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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the double patenting rejection have been fully considered and are persuasive. The double patenting rejection has been withdrawn in light of the approved terminal disclaimer.
With respect to claim 3, the amendments were successful in overcoming the rejection under 35 USC 112. However, with respect to claims 2, 5, and 16, the issue remains under 35 USC 112 as described below. Primarily, the second optical path cannot be defined in the claim based on elements outside of the claim bounds, i.e. the external material.
With respect to the rejection of claims under 35 USC 103, the applicant’s arguments with respect to Crause are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Danby et al. U.S. Patent #5,680,111.
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 2, 5, and 16 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.
With respect to claim 2, 5, and 16, the limitations “the second optical path is determined by characteristics of the at least one external material present in the fluid” is unclear if it is an additional method step of determining the optical path or if it simply a comment on the structure of the device, not pertinent to the method steps. Claim 2 is drawn to a method, and the limitation in question is included in the capabilities configured into the controller. Clarification is required.
The claims that depend upon the above claims are likewise rejected for failing to correct the deficiency.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 2, 5, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Danby et al. U.S. Patent #5,680,111.
With respect to claim 2, Danby discloses a dual sensor detector comprising:
Emitting an LED into the fluid from a light emitting source positioned on and adjacent to a first side of the tube ( Figure 3, LED 21, tube = optical spacer 15 + tube 14)
Passing the laser beam through the fluid along a first optical path, the first optical path being substantially linear path (Col.4, l 62-64)
Receiving the laser beam at a first sensor of a sensor array positioned on and adjacent to a second side of the tube opposing the light emitting source (Figure 3, l first sensor = phototransistors 20a, Col.4, l 60-65)
Receiving a refracted portion of the laser beam at a second sensor of the sensor array positioned on the second side of the tube and adjacent to the first sensor (Figure 3, second sensor = phototransistor 20b)
The refracted portion of the laser beam propagating along a second optical path different from the first optical path (Col.,5 l 60-64)
Determining at least one external material is present in the fluid flowing within the tube in response to the second sensor receiving the refracted portion of the laser beam by way of a shape and angle of the second optical path, wherein the second optical path is determined by characteristics of the at least one external material present in the fluid (Col.5, l 56- Col.6, l 3, inherent that the optical path changes based upon material it passes through)
Determining no external material is present in the fluid flowing within the tube passing between the light emitting source and the first sensor in response to the first sensor receiving the light along the first optical path (Col.5, l 65- Col.6, l 3)
Danby discloses all of the limitations as applied to claim 1 above. However, Danby fails to disclose a laser instead of an LED.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use a laser as an art equivalent to an LED. A laser is more powerful than an LED and Danby discloses the importance of the light being strong enough to pass through the tubing and be collected in a sufficient amount.
With respect to claim 5 and 16, Danby discloses a process tube device comprising:
A light emitting source adjacent to the first side of the main tube, the light emitting source configured to emit light to the channel along a first optical path (Figure 3, LED 21, tube = optical spacer 15 + tube 14)
A first sensor positioned on the second side of the main tube opposite of the light emitting source, wherein the first sensor is configured to receive the light emitted by the light emitting source along the first optical path, wherein the first optical path is substantially linear from the light emitting source to the first sensor (Figure 3, first sensor = phototransistor 20b)
A second sensor positioned on the second side of the first tube and adjacent to the first sensor (Figure 3, second sensor = phototransistor 20a)
A controller operatively coupled to the first and second sensors and configured to receive data from the first and second sensors, wherein the first and second sensors receive signals based on the light from the light emitting source (Col.6, l 61-66)
Wherein the controller is further configured to determine at least one external material is present in fluid flowing within the main tube in response to light emitted from the light emitting source being refracted from the at least one external material propagated along a second optical path and received at the second sensor by way of shape and angle of the second optical path wherein the second optical path is different than the first optical path and determined by characteristics of the at least one external material present in the fluid (Col. 6, l 61-66, Col.5, l 65- Col.6, l 3)
Wherein the controller is further configured to determine no external material is present in the fluid flowing within the main tube and passing between the light emitting source and the first sensor in response to the first sensor receiving light along the first optical path (Col. 6, l 61-66, Col.5, l 65- Col.6, l 3)
Wherein the light emitting source faces the first sensor and fully overlaps with the first sensor in a first direction, wherein the light emitting source is spaced apart from the second sensor and does not overlap with the second sensor in the first direction, (Figure 3, light source = 21, first sensor = 20b, second sensor = 20a)
However, Danby fails to disclose or suggest a third and fourth sensor.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to multiple the number of sensors collecting refracting light from the tube since the more sensors present, the wider field of reflection/refraction collected from the tube. This is the whole concept of Danby, to multiple the angles that sensors collect the refracted light as a more accurate manner to determine air bubbles . The more data collected allows a more complete view and analysis of the material in the tube as is well known in the art.
Claim(s) 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 17, 18, and 21, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Danby et al. U.S. Patent #5,680,111 in view of Maleev et al. U.S. Patent #11,385,154.
With respect to claim 3, 6, 7, 17, and 18, Danby discloses all of the limitations as applied to claim 2 above. However, Danby fails to disclose receiving the refracted portion of the laser beam at a third sensor adjacent the light emitting source and determining at least one external material is present in the fluid in response to the refracted portion received at the third sensor.
Maleev discloses an apparatus for monitoring and measuring properties of particles in solutions comprising:
Emitting a laser beam into the fluid from a light emitting source on a first side of the tube (Figure 2B, laser 110, fluid = 105)
Passing the laser beam through the fluid along a first optical path, the first optical path being substantially linear (Figure 2B)
Receiving the laser beam at a first sensor on a second side of the tube opposing the light emitting source (Figure 2B, first sensor = forward scattering detector 120a)
Receiving a refracted portion of the laser beam at a second sensor on the second side of the tube adjacent the first sensor (Figure 2B, second sensor = 135 deg scattering detector 120b)
Receiving the refracted portion of the laser beam at a third sensor on the first side of the tube and adjacent to the light emitting source (Figure 2B, back scattering detector 120)
Determining at least one material is present in the fluid in response to the portion of the laser beam received at the first sensor, second sensor and third sensor (Col.5, l 59- Col.6, l 9, Col.8, l 41-50, material present = polymers of certain size or concentration)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use a plurality of sensors at a plurality of scattering angles, including forward and back scattered collection angles since as taught by Maleev that measuring a plurality of angles at the same time allows saving time. Collecting data from a plurality of angles, allows for all the particles to be more likely to be detected, providing the well-known benefit of a more complete data set about the fluid flow.
With respect to claim 4 and 21, Danby in view of Maleev discloses all of the limitations as applied to claim 3 and 18 above. In addition, Danby discloses:
The external material includes at least one of an air, a bubble, a void, debris, or a particle (abstract)
With respect to claim 8, Danby discloses all of the limitations as applied to claim 5 above. However, Danby fails to disclose a laser instead of an LED.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use a laser as an art equivalent to an LED. A laser is more powerful than an LED and Danby discloses the importance of the light being strong enough to pass through the tubing and be collected in a sufficient amount.
Claim(s) 9, 10, 11, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Danby et al. U.S. Patent #5,680,111 in view of Maleev et al. U.S. Patent #11,385,154 and further in view of Huang et al. U.S. Patent #8,120,770.
With respect to claim 9, 10, 11, 19, and 20, Danby in view of Maleev discloses all of the limitations as described above with respect to claims 5 and 16. Additionally, Danby discloses the linear section includes a substantially straight tube (Figure 3, at some scale there is a linear part). However, Danby fails to disclose a non-linear section to the tube.
Huang et al. discloses a three-dimensional hydrodynamic focusing microfluidic device comprising:
A main tube providing a channel for the fluid, the main tube having a first side and a second side opposite to the first side (Figure 1, main tube = end of flow cell 20, output area)
A light emitting source adjacent to the first side of the main tube, the light emitting source configured to emit light to the channel along a first optical path (Col. 12, l 14-16)
A first sensor positioned on the second side of the main tube opposite the light emitting source, wherein the first sensor is configured to receive the light emitted by the light emitting source along the first optical path (Col.12, l 17-19)
A first tube extended from the main tube, the first tube having a first side and a second side opposite of the first side, wherein the first tube includes a linear section and a non-linear section adjacent to the linear section (Figure 1, first tube = focusing cell 12, linear section = between 16/18 downstream to 20, non-linear = curved portion 24)
A non-linear section includes an L-shaped tube (Figure 1)
The linear section of the first tube is located between the non-linear section and the main tube ((Figure 1, first tube = focusing cell 12, linear section = between 16/18 downstream to 20, non-linear = curved portion 24, main tube = output 20)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use the non-linear hydrodynamic focusing assembly of Huang for the measurement flow cell of Danby since Huang discloses the compressed flow allows improved analyte detection and reliable single molecule sensitivity (Col.1, l 46-50).
Claim(s) 12, 13, 14, and 15, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Danby et al. U.S. Patent #5,580,111 in view of Maleev et al. U.S. Patent# 11,385,154 and Huang et al. U.S. Patent #8,120,770 and further in view of Trainer U.S. Patent #10,620,105.
With respect to claim 12, 13, 14, and 15, Danby and Huang discloses all of the limitations as applied to claim 11 above. However, Danby and Huang fail to disclose a second light emitting source and a Doppler shift sensor.
Trainer discloses an apparatus for determining characteristics of particles from scattered light comprising:
12- A first light emitting source on the first side of the first tube (Figure 1, light source)
12- A first and second sensor positioned on the second side of the tube, configured to receive the light emitted by the light emitting source along the optical path (Col.11, l 49-50, Col.12, l 58-64)
12- a Doppler shift sensor on the second side of the first tube, the Doppler shift sensor positioned opposite of a location of the first light emitting source (Figure 1, Doppler shift sensors 112 and 113)
13- the Doppler shift sensor includes a laser Doppler anemometry configured to use Doppler shift in a laser beam to measure velocity of fluid flows (Figure 1, Col.12, l 9-16)
14- the controller is operatively coupled to the Doppler shift sensor and configured to receive velocity data from the Doppler shift sensor, wherein the Doppler shift sensor generates the velocity data based on light form the light source (Col.12, l 9-16)
14- the controller is configured to determine at least one external material is present in fluid in the first tube in response to the Doppler shift sensor outputting no velocity reading for the fluid in the first tube passing between the first and second light emitting sources and the Doppler shift sensor (Col.12, l 67- Col.13, l 3)
14- Determine no external material is present in the fluid in the second tube passing between the first and second light emitting sources and the Doppler shift sensor in response to a velocity of the fluid in the first tube maintaining a substantially constant velocity (Col.12, l 58-64, wherein external material = particles above .4 microns)
15- The external material includes a particle (Col.12, l 58-64, wherein external material = particles above .4 microns)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to additionally use the Doppler shift sensor of Trainer with the optical sensor of Danby since it has been held that integrating known components requires only ordinary skill in the art. By doing both Doppler measurement and optical measurements of the particles, more information is known and a clearer more complete understanding of the fluid can be determined.
Citation
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Kleinschmitt U.S. Patent #5,960,129 discloses a method and apparatus for detecting liquid and gas segments flow through a tube.
Rich U.S. Patent #7,403,125 discloses a bubble detection in flow cytometry.
Chiu et al. U.S. Patent #10,520,422 discloses a microparticle detector.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to REBECCA CAROLE BRYANT whose telephone number is (571)272-9787. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 12-4 pm.
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, Kara Geisel can be reached at 571-272-2416. 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.
/REBECCA C BRYANT/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2877