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 .
2. This Office Action is in response to amendments and remarks filed on 01/21/2026. Claims 1-10 are currently pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
3. 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.
4. Claims 1-10 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.
The present specification fails to provide an adequate teaching and guidance regarding “ measures particle size distribution in the measurement sample based on sedimentation velocities of the particles along a direction of centrifugal force, the sedimentation velocities being obtained from a scattered light intensity curve representing a time variation of scattered light intensities from particles caused by sedimentation of the particles, where the particles have different sedimentation times corresponding to differences in particle size” as now claimed.
On the first page of the remark, Applicant stated that the support for the above amendment, which is underscored, is found in paragraphs [0022] and [0038]. However, paragraph [0038], “calculates the second particle size distribution based on the time variation of this scattered light intensity B(t). The scattered light intensity B(t) indicates a scattered light intensity curve, which is the time variation of the scattered light intensity caused by the sedimentation of particles, and is calculated, for example, by the formula B(t)…”, describing the scattered light intensity curve changes over time due to particle sedimentation; the paragraph [0038] is directly from the intensity curve to the calculation of particle size distribution. The paragraphs do not mention calculating or using sedimentation velocities or explaining how the velocities be derived. Further, although paragraph [0022], discloses “measuring particle size distribution by a centrifugal sedimentation”, there is not clear description of the “the particles along a direction of centrifugal force” in connection with the velocity.
Therefore, the specification does not adequately support the claims language.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
5. 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.
6. Claims 1, 8, 9 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Trainer (US 2020/0025665 A1) in view of Ross et al., (US 2016/0376640 A1).
Regarding claims 1, 8 and 9, Trainer discloses a centrifugal sedimentation type particle size distribution measurement device that measures particle size distribution in a measurement sample by rotating a measurement cell containing the measurement sample and sedimenting particles in the measurement sample (Fig.49 or Fig.52), the device comprising:
a light source (light source, Fig. 43) that emits light to the measurement cell (sample cell); a scattered light detector (“detector”, Fig. 43, and paragraph [0354], “The scattered light focused onto an array of detectors in the back focal plane of lens 4302”) that detects scattered light intensity of light scattered by the particles in the measurement cell (paragraph [0354], “Each detector element measures the light scattered over the angular range defined by that element. …to obtain the particle size distribution”; and [0362], “The focused beam illuminates particles in the dispersion and light scattered by the particles…to a detector” and recording the “digitized time record of the detector current”, [0364]).
Although Trainer discloses a particle size distribution calculation unit that measures particle size distribution in the measurement sample (paragraph [0360], “The intensity distribution is inverted at each location to calculate the size distribution of particles at that location”, showing there is a calculation unit that calculates size distribution from measured intensity), Trainer does not disclose sedimentation velocities of the particles along a direction of centrifugal force, the sedimentation velocities beinq obtained from a scattered light intensity curve representing a time variation of scattered light intensities from particles caused by sedimentation of the particles, where the particles have different sedimentation times corresponding to differences in particle size as claimed.
Ross et al., disclose (Fig.1) analysis system having a rotor configured to rotate one or more analytical cells ([0022]) comprising sedimentation velocities of the particles along a direction of centrifugal force (along a gravitational force direction as shown in Figs.2 and 3), the sedimentation velocities being obtained from a scattered light intensity curve representing a time variation of scattered light intensities from particles caused by sedimentation of the particles ([0030], “The particle velocity (ν) for an individual particle is very difficult to determine. Therefore, the particle velocity (ν) is determined by measuring how a sedimentation boundary of the solution moves over time, which indicates how quickly a group of the same particles is moving through the solution 200. The speed of the sedimentation boundary is referred to as sedimentation velocity”, showing intensity curve representing a time variation caused by segmentation), where the particles have different sedimentation times corresponding to differences in particle size (this limitation is inherently included. Since the larger particles settle faster than smaller particles, so at a given location in the sample cell, the time it takes for particles to move depends on size). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Trainer, by utilizing the teaching of Ross et al., in order to directly monitoring sedimentation moves over time, achieving more precise measurement of the size of particles.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
7. 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.
Claims 2, 3, 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Trainer in view of Ross et al., and further in view of Corbett et al., (US 2020/0033245 A1).
Regarding claims 2 and 3, Trainer in view of Ross et al., as discussed in claim 1, although Trainer, does not disclose the scattered light detector including at least one of a forward light detector that detects forward scattered light and a backward light detector that detects backward scattered light from the particles as claimed, Trainer discloses scattered light for detectors 2322 and 2321 as shown in Fig. 23, detecting light in different directions, which could correspond to the forward and backward scattering. However, if not, Corbett et al., disclose the scattered light detector includes at least one of a forward light detector (124, Fig.2) that detects forward scattered light (see Fig.2) and a backward light detector (114) that detects backward scattered light from the particles (104). Corbett et al., also disclose a transmitted light detector (124, Fig.2) that detects transmitted light intensity of light transmitted through the measurement cell (paragraph [0176], the light detector 114 detects light intensity emitted to the sample cell 104 from the light source), wherein the particle size distribution calculation unit (130) further measures the particle size distribution in the measurement sample based on time variation of the transmitted light intensity (Fig.2 and paragraph [0176], The processor is configured to receive a time series of light intensity measurements from the detector device includes detector 114 and detector 124, Fig.2 , and to perform a correlation operation on the measurements to characterise particles such as a particle size distribution the of a sample by dynamic light scattering). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Trainer in view of Ross et al., by utilizing the teaching of Corbett et al., so that the system can provide more accurate detection for both small and large particles.
Regarding claim 7, Trainer in view of Ross et al. and Corbett et al., as discussed in claim 3, do not disclose the scattered light detector and the transmitted light detector as claimed. Corbett et al., disclose (Fig.2) the scattered light detector (114) and the transmitted light detector (124) are configured to detect light emitted to the measurement cell (104) from a common light source (102). Thus, 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 proposed system of Trainer in view of Ross et al. and Corbett et al., by utilizing the teaching of Corbett et al., so that the system can provide more accurate detection for both small and large particles.
Claims 3-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Trainer in view of Ross et al., and further in view of Yamaguchi (US 2019/0346354 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Trainer in view of Ross et al., as discussed in claim 1, does not disclose a transmitted light detector that detects transmitted light intensity of light transmitted through the measurement cell, wherein the particle size distribution calculation unit further measures the particle size distribution in the measurement sample based on time variation of the transmitted light intensity as claimed. Yamaguchi discloses (Fig.1) a transmitted light detector (13) that detects transmitted light intensity of light transmitted through the measurement cell (see Fig.1 and paragraph [0058], “the detector 13 detects transmitted light of light from the first light source 12 which is already transmitted through the measurement cell X), wherein the particle size distribution calculation unit (23, see Fig.1 and Fig.4) further measures the particle size distribution in the measurement sample based on time variation of the transmitted light intensity (see Fig.4 and paragraph [0076], “the second particle size distribution calculation section 23 generates autocorrelation data on the basis of temporal fluctuations of the scattered light intensity signal detected by the second light detector 22”. The particle size distribution calculation section 23 measures particle size distribution based on the time variation of the scattered light intensity, and the variation of the scattered light intensity is caused by sedimentation of the particles, particles settling over time). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Trainer in view of Ross et al, by utilizing the teaching of Yamaguchi, so that the system can provide more accurate detection for both small and large particles.
Regarding claims 4 and 5, Trainer in view of Ross et al. and Yamaguchi as discussed in claim 3, Trainer and Ross et al., do not the particle size distribution calculation unit measuring particle size distribution of a particle size larger than a predetermined threshold based on the time variation of the transmitted light intensity as claimed. Yamaguchi discloses a particle size distribution calculation unit (23 includes the dynamic light scattering type measuring mechanism 20 and the centrifugal sedimentation type measuring mechanism 10, Fig.1) measures particle size distribution of a particle size larger than a predetermined threshold based on the time variation of the transmitted light intensity (see Fig.1 and paragraphs [0081] and [0095], measuring mechanism 10 including the transmitted detector 13, measures a particle size distribution of 10 nm or more as a first particle size distribution), and measures particle size distribution of a particle size equal to or smaller than the predetermined threshold based on the time variation of the scattered light intensity (Fig.1 and paragraphs [0081] and [0095], the dynamic light scattering type measuring mechanism 20 including the scattered light detector, measures a particle size distribution of less than 10 nm as a second particle size distribution). Thus, 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 proposed system of Trainer in view of Ross et al. and Yamaguchi, by utilizing the teaching of Yamaguchi, so that the system can measure the particle size distribution more accurately for fine particles.
Regarding claim 6, Trainer in view of Ross et al. and Yamaguchi as discussed in claim 3, Trainer discloses the light source, and the scattered light detector is configured to detect the scattered light of laser light emitted from the semiconductor laser device and scattered by the particles (Fig. 43 and paragraph [0354]). Trainer and Ross et al, do not disclose the light source including a semiconductor laser device and an LED device, and the transmitted light detector is configured to detect the transmitted light emitted from the LED device and transmitted through the measurement cell as claimed. Yamaguchi discloses wherein the light source (12 and 21, Fig.1) including a semiconductor laser device (paragraph [0071], “the light source 21 is, for example, a semiconductor laser to eject laser beam”) and an LED device (12, paragraph [0062], “a blue LED and a green LED”), the scattered light detector (22) is configured to detect the scattered light of laser light emitted from the semiconductor laser device (21, Fig.1) and scattered by the particles (the particles in the measurement cell X) , and the transmitted light detector (13, Fig.1) is configured to detect the transmitted light emitted from the LED device (12) and transmitted through the measurement cell (the measurement cell X in Fig.1). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Trainer in view of Ross et al. and Yamaguchi, by utilizing the teaching of Yamaguchi so that the system can measure the particle size distribution more accurately for fine particles.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Trainer in view of Ross et al., and further in view of Yamaguchi et al., (US 2011/0181869 A1).
Regarding claim 10, Trainer in view of Ross et al., as discussed in claim 1, Trainer disclose the light source emitting light to the measurement cell (Fig. 43), the a scattered light detector (“detector”, Fig. 43, and paragraph [0354], “The scattered light focused onto an array of detectors in the back focal plane of lens 4302”) that detects scattered light intensity of light scattered by the particles in the measurement cell (paragraph [0354], “Each detector element measures the light scattered over the angular range defined by that element. …to obtain the particle size distribution”; and [0362], “The focused beam illuminates particles in the dispersion and light scattered by the particles…to a detector” and recording the “digitized time record of the detector current”, [0364]), and the particle size distribution calculation unit that measures particle size distribution in the measurement sample (paragraph [0360]). Trainer in view of Ross et al., do not disclose the fixed measurement surface of the measurement cell as claimed. Yamaguchi et al., disclose [0089], a cell placed in a rotational holding plate 232 a. The detector which rotates to different angle measures scatter light, showing that the surface if the cell where the light enters remains fixed relative to sample. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Trainer in view of Ross et al., by utilizing the teaching of Yamaguchi et al., to better reduce instrument complexity.
Response to Arguments
8. Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims 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.
Conclusion
9. 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
10. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MAI THI NGOC TRAN whose telephone number is (571)272- 3456. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday: 9:00-5:30pm.
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, GEORGIA EPPS can be reached on (571)272-2328. 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. Visithttps://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.T./Examiner, Art Unit 2878
/THANH LUU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2878