection unit.
In a similar field of endeavor, Krelboim et al. disclose: an abnormality detection unit that detects abnormality of the light (para. [0090]-[0091]) motivated by benefits for preventing system performance degradation (Krelboim et al. para. [0091]).
In light of the benefits for preventing system performance degradation as taught by Krelboim et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Nitta et al. with the teachings of Krelboim et al.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MAMADOU FAYE whose telephone number is (571)270-0371. The examiner can normally be reached Mon – Fri 9AM-6PM.
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, David Porta can be reached at 571-272-2444. 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.
/DAVID P PORTA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2884
/MAMADOU FAYE/Examiner, Art Unit 2884