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 .
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: On page 12, line 3 the optical diffuser given the identification number “30” instead of the identification number “130” as it has been given in the rest of the application.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
Regarding at least claim 1, the claim recites the limitation “greater than about 50%” where “about” is generally an indefinite term of degree. Examiner notes that an explicit definition of “about” is provided in the disclosure as being within 10% of the specified value — in this case within 10% being greater than 80% (applicant’s specification page 14, line 32 – page 15, line 5), and is therefore not indefinite. This also applies to the appearances of “about” in claim 7.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 16 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 16, the term “substantially” in “substantially fill the elongated chamber” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially” 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. Neither the claim nor the specification provides an explicit description of the degree to which the chamber must be filled in order to qualify as being “substantially fill the elongated chamber.” Examiner notes the explicit definitions of “substantially equal’, “substantially parallel’, and “substantially aligned”, however the specification does not provide a corresponding explicit definition of “substantially fill the elongated chamber”. Examiner will interpret the claim such that the chamber being at least 80% full will read on the claim, consistent with the explicit definitions given for “substantially aligned’.
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.
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.
Claim 1, 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Monk, et. al. (US 6199257 B1).
Regarding claim 1, Monk teaches a flow cell with an internal passage that reflects light (Abstract) (for examining an optical characteristic of a test material at at least a first wavelength). Monk teaches a flow cell 10 within housing 12 comprising inner walls 14 extending a length to create a flow passage 16 that is longer than it is wider and accommodates a sample (Fig. 1; col. 4, lines 36-55) (an elongated hollow structure elongated along a length thereof and comprising one or more walls extending along the length of the hollow structure and defining an elongated chamber therebetween configured to receive the test material). Flow cell 10 further comprises transparent windows 26, 28 (Fig. 1) (the elongated hollow structure comprising at least a first light opening). The inner wall 14 of the flow cell 10 is coated in a material 30 that internally reflects at least 80% of the incident light (Fig. 1, 3; col. 5, lines 9-20) (such that for the at least the first wavelength, the one or more walls have an optical reflectance of greater than about 50%). Monk teaches the transparent windows 26, 28 are made of a highly transparent material such as fused silica that have high optical transmittance due to their transparency (col. 4, lines 63-66) (at least one of the at least the first light opening has an optical transmittance of greater than about 50% for at least one incident angle).
Monk is silent to incident angles of up to at least 40 degrees.
As seen in Figure 3, the reflected light within flow cell passage 16 is depicted as greater than 40 degrees; however, Monk does not specify a specific degree. Monk teaches the angle (incident half angles of light) that is directed into the first transparent window 26 is selected maximize the light that enters the flow cell 10 and be reflected from material 30 along inner walls 14 making the incident angles of the reflected light is a result-effective variable (Fig. 3; col. 5, line 57 - col. 6, lines 17). Since this particular parameter is recognized as a result-effective variable (i.e. a variable which achieves a recognized result), the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable can be characterized as routine experimentation. See MPEP 2144.05 (II)(A). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the angle of the initial light beam to create incident angles of up to at least 40 degrees.
Regarding claim 16, Monk teaches the sample being analyzed is a liquid phase sample (col. 2, lines 58-59) and when considering the zig-zag configuration of the flow cell, the liquid sample must entirely fill the flow passage 16 to move from the inlet 18 to the outlet 20 (Fig. 1) (wherein the test material comprises a liquid test material configured to substantially fill the elongated chamber). Examiner notes the limitation of the claim is with respect to an article worked upon and does not further limit an apparatus claim. MPEP 2115.
Regarding claim 17, while Monk does not specifically disclose the analysis of a solid sample subject, if the flow cell is capable of holding a liquid (col. 2, lines 58-59) the flow cell is also capable of holding a sample wherein the test material is a solid test material configured to be disposed along at least 50% of the length of the elongated chamber. Examiner notes the limitation of the claim is with respect to an article worked upon and does not further limit an apparatus claim. MPEP 2115.
Regarding claim 18, Monk teaches the flow cell 10 has a second end 24 wherein a transparent window 28 is located (Fig. 1) (wherein the at least the first light opening is disposed proximate a first end of the one or more walls).
Claims 2-5 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Monk, et. al. (US 6199257 B1) in view of Shen, et. al. (US 20090051901 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Monk teaches the limitations as applied to claim 1 (see above). Monk teaches the flow cell is paired with a separation technique, like HPLC (col. 1, lines 10-30), and is comprised of flow passage 16 encompassed by transparent windows to be used with an optical-based detector (col. 5, lines 1-8) like a paired light absorption detector (col. 1, lines 10-30). Monk further teaches since the goal of flow cell 10 is to allow light to pass through the sample, lengthening flow passage 16, such as through curves or bends increases the sensitivity of the detector (col. 5, lines 21-30). It is understood by those of ordinary skill in the art if a flow path is not linear from light source to light detector, the flow path must be made of a material that will reflect the light beam to change direction in order for the light beam to move from the source, through the non-linear path containing the sample, and finally to the detector.
Monk is silent to the one or more walls comprise a metal layer extending along the length of the hollow structure.
Shen teaches microfluidic optical chambers for spectroscopic detection (Abstract). Shen teaches an elongated optical chamber 118 wherein the walls of the chamber 118 have a reflective coating 106 (Fig. 1). Shen teaches reflective coating can be a metal like aluminum, gold, or silver (par. 0044) (wherein the one or more walls comprise a metal layer extending along the length of the hollow structure). Shen teaches the reflective ability of the inner wall (as determined by material and angle) allows the optical elements to be rearranged with the goal of minimizing the size of the device resulting in an elongated path length (contributing to increased sensitivity) without requiring a linear pathway from source, through flow cell, and to the detector (par. 0008).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the reflective material of Monk to be a metal as taught by Shen in order to maximize the reflective ability of the inner chamber of the device to elongate the light path through the flow cell. Because both devices use a reflective material to elongate the light path by reflecting light within an interior chamber for optical analysis, modifying the reflective material to be a type of metal as provided by Shen, provided likewise sought functionality with reasonable expectation of success. MPEP 2143(I)(G).
Regarding claim 3, modified Monk in view of Shen teaches an embodiment where the metal reflective coating 106 is directly coating the interior of the chamber 118 and can encounter the sample (Shen, Fig. 1) (wherein the metal layer is exposed to the elongated chamber and configured to come into physical… contact with the test material).
Regarding claim 4, modified Monk in view of Shen teaches an embodiment where the surface is coated in a hydrophilic material like a silica layer in order to allow a liquid sample to more easily fill the chamber. Because the hydrophilic material is a silica layer like silicon dioxide, a optically transparent material, they hydrophilic layer can be the first layer coating the chamber interior to interact with the sample and the metal reflective layer can be embedded just past the hydrophilic layer so it only interacts with the light and not the sample (par. 0045) (wherein the metal layer is embedded in the one or more walls so as to not make physical contact with the test material).
Regarding claim 5, modified Monk in view of Shen teaches reflective coating can be a metal like aluminum, gold, or silver (par. 0044) (wherein the metal layer comprises one or more of gold, silver, aluminum).
Regarding claim 17, Monk teaches the limitations as applied to claim 1 (see above).
If it is not seen that Monk teaches flow cell wherein the test material is a solid test material configured to be disposed along at least 50% of the length of the elongated chamber as rejected above, this rejection is put forth in the alternative. Monk is silent to wherein the test material is a solid test material configured to be disposed along at least 50% of the length of the elongated chamber.
Shen teaches the elongated optical chamber 118 can hold "biological samples" of all sorts, including suspended solid tissue samples (from biopsies) (par. 0042) and considering the configuration of the chamber, the sample must enter and fill the sample before moving to the outlet (Fig. 1) (wherein the test material is a solid test material configured to be disposed along at least 50% of the length of the elongated chamber). The chamber being able to accommodate solid samples results in a wider variety of samples and assay that can be tested/analyzed.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the chamber and system of Monk to further be able to accommodate a solid sample as taught by Shen in order to increase number and types of samples and assays that can be used by a single device. Because both systems use elongated chamber for optical analysis of samples, modifying the system to accommodate solid samples as provided by Shen, provides likewise sought functionality with reasonable expectation of success. MPEP 2143(I)(G).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Monk, et. al. (US 6199257 B1) in view of Kim (US 20170205042 A1).
Regarding claim 6, Monk teaches the light propagates from one end, starting at transparent window 26, to a second end, ending at transparent window 28 (Fig. 1).
Monk is silent to wherein at least a portion of the one or more walls comprises an optical diffuser exposed to the elongated chamber and configured to scatter light primarily forwardly along the length of the hollow structure.
Kim teaches lightguides in elongated optical cavities (Abstract). Kim teaches a light system with an elongated optical cavity 117 where one side covering the cavity is a light diffusing film 120 (Fig. 1; par. 0019) (wherein at least a portion of the one or more walls comprises an optical diffuser exposed to the elongated chamber and configured to scatter light primarily forwardly along the length of the hollow structure). Kim teaches the diffusing film can increase the brightness of the light along an axis (par. 0019).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the elongated optical chamber of Monk to further include a light diffusing film as taught by Kim in order to enhance the light brightness as it passes through a long chamber. Because both systems utilized an elongated chamber that light passes through, modifying the chamber to include a light diffusing film as provided by Kim, provides likewise sought functionality with reasonable expectation of success. MPEP 2143(I)(G).
Claim 7 and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Monk, et. al. (US 6199257 B1) in view of Yun, et. al. (US 20200319389 A1).
Regarding claim 7, Monk teaches the flow cell can be coated with a polymer 82 atop an inner layer 86 (Fig. 2a-d; col. 7, lines 4-10) (a plurality of… layers) (wherein the one or more walls comprise a multilayer… extending along the length of the hollow structure).
Monk is silent to a multilayer optical film comprising a plurality of microlayers numbering at least 4 in total, each of the microlayers having an average thickness of less than about 500 nm.
Yun teaches an optical film with optical layers that reflect wavelengths of light (Abstract). Yun teaches the layers of the optical film have an average thickness of "less than about 200 nm" (par. 0005) (here, the optical film of Yun corresponds to the inner and polymer layers of Monk) (each of the microlayers having an average thickness of less than about 500 nm) and each optical stack has between 50 and 300 layers (par. 0006) (comprising a plurality of microlayers numbering at least 4 in total). Yun teaches the careful selection of each layer allows for control over the transmittance or reflection of specific, predetermined wavelengths (par. 0003, 0032) giving more control to the user when selecting what wavelengths will be used for optical analysis to get optimal results.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the polymer layers of Monk to instead be a multilayer optical film as taught by Yun in order to optimize wavelength transmittance and reflection along within an optical system. Because both device use layers/coatings to influence the propagation of light along a surface, modifying the coating to be a multilayer optical film as provided by Yun, provide likewise sought functionality with reasonable expectation of success. MPEP 2143(I)(G).
Regarding claim 14, modified Monk in view of Yun teaches wherein one material type is an organic polymer such as polyethylene terephthalate (PET) (Yun, par. 0049) (wherein at least some of the microlayers in the plurality of microlayers comprise an organic material).
Regarding claim 15, modified Monk in view of Yun teaches wherein one material type is an organic polymer such as polyethylene terephthalate (PET) (par. 0049) (wherein the organic material comprises a polymer).
Claims 8-11 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Monk, et. al. (US 6199257 B1) and Yun, et. al. (US 20200319389 A1) as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Martin, et. al. (Multifunctional multilayer optical coatings).
Regarding claim 8, modified Monk teaches the limitations as applied to claim 7 (see above).
Modified Monk is silent to wherein at least some of the microlayers in the plurality of microlayers comprise an inorganic material.
Martin teaches a multilayer optical coating applied to a surface to manipulate the wavelengths are in contact with the surface (Abstract). Martin teaches a fourteen layer coating comprising titanium dioxide, silicon dioxide, silicon nitride, and silver (pg. 1099, col. 2, section "A. Laser reflector/heater coating") (wherein at least some of the microlayers in the plurality of microlayers comprise an inorganic material). Martin teaches the selection of layer materials increase the functionality of the optical coating such as what wavelengths are transmitted or reflected (pg. 1098, col. 2, par. 2-3).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the polymer layers of modified Monk in view of Yun to further comprise inorganic materials as taught by Martin in order to be selective with what wavelengths are transmitted or reflected by the layers. Because both are multilayer optical films that focus on the optical properties and influence of specific wavelength, modifying the layers to include inorganic materials as provided by Martin, provides likewise sought functionality with reasonable expectation of success. MPEP 2143(I)(G).
Regarding claim 9, modified Monk in view of Martin teaches a fourteen layer coating comprising titanium dioxide, silicon dioxide, silicon nitride, and silver (pg. 1099, col. 2, section "A. Laser reflector/heater coating"). Martin additionally teaches carbides are a possible material in the layers with similar results (pg. 1101, col. 2, par. 2) (wherein the inorganic material comprises one or more of an oxide, a nitride, a carbide, and a metal).
Regarding claim 10, modified Monk in view of Martin teaches a fourteen layer coating comprising titanium dioxide, silicon dioxide, silicon nitride, and silver (pg. 1099, col. 2, section "A. Laser reflector/heater coating") (wherein the oxide comprises one or more of… silicon oxide, silicon dioxide, and titanium oxide).
Regarding claim 11, modified Monk in view of Martin teaches a fourteen layer coating comprising titanium dioxide, silicon dioxide, silicon nitride, and silver (pg. 1099, col. 2, section "A. Laser reflector/heater coating") (wherein the nitride comprises one or more of silicon nitride).
Regarding claim 13, modified Monk in view of Martin teaches a fourteen layer coating comprising titanium dioxide, silicon dioxide, silicon nitride, and silver (pg. 1099, col. 2, section "A. Laser reflector/heater coating") (wherein the metal comprises one or more of… silver).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Monk, et. al. (US 6199257 B1), Yun, et. al. (US 20200319389 A1), and Martin, et. al. (Multifunctional multilayer optical coatings) as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Kelly, et. al. (“Application of Germanium Carbide in Durable Multilayer IR Coatings”).
Regarding claim 12, Modified Monk in view of Martin teaches carbides are a possible material in the layers (pg. 1101, col. 2, par. 2).
Modified Monk (in view of Martin) is silent to wherein the carbide comprises one or more of silicon carbide and germanium carbide.
Kelly teaches coating layers containing germanium carbide (Abstract). Kelly teaches coating of germanium carbide comprising multiple layers and varying thickness each influencing the reflection and transmission ability of the coating (pg. 124, section 2.1 "General") (wherein the carbide comprises one or more of… germanium carbide). Kelly teaches coating containing germanium oxide offer durability and specific anti-reflective properties (Abstract, pg. 122, par. 02 - pg. 123, par. 01).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the carbide material in the coating of modified Monk in view of Martin to specifically be germanium carbide as taught by Kelly in order to achieve specific transmission and reflective properties based on wavelength. Because the composition of the coating influences how it responds to a light beam hitting it, modifying the beam to include germanium carbide based on a desired property as provided by Kelly, provides likewise sought functionality with reasonable expectation of success. MPEP 2143(I)(G).
Claims 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Monk, et. al. (US 6199257 B1) in view of Girling (GB 2231951 A).
Regarding claim 19, Monk teaches the flow cell system operates with a light source (further comprising a light source) that is at a first end 22 opposite second end 24 of flow cell 10 (proximate a second, opposite the first, end of the one or more walls) through transparent window 26 through flow passage 16 lined with reflective material 30 to transparent window 28 (the light source configured to emit light having the at least the first wavelength, the emitted light configured to propagate along the elongated hollow structure and exit the elongated hollow structure through the at least the first light opening after going through the test material and being reflected multiple times by the one or more walls) (Fig. 1; col. 4, lines 56-62).
Monk is specifically silent to the light source being disposed in the elongated hollow structure.
Girling teaches a sampling chamber for analysis of a sample using a light beam (Abstract). Girling teaches an elongated sample chamber 25 defined by a housing 24 with a light source 28 enclosed within housing 24 on one side (Fig. 4) (a light source disposed in the elongated hollow structure). The sample chamber 25 further comprises a highly reflective interior surface 33 and at least one light sensor 31 (Fig. 4; pg. 08, line 2 - pg. 09, line 4). Girling teaches this configuration of optical elements within a housing allows for more light to be collected by the sensor especially light that is heavily scattered and reflected (pg. 08, line 29 - pg. 09, lines 4).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the location of optical elements of Monk to all be located within a housing as taught by Girling, in order to create an overall system for efficient at collecting scattered and reflected light. Because both systems are optical systems with elongated chambers that reflect a source light through a sample, modifying the housing to include the light source within the housing as provided by Girling, provides likewise sought functionality with reasonable expectation of success. MPEP 2143(I)(G).
Regarding claim 20, modified Monk in view of Girling teaches the light source 28 and at least one light sensor 31 are all enclosed within housing 24 meaning no walls or openings are separating the chamber 25 from the light source 28 and the sensors 31 (Fig. 4; pg. 08, line 2 - pg. 09, line 4) (not comprising any light openings proximate the second end of the one or more walls). Examiner notes while part 29 of Figure 4 appears as a wall in the drawing, it is a lens with the purpose of focusing the light beam and not a wall (pg. 08, lines 6-7).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 5423513 A
US 20200033272 A1
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MADISON T HERBERT whose telephone number is (571)270-1448. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30a-5:00p.
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.T.H./Examiner, Art Unit 1758
/MARIS R KESSEL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1758