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.
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 1-9 and 13-17 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.
Independent claims 1 and 15 recite that the imaging device captures the composite particles a
It does not appear that the composite particles are “captured,” but rather an image of the composite particles may be captured.
Claim 13, line 12 recites detecting the composite particles based on an image captured, but does not indicate where the image is captured.
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.
1. Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2006/0024756 to Tibbe et al.
Tibbe et al. teaches a system and method for enumerating cells or particles in which magnetically labeled target cells in a mixture of cells are placed in a container and a two wedge-shaped magnets are provided at a position other than a lower position than the container so that pole faces of the same magnetic pole face each other. The magnets create a magnetic field that causes magnetically labeled target cells to move upwards while unlabeled cells move downward. (Figs. 1A. 1B, 2A, 2B and [0028]).
Light from an LED illuminates the magnetically labeled target cells and a CCD camera captures images of the magnetically labeled target cell.
Algorithms are applied to the image identify and enumerate each of the objects or cells. Preferably the algorithm is programmed onto an embedded processor in the CCD camera. [0023]
I.) Regarding applicant’s claim 1, as noted above Tibbe et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 1.
Therefore, Tibbe et al. anticipates claim 1.
II.) Regarding applicant’s claim 2, as noted above Tibbe et al. anticipates claim 1 from which claim 2 depends.
Claim 2 recites that the plurality of magnets are arranged at a higher position than the container.
As shown in Fig. 2B, Tibbe et al. teaches that the magnets are arranged at a higher position that the container.
Therefore, Tibbe et al. anticipates claim 2.
III.) Regarding applicant’s claim 3, as noted above Tibbe et al. anticipates claim 1 from which claim 3 depends.
Claim 3 recites that pole faces of opposite magnetic pole from the magnetic pole of the pole faces facing each other among the pole faces of the plurality of magnets are arranged at the outside from peripheral walls of the container.
As shown in Fig. 2B, Tibbe et al. teaches that the pole faces of opposite magnetic pole from the magnetic pole of the pole faces facing each other among the pole faces of the plurality of magnets are arranged at the outside from peripheral walls of the container.
Therefore, Tibbe et al. anticipates claim 3.
IV.) Regarding applicant’s claim 4, as noted above Tibbe et al. anticipates claim 1 from which claim 4 depends.
Claim 4 recites that at a plane parallel to the plurality of magnets, a position with the maximum magnetic field strength is included in the region captured by the imaging device, and at a position separated from a top end part of the container downward by a predetermined distance, there is a region with the magnetic field strength substantially constant close to the maximum value.
In Fig. 2B Tibbe et al. illustrates a magnetic gradient that shows that at a plane parallel to the plurality of magnets, a position with the maximum magnetic field strength is included in the region captured by the imaging device, and at a position separated from a top end part of the container downward by a predetermined distance, there is a region with the magnetic field strength substantially constant close to the maximum value.
Therefore, Tibbe et al. anticipates claim 4.
2. Claims 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tibbe et al.
As noted above, Tibbe et al. teaches a system and method for enumerating cells or particles in which magnetically labeled target cells in a mixture of cells are placed in a container and a two wedge-shaped magnets are provided at a position other than a lower position than the container so that pole faces of the same magnetic pole face each other. The magnets create a magnetic field that causes magnetically labeled target cells to move upwards while unlabeled cells move downward. (Figs. 1A. 1B, 2A, 2B and [0028]).
Light from an LED illuminates the magnetically labeled target cells and a CCD camera captures images of the magnetically labeled target cell.
Algorithms are applied to the image identify and enumerate each of the objects or cells. Preferably the algorithm is programmed onto an embedded processor in the CCD camera. [0023]
I.) Regarding applicant’s claim 13, as noted above Tibbe et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 13.
Therefore, Tibbe et al. anticipates claim 13.
II.) Regarding applicant’s claim 14, as notes above Tibbe et al. anticipates claim 13 from which claim 14 depends.
Claim 14 recites that at a plane parallel to the plurality of magnets, a position with the maximum magnetic field strength is included in the captured region and at a top surface of the solution, there is a region with the magnetic field strength substantially constant close to the maximum value.
As noted above, Fig. 2B Tibbe et al. illustrates a magnetic gradient that shows that at a plane parallel to the plurality of magnets, a position with the maximum magnetic field strength is included in the captured region and at a top surface of the solution, there is a region with the magnetic field strength substantially constant close to the maximum value.
Therefore, Tibbe et al. anticipates claim 14.
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.
3. Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tibbe et al.
I.) Regarding applicant’s claim 9, as noted above Tibbe et al. anticipates claim 1 from which claim 9 depends.
Claim 9 recites a light transmissive member housing the plurality of magnets.
Tibbe et al does not teach a light transmissive member housing the plurality of magnets.
Tibbe et al. teaches an optically transparent planar top of the container. [0074]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Tibbe et al. to house the magnets in an optically transparent member for purposes of protecting the magnets from exposure of fluids used in the analysis.
Therefore, Tibbe et al. renders claim 9 obvious.
4. Claims 5, 6 and 8 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Tibbe et al. as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Japanese Patent Application Publication No. JP2006218442 to Muto.
I.) Regarding applicant’s claim 5, as noted above Tibbe et al. anticipates claim 1 from which claim 5 depends.
Claim 5 recites that the plurality of magnets have columnar shapes.
Tibbe et al. does not teach columnar shaped magnets.
Muto teaches separating magnetically labeled particles using magnets that are provided along the sides of a container. In Fig. 5 Muto illustrates columnar shaped magnetics.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Tibbe et al. to use columnar shaped magnets as taught by Muto as matter of design choice involving the substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results.
Therefore, Tibbe et al. in view of Muto renders claim 5 obvious.
II.) Regarding applicant’s claim 6, as noted above Tibbe et al. anticipates claim 1 from which claim 5 depends.
Claim 6 recites that the magnets have conical shapes or pyramidal shapes.
Tibbe et al. does not teach that the magnets have conical shapes or pyramidal shapes.
Muto teaches that the magnets can have a pyramid shape. [0033]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Tibbe et al. to use pyramid shaped magnets as taught by Muto as matter of design choice involving the substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results.
Therefore, Tibbe et al. in view of Muto renders claim 5 obvious.
III.) Regarding applicant’s claim 8, as noted above Tibbe et al. anticipates claim 1 from which claim 8 depends.
Claim 8 recites that the facing poles of the plurality of magnets have tapered shapes partially cut away at parts at the imaging device sides.
Tibbe et al. does not teach that the facing poles of the plurality of magnets have tapered shapes partially cut away at parts at the imaging device sides
Muto teaches magnets having tips of a pyramid that is flattened flat. [0033]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Tibbe et al. to use magnets with flattened (cut away tapered parts) as taught by Muto as matter of design choice involving the substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results.
Therefore, Tibbe et al. in view of Muto renders claim 8 obvious.
5. Claim 7 is rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Tibbe et al. as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Japanese Patent Application Publication No. JP2013223820 to Inaba et al.
I.) Regarding applicant’s claim 7, as noted above Tibbe et al. anticipates claim 1 from which claim 7 depends.
Claim 7 recites that the magnets have ring shapes.
Tibbe et al does not teach that the magnets have ring shapes.
Inaba et al. teaches separating magnetically labeled particles using magnets that are provided along the sides of a container. In Fig. 11 Inaba et al. illustrates ring shaped magnetics.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Tibbe et al. to use ring shaped magnets as taught by Inaba et al. as matter of design choice involving the substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results.
Therefore, Tibbe et al. in view of Inaba et al. renders claim 5 obvious.
6. Claims 15 and 16 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Tibbe et al. in view of Inaba et al.
As noted above, As noted above, Tibbe et al. teaches a system and method for enumerating cells or particles in which magnetically labeled target cells in a mixture of cells are placed in a container and a two wedge-shaped magnets are provided at a position other than a lower position than the container so that pole faces of the same magnetic pole face each other. The magnets create a magnetic field that causes magnetically labeled target cells to move upwards while unlabeled cells move downward. (Figs. 1A. 1B, 2A, 2B and [0028]).
Light from an LED illuminates the magnetically labeled target cells and a CCD camera captures images of the magnetically labeled target cell.
Algorithms are applied to the image identify and enumerate each of the objects or cells. Preferably the algorithm is programmed onto an embedded processor in the CCD camera. [0023]
Tibbe et al does not teach that the magnets have ring shapes.
As noted above, Inaba et al. teaches separating magnetically labeled particles using magnets that are provided along the sides of a container. In Fig. 11 Inaba et al. illustrates ring shaped magnetics.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Tibbe et al. to use ring shaped magnets as taught by Inaba et al. as matter of design choice involving the substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results.
I.) Regarding applicant’s claim 15, as noted above, Tibbe et al. in view of Inaba et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 15
Therefore, Tibbe et al. in view of Inaba et al. renders claim 15 obvious.
II.) Regarding applicant’s claim 16, as noted above Tibbe et al. in view of Inaba et al. renders claim 15 obvious from which claim 16 depends.
Claim 16 recites that the outer peripheral surface of the ring shaped magnet is arranged at the outside from peripheral walls of the container.
As noted above, As shown in Fig. 2B, Tibbe et al. teaches that the pole faces of opposite magnetic pole from the magnetic pole of the pole faces facing each other among the pole faces of the plurality of magnets are arranged at the outside from peripheral walls of the container.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the outer peripheral surface of the ring shaped magnet in Tibbe et al. in view of Inaba et al arranged at the outside from peripheral walls of the container, as taught by Tibbe et al.
Therefore, Tibbe et al. in view of Inaba et al. renders claim 16 obvious.
7. Claim 17 stands rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Tibbe et al. in view of Inaba et al. as applied to claim 15 and further in view of Muto.
I.) Regarding applicant’s claim 17, as noted above Tibbe et al. in view of Inaba et al. renders claim 15 obvious from which claim 17 depends.
Claim 17 recites that the inner peripheral side of the magnet has tapered shapes partially cut away at parts at the imaging device sides.
Tibbe et al. in view of Inaba et al. does not teach that the inner peripheral side of the magnet has tapered shapes partially cut away at parts at the imaging device sides.
Muto teaches magnets having tips of a pyramid that is flattened flat. (paragraph bridging pages 5-6 of English translation).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Tibbe et al. in view of Inaba et al. to reduce or taper the inner peripheral side of the ring shaped magnet as taught by Muto as matter of design choice. Note, changes in shape are obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of a claimed shape is significant. (MPEP 2144.04 (IV)(B))
Therefore, Tibbe et al. in view of Inaba et al. and Muto renders claim 17 obvious.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL S. GZYBOWSKI whose telephone number is (571)270-3487. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5:00.
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, Jill Warden can be reached at 571-272-1267. 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.S.G./Examiner, Art Unit 1798
/JILL A WARDEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1798