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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
1. With respect to applicant’s remarks filed on 12/30/25 regarding rejected claims on page 9, the examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicants argues “Tao explicitly describes a single wavelength of 650 nm, which is the wavelength of a laser" (Tao, p. 6, I. 1-4.) and Tao does not utilize or analyze any additional wavelengths. Instead, Tao specifically performs single-intensity detection of an interface using a single-wavelength laser. (Id., p. 3, I. 7-17)”. As explained in the Final Office Action mailed 09/17/25, Tao disclosed “the filter of the detection unit of the invention can use conventional narrow band filter, the spectrum centre wavelength should be consistent with the wavelength of the laser”, (page 3, lines 38-40. Please see attached files for Tao’s reference in previous office action). It is obvious that a light spectrum must include numbers of wavelengths.
2. Applicants argues “Kim merely describes a configuration in which one wavelength is irradiated to one well at a time (Kim, para. [0032], see also FIG. 1 of Kim). In Kim, for a given well to receive multiple different wavelengths, the well must be mechanically moved among ten different light sources and detectors”. However, nowhere in the claims required that irradiating a plurality of light beams having different wavelengths to each of a plurality of wells at the same time. In the other words, the current limitation in claim 1 could be interpreted as the following: irradiating a plurality of light beams having different wavelengths to each of a plurality of wells at different times. Therefore, Kim has disclosed “irradiating a plurality of light beams having different wavelengths to each of a plurality of wells”, ([0011], lines 6-11; [0034]; Claim 1).
3. On pages 9-10, Applicants argues “Papazoglou broadly describes a CCD (Charge-Coupled Device) camera, which refers to a sensor-structure type rather than a color-processing architecture. (Papazoglou, para. [0014].) A monochrome camera (a color-processing modality) and a CCD camera (a sensor-structure modality) pertain to entirely different technical classifications and cannot be considered interchangeable. Additionally, Papazoglou merely describes that "[a] firewire monochrome CCD camera...was used in all capillaries where the MPO concentration was lower than 1 nM." (Id., para. [0156].) Further, unlike color cameras, a monochrome camera lacks RBG filters, which enables higher sensitivity, broader wavelength capture, and superior signal-to-noise ratio. Because of these inherent properties, a monochrome camera typically provides 2-3 times higher sensitivity than a CCD-based color camera. These technical effects cannot be achieved by a CCD camera merely by virtue of its sensor structure”.
First: Papazoglou does not disclose a CCD (Charge-Coupled Device) camera. Instead, Papazoglou disclosed a monochrome CCD camera, ([0156], lines 19-20; [0176], lines 10-11). In the other words, a monochrome CCD camera is not different from a monochrome camera.
Second: The above argument must be amended into the claims in order to be considered.
Third: New amended limitation “the detector senses the reflected light beams per wavelength by a monochrome camera and provides an image for the sensed reflected light beam per wavelength” was found in reference of Swab (U.S. Pub. No. 2003/0068078). Swab teaches “the detector senses the reflected light beams per wavelength by a monochrome camera and provides an image for the sensed reflected light beam per wavelength”, ([0043]). And reference of Kobayashi et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 5,039,868) also teaches this limitation (column 4, lines 41-44, 63-65; Column 5, lines 18-25). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to modify Tao by having the detector senses the reflected light beams per wavelength by a monochrome camera in order to image reflected light of a particular hue, (Kobayashi, column 4, lines 41-44, 63-65; Column 5, lines 18-25).
4. On pages 10-11, Applicants argues “There is no motivation to combine the cited references. Tao is directed to a photoelectric magnetic bead concentration rapid detection system. (Tao, Abstract.) In contrast, Kim describes methods of measuring concentration of components in serum. (Kim, Abstract.) Further, Papazoglou is directed to methods for detecting a biomarker indicative of an inflammatory condition in a capillary tube. (Papazoglou, Abstract.) The cited references address unrelated contexts (e.g., serum and biomarkers) and do not suggest combing their teachings for magnetic bead concentration analysis…”, the examiner respectfully disagrees. Tao disclosed detection system/method for detecting/measuring bio-magnetic bead concentration using scattered/reflected light, Kim also disclosed system/method for detecting/measuring a concentration of a component in a biochemical sample using scattered/reflected light. Tao taught detecting one sample cell, Kim taught detecting plurality sample cells. In the other words, Tao’s reference and Kim’s reference are in the same field. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to modify Tao by having a plurality of light beams having different wavelengths to each of a plurality of wells in order to sense intensity of the light beams in the plurality of different sample cells, (Kim, ([0011], lines 6-11; [0034]; Claim 1). In conclusion, both references of Tao and Kim are in the same field. Therefore, the above motivation to combine these references is adequately.
Similarly, the combination of Tao’s reference and Papazoglou’s reference is to point out the using of monochrome CCD camera for imaging. Moreover, two new references of Swab and Kobayashi also disclose the using of monochrome camera. (Please see the paragraph 3 above).
Grounds for the rejection of claims are provided below as necessitated by amendment.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
5. A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 12/30/25 has been entered.
Information Disclosure Statement
6. The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/17/25 has been entered. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 of this title, 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.
8. Claim(s) 1-3, 5, 11-15, 18, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tao et al. (CN 105806812) in view of Kim et al. (U.S. Pub. 2010/0174491), further in view of Swab (U.S. Pub. No. 2003/0068078), or of Kobayashi et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 5,039,868), or of Papazoglou et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2013/0034863). Hereafter “Tao”, “Kim”, “Swab”, “Kobayashi”, “Papazoglou”. (Please see attached files in previous Office Action for Tao’s reference).
Regarding Claim(s) 1, 14, 18, Tao teaches a method for determining a magnetic bead concentration in a suspension (abstract, lines 1-3), the method comprising:
irradiating a plurality of light beams having different wavelengths to a well containing a suspension in which magnetic beads are suspended (figure 1, sample cell 2 is not different from a well; Page 3, lines 38-40; Page 6, lines 2-4. It is inherent that a spectrum includes different wavelengths);
sensing reflected light beams using a detector including a light sensor (figure 1, elements 3, 4, 6. Please see explanation in paragraphs 2-3 above); and determining concentrations of the magnetic beads in the well by analyzing light data of the sensed per-wavelength reflected light beams (Page 2, lines 44-48; Page 3, lines 1-2; Page 6, lines 39-42. Note: scattered light obtained from magnetic bead is not different from reflected light beam. Further, figure 1, it is inherent that the left scattering detection unit 3 and the right scattering detection unit 6 can also detect the reflected light beam from the sample cell 2).
However, Tao does not teach a plurality of light beams having different wavelengths to each of a plurality of wells. Kim teaches a plurality of light beams having different wavelengths to each of a plurality of wells ([0011], lines 6-11; [0034]; Claim 1. Please see the explanation in paragraph 2 above). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to modify Tao by having a plurality of light beams having different wavelengths to each of a plurality of wells in order to sense intensity of the light beams in the plurality of different sample cells, (Kim, ([0011], lines 6-11; [0034]; Claim 1).
Tao does not teach monochrome camera. Papazoglou disclosed a monochrome CCD camera, ([0156], lines 19-20; [0176], lines 10-11. Please see the explanation in paragraph 3 above, a monochrome CCD camera is not different from a monochrome camera).
Moreover, although Tao does not teach the detector senses the reflected light beams per wavelength by a monochrome camera and provides an image for the sensed reflected light beam per wavelength, Swab teaches the detector senses the reflected light beams per wavelength by a monochrome camera and provides an image for the sensed reflected light beam per wavelength, ([0043]). And Kobayashi also teaches this limitation (column 4, lines 41-44, 63-65; Column 5, lines 18-25). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to modify Tao by having the detector senses the reflected light beams per wavelength by a monochrome camera in order to image reflected light of a particular hue, (Kobayashi, column 4, lines 41-44, 63-65; Column 5, lines 18-25).
Regarding Claim(s) 2, Tao teaches sensing the reflected light beams at the different wavelengths includes measuring intensities of the reflected light beams at the different wavelengths (Abstract, lines 8-11; Page 2, lines 42-48; Page 3, lines 7-17).
Regarding Claim(s) 3, Tao teaches the plurality of light beams are selected from among light beams reflectable by the magnetic beads (Page 2, lines 44-48; Page 3, lines 1-2; Page 6, [0005]. Note: scattered light obtained from magnetic bead is not different from reflected light beam).
Regarding Claim(s) 5, 15, Tao teaches determining the concentrations of the magnetic beads includes (i) calculating a certain concentration value or a concentration range of the magnetic beads in the wells or (ii) identifying whether the concentrations of the magnetic beads in the wells fall within a predetermined range, using the light data of the reflected light beams at the different wavelengths (page 1, abstract; Page 2, Technology field, lines 30-48; Page 3, lines 1-2).
Regarding to claims 11-13, Tao discloses the claimed invention except magnetic beads include iron oxide, ed-brown iron oxide particles, and the magnetic beads have a size of 0.1 m to 6 µm. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify method or device of Tao reference with magnetic beads include iron oxide, ed-brown iron oxide particles, and the magnetic beads have a size of 0.1 m to 6 µm, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. in re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
9. Claim(s) 4, 6, 16, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tao et al. (CN 105806812), in view of Kim et al. (U.S. Pub. 2010/0174491), further in view of Swab (U.S. Pub. No. 2003/0068078), or of Kobayashi et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 5,039,868), or of Papazoglou et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2013/0034863), and further in view of Weidemaier et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2015/0118688). Hereafter “Tao”, “Kim”, “Swab”, “Kobayashi”, “Papazoglou”, “Weidemaier”. (Please see attached files in previous Office Action for Tao’s reference).
Regarding Claim(s) 4, Tao, Kim, Swab, Kobayashi, Papazoglou, teach all the limitations of claim 1 as stated above except for the plurality of light beams are two or more light beams selected from among ultraviolet (UV) light, blue light, green light, orange light, red light, far-red light, infrared light, and white light, and wherein the plurality of light beams are sequentially irradiated. Weidemaier teaches the plurality of light beams are two or more light beams selected from among ultraviolet (UV) light, blue light, green light, orange light, red light, far-red light, infrared light, and white light, and wherein the plurality of light beams are sequentially irradiated ([0287]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to modify Tao, Kim, Swab, Kobayashi, Papazoglou, by having the plurality of light beams are two or more light beams selected from among ultraviolet (UV) light, blue light, green light, orange light, red light, far-red light, infrared light, and white light, and wherein the plurality of light beams are sequentially irradiated in order to implement inspection system more easily (Weidemaier, [0287]).
Regarding Claim(s) 6, 16, Tao, Kim, Swab, Kobayashi, Papazoglou, teach all the limitations of claim 1 as stated above except for analyzing the light data of the sensed reflected light beams at the different wavelengths includes determining the concentration of the magnetic beads in the plurality of wells, using a standard curve of per-wavelength reflected light intensities for magnetic beads for a plurality of known concentrations. Weidemaier teaches analyzing the light data of the sensed reflected light beams at the different wavelengths includes determining the concentration of the magnetic beads in the plurality of wells, using a standard curve of per-wavelength reflected light intensities for magnetic beads for a plurality of known concentrations ([0329]; figure 56). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to modify Tao, Kim, Swab, Kobayashi, Papazoglou, by analyzing the light data of the sensed reflected light beams at the different wavelengths includes determining the concentration of the magnetic beads in the plurality of wells, using a standard curve of per-wavelength reflected light intensities for magnetic beads for a plurality of known concentrations in order to show pellet formation (Weidemaier, [0329]).
10. Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tao et al. (CN 105806812) in view of Kim et al. (U.S. Pub. 2010/0174491), further in view of Swab (U.S. Pub. No. 2003/0068078), or of Kobayashi et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 5,039,868), or of Papazoglou et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2013/0034863), and further in view of Yguerabide et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2002/0028519). Hereafter ““Tao”, “Kim”, “Swab”, “Kobayashi”, “Papazoglou”, “Yguerabide”. (Please see attached files for Tao’s reference).
Regarding Claim(s) 8, Tao, Kim, Swab, Kobayashi, Papazoglou, teach all the limitations of claim 1 as stated above except for the detector is a colorimeter. Yguerabide teaches the detector is a colorimeter, ([0448], lines 22-26, CCD single chip color video camera is not different from a colorimeter). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to modify Tao, Kim, Swab, Kobayashi, Papazoglou, by having the detector is a colorimeter in order to detect color light.
11. Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tao et al. (CN 105806812) in view of Kim et al. (U.S. Pub. 2010/0174491), further in view of Swab (U.S. Pub. No. 2003/0068078), or of Kobayashi et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 5,039,868), or of Papazoglou et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2013/0034863), and further in view of Shelton et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2019/0204201). Hereafter “Tao”, “Kim”, “Swab”, “Kobayashi”, “Papazoglou”, “Shelton”. (Please see attached files for Tao’s reference).
Regarding Claim(s) 10, Tao, Kim, Swab, Kobayashi, Papazoglou, teach all the limitations of claim 1 as stated above except for irradiating the plurality of light beams includes irradiating the light beams having the different wavelengths according to on-off combinations by a controller, and wherein sensing the reflected light beams at the different wavelengths includes driving the detector in synchronization with the irradiation by the controller. Shelton teaches driving the detector in synchronization with the irradiation by the controller ([0371]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to modify Tao, Kim, Swab, Kobayashi, Papazoglou, by having driving the detector in synchronization with the irradiation by the controller in order to control light beams and detector efficiently ([0371]).
Allowable Subject Matter
12. Claims 7, 17, are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The allowable Subject matter was indicated in office Action mailed on 05/21/25.
Fax/Telephone Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TRI T TON whose telephone number is (571)272-9064. The examiner can normally be reached on 8am-4pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Michelle Iacoletti can be reached on (571)270-5789. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
February 5, 2026
/Tri T Ton/
Primary Examiner Art Unit 2877