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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The non-patent literatures No. 1, and 6 cited by Applicant on the information disclosure statement (IDS), filed on 05/09/2024 have not been considered for not complying with the MPEP: 37 CFR 1.98 (b) (5)) for missing the dates of publication. Each publication listed in an information disclosure statement must be identified by publisher, author (if any), title, relevant pages of the publication, date, and place of publication" (MPEP: 37 CFR 1.98 (b) (5))
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 3 and 5-8 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.
(a) Claim 3 recites the limitation "the rinsed water" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The “rinsed water”, is not introduced before. It is suggested changing “the rinsed water” to “a rinsed water”, or amending claim 1, to add a limitation: “where the fluid body is rinsed water”
(b) Claim 5 recites the limitation "the sampled rinsed water" in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The “sampled rinsed water”, is not introduced before. It is suggested changing “the sampled rinsed water” to “a sampled rinsed water”, or amending claim 1, to add a limitation: “where the fluid body is a rinsed water”. Claims 6-8 are rejected for being dependent upon claim 5.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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 1, 14, 16, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Karasawa et al, (“Motion modes of two self-propelled camphor boats on the surface of a surfactant-containing solution”, Journal of Colloid and Interface Science 511 (2018) 184–192)
In regards to claim 1, Karasawa discloses a process for evaluating
characteristics of a fluidic body comprising:
sampling a portion of the fluidic body, (see at least: Page 185, section 2.1, the pouring an aqueous solution of sodium dodecylsulfate into the track up to a 6-mm depth, implicit the collecting or obtaining a liquid sample. Note that the “sampling a portion of the fluidic body”, is construed as being equivalent to a collecting the liquid sample);
applying camphor crystals to the sampled portion of the fluidic body, (see at least: Page 185, section 2.1, an aqueous solution of sodium dodecylsulfate was poured into the track up to a 6-mm depth and two camphor boats were laid on its surface, [i.e., applying camphor crystals, “camphor boats laid on the liquid surface are implicitly a type of camphor crystals”, to sampled portion of the fluidic body, “sampled liquid”]);
monitoring movement of the camphor crystals in the sampled portion of the fluidic body with imaging technology, (see at least: Page 185, section 2.1, an oval-shaped track was prepared to study the motion of the camphor boats, …. stationary or oscillatory motion of the movable boat (see below) was observed at around the center of the straight section of the track, and the motion of the camphor boats was recorded using video camera, [i.e., monitoring movement of the camphor crystals, “implicit by observing and recording oscillatory motion of the movable boat”, in the sampled portion of fluidic body, “liquid sample”, with imaging technology, “implicit by using the video camera”]); and
determining whether the camphor crystals are dancing in the sampled portion of the fluidic body, (see at least: Page 185, section 2.1, second paragraph, stationary or oscillatory motion of the movable boat (see below) was observed at around the center of the straight section of the track, and the motion of the camphor boats was recorded using video camera, in order to analyze the movable boat’s position and velocity by comparing each recorded frame with a template image of the camphor bot; and from Page 189, section 3.3, first paragraph, the oscillation period and amplitude of the resulting motion of the movable boat are shown in Table 1. Accordingly, the stationary or oscillatory motion of the movable boat (see below) was observed by video camera, to determine whether the camphor boats are in oscillatory motion. Note that the “oscillatory motion” of the camphor boats is construed as being equivalent to the camphor crystals being “dancing”, [i.e., determining whether the camphor crystals are dancing in the sampled portion of the fluidic body, “determining whether the camphor boats are in oscillatory motion, in the liquid sample”]).
Therefore, Karasawa is functionally equivalent to the recited limitations of the claim 1 as addressed above.
In regards to claim 14, Karasawa obviously discloses claim 1
Karasawa further discloses wherein the imaging technology comprises a video camera or an IR module for detecting motion of objects in the sampled portion of the fluidic body with imaging technology, (Page 185, section 2.1, “video camera”)
In regards to claim 16, Karasawa discloses a process for evaluating characteristics of a fluidic body comprising:
transporting a mechanism from a supply to a surface of the fluidic body, (see at least: Page 185, section 2.1, An aqueous solution of sodium dodecylsulfate …was poured into the track …and two camphor boats were laid on its surface, [i.e., transporting a mechanism from a supply to a surface of the fluidic body, “implicit by pouring aqueous solution of sodium from a supply into a surface of a container as shown in Fig. 1”]);
activating the mechanism by utilizing a difference in surface tension in a first area of a fluidic body and a second area of the fluidic body proximate the first area, (see at least: Page 185, left-hand-column, first paragraph, “primary driving force of the motion of camphor boats is the surface tension difference between the front and the back of the boat”; and Page 185, left-hand-column, second paragraph, the dissolved molecules from the self-propelled objects are adsorbed or sublimated on the liquid surface and induce a concentration and surface tension difference, [i.e., activating the mechanism, “driving force”, by utilizing a difference in surface tension in a first area of a fluidic body and a second area of the fluidic body proximate the first area, “surface tension difference between the front and the back surface of the boat”]);
monitoring rotational and/or oscillatory movement of the mechanism with imaging technology, (see at least: Page 185, section 2.1, an oval-shaped track was prepared to study the motion of the camphor boats, …. stationary or oscillatory motion of the movable boat (see below) was observed at around the center of the straight section of the track, and the motion of the camphor boats was recorded using video camera, [i.e., monitoring rotational and/or oscillatory movement of the mechanism, “implicit by observing and recording oscillatory motion of the movable boat in the liquid surface sample”, with imaging technology, “implicit by using the video camera”]); and
classifying and/or quantifying the rotational and/or oscillatory movement of the mechanism with imaging technology and a controller, (see at least: Page 185, section 2.1, second paragraph, stationary or oscillatory motion of the movable boat (see below) was observed at around the center of the straight section of the track, and the motion of the camphor boats was recorded using video camera, in order to analyze the movable boat’s position and velocity by comparing each recorded frame with a template image of the camphor bot; and from Page 189, section 3.3, first paragraph, the oscillation period and amplitude of the resulting motion of the movable boat are shown in Table 1, which the oscillation period and amplitude of the resulting motion of the movable boat is technically equivalent to the oscillation amount (quantifying) of the movable boat, [i.e., quantifying the oscillatory movement of the mechanism, “implicit by the oscillation period and amplitude of the movable boat”, with imaging technology and a controller, “implicit by recording the motion of the camphor boats, by using video camera”. Furthermore, the data shown Table 1 is technically determined by a processor (controller)]).
Therefore, Karasawa is functionally equivalent to the recited limitations of the claim 1 as addressed above.
In regards to claim 18, Karasawa obviously discloses the limitations of claim 16
Karasawa further discloses wherein the mechanism comprises self-propelled mercury droplets or self-propelled butyl salicylate (BS) droplets, (see at least: Page 191, section 4, second paragraph, “the present QELS system can be applied to carry out measurements of the surface tension difference and analysis of the space time development of other self-propelled object such as aniline droplets [10], benzoquinone disks [48], aspirin crystals [49] and oil droplets [50] on an air-aqueous interface, both individually and in a collective system, [i.e., wherein the mechanism comprises self-propelled propelled object ]
Karasawa does not expressly disclose comprises self-propelled mercury droplets or self-propelled butyl salicylate (BS) droplets
At the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to carry out measurements of another self-propelled object, such as aniline droplets. Applicant has not disclosed that the self-propelled mercury droplets or self-propelled butyl salicylate (BS) droplets, provide an advantage, be used for a particular purpose, or solves a stated problem. One of ordinary skill in the art, furthermore, would have expected Applicant’s invention to perform equally well with either the self-propelled object such as aniline droplets, as though by Karasawa, or the claimed self-propelled mercury droplets or self-propelled butyl salicylate (BS) droplets, because both self-propelled object droplets, perform the same function of quantitatively investigating the dynamics of the boat motion and explain the origin of both behavior modes, (see at least: Page 191, section 4, second paragraph)
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Karasawa et al, (“Motion modes of two self-propelled camphor boats on the surface of a surfactant-containing solution”, Journal of Colloid and Interface Science 511 (2018) 184–192) in view of Watanabi, (US-PGPUB 20230190121)
Karasawa obviously discloses the limitations of claim 1.
Furthermore, Karasawa discloses determining motion or oscillation (dancing) for the camphor crystals in the sampled portion of the fluidic body, (see at least: Page 185, section 2; and Page 189, section 3.3, “see the rejection of claim 1 above, for more details”).
However, Karasawa does not expressly disclose wherein the determination of whether the camphor crystals are dancing in the sampled portion of the fluidic body further comprises determining a degree to which the camphor crystals are dancing in the sampled portion of the fluidic body
Watanabi discloses determining a degree to which objects are dancing in the sampled portion of the fluidic body, (well-known in the art, see at least: Par. 0100-0101, a known method is used to measure the degree of motion of a measurement of object in fluid)
Karasawa and Watanabi are combinable because they are both concerned with fluid sample-based features tracking. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, to modify Karasawa, to use a fluid evaluation device, as though by Watanabi, for receiving scattered light from the measurement object, to thereby measure the degree of motion of measurement object, (Par. 0002)
The following prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered
pertinent to claim 2, as follow:
-- Muellershausen et al, (20190225678) discloses also determining a degree to which the camphor crystals are dancing in the sampled portion of the fluidic body, (see at least: Par. 0100-0101, collecting data set , where in In total, 180 images of 10.1 deg. Oscillation each were recorded at a crystal in fluid sample obtained by isolating a fluid from the patient)
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Karasawa et al, (“Motion modes of two self-propelled camphor boats on the surface of a surfactant-containing solution”, Journal of Colloid and Interface Science 511 (2018) 184–192) in view of Labib et al, (US-PGPUB 20150343386), (from IDS)
Karasawa obviously discloses the limitations of claim 1.
Karasawa does not expressly disclose quantifying an amount of surfactants in the rinse water based upon the determination of whether the camphor crystals are dancing in the sampled portion of the fluidic body.
Labib discloses quantifying an amount of surfactants in the rinse water based upon the determination of whether the camphor crystals are dancing in the sampled portion of the fluidic body, (see at least: Par. 0015, latter acid step is employed to dissolve the calcium scale deposited in the membrane mostly in the dairy industry such as in the process of whey separation, where the cleaning solution used this industry normally include different surfactants, [i.e., quantifying an amount of surfactants in the rinse water, “quantifying the number of surfactants implicitly based on the dairy industry”, based upon the determination of whether the camphor crystals are dancing in the sampled portion of the fluidic body, “implicit by dissolving the calcium scale”]).
Karasawa and Labib are combinable because they are both concerned with fluid sample-based features tracking. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, to modify Karasawa, to dissolve the calcium scale deposited in the membrane mostly in the dairy industry, as though by Labib, in order to clean a membrane, ( Labib, Par. 0001).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Karasawa et al, (“Motion modes of two self-propelled camphor boats on the surface of a surfactant-containing solution”, Journal of Colloid and Interface Science 511 (2018) 184–192) in view of Feldman et al, (US-PGPUB 20150226683)
Karasawa obviously discloses the limitations of claim 1.
Karasawa does not expressly disclose wherein the sampled portion of the fluidic body is sampled within a bypass section of piping or within a sample box.
However, Feldman et al discloses wherein the sampled portion of the fluidic body is sampled within a bypass section of piping or within a sample box, (see at least: Fig. 5, and Par. 0108, the control valve 42 is used in inlet pipe 41 for directing a liquid sample to the multi sensor monitoring system 30 mounted on the bypass pipe 15, [i.e., the liquid sample is implicitly sampled through the bypass pipe 15]).
Karasawa and Feldman are combinable because they are both concerned with fluid sample-based features tracking. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, to modify Karasawa, to use the control valve 42, as though by Feldman, in order to direct the liquid sample to the multi sensor monitoring system mounted on the bypass pipe, (Feldman, Par. 0108)
Claims 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Karasawa et al, and Feldman et al, as applied to claim 4 above; and further in view of Wan et al, (US-PGPUB 20100009430)
In regards to claim 5, the combine teaching Karasawa and Feldman as whole discloses the limitations of claim 4.
The combine teaching Karasawa and Feldman as whole does not expressly disclose wherein the application of camphor crystals to the sampled rinse water occurs in a modulated release.
However, Wan et al disclose wherein the application of camphor crystals to the sampled rinse water occurs in a modulated release, (see at least: Par. 0002, flow modulator can release incubated filtrate to one or more analytical regions …, which the analytical regions include a porous substrate, where introducing a liquid sample to the cartridge to flow and incubate in a chamber with a residence time controlled by a restricted exit flow through a serpentine flow path not enclosed in a channel having side walls, [i.e., the application of feature substrate to the sampled liquid implicitly occurs in the modulated release, by the flow modulator, “flow modulator can release …”]).
Karasawa, Feldman, and Wan are combinable because they are all concerned with fluid sample-based features tracking. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, to modify the combine teaching Karasawa and Feldman, to use the release based flow modulator, as though by Wan, in order to efficiently provide sample for analysis without particles, (Wan, Par. 0009)
In regards to claim 6, the combine teaching Karasawa, Feldman, and Wan as whole discloses the limitations of claim 4.
Wan further discloses wherein a weight, volume, and/or amount of the camphor crystals released in the modulated release is automatically determined by a controller, (see at least: Par. 0002, analytical region can include a porous substrate, for retaining reagents to interact with analytes or reaction products; and from Par. 0039, the reaction product flow can continue to one or more analytical regions for detection of a signal proportional to the amount of analyte present in the original sample, [i.e., wherein a weight, volume, and/or amount of the camphor crystals, “amount of analyte present in the original sample”, released in the modulated release, “based on the flow modulator releasing incubated filtrate to one or more analytical regions”, is automatically determined by a controller, “flow modulator channel”]).
In regards to claim 7, the combine teaching Karasawa, Feldman, and Wan as whole discloses the limitations of claim 6.
Karasawa further discloses applying portion of the camphor crystals to the sampled fluid, (see at least: Page 185, section 2.1, “see the rejection of claim 1 for more details.
In the other hand, Feldman further discloses crushing and transporting the
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary to use the control valve 42, as though by Feldman, with the liquid sample-based camphor disks shown by Karasawa, in order to direct the liquid sample-based camphor disks to the multi sensor monitoring system, to thereby, (Par. 0108), to thereby streaming of the examined liquid therethrough, for carrying out the measurements, (Feldman, Par. 0023)
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Karasawa, Feldman, and Wan, as applied to claim 7 above; and further in view of Das et al, (US-PGPUB 2024/0036029)
The combine teaching Karasawa, Feldman, and Wan as whole discloses the limitations of claim 7.
The combine teaching Karasawa, Feldman, and Wan as whole does not expressly disclose wherein a load sensor alerts a user when an amount of the camphor crystals in the camphor supply is low.
Das et al discloses wherein a load sensor alerts a user when an amount of the camphor crystals in the camphor supply is low, (see at least: Par. 0025, microscopy-based image technology implicitly comprises one or more sensors, (i.e., load sensor); and from Par. 0052, 0054, Crystal/Bacteria flag may alert the user of a testing apparatus that an interfering condition is present in the urine sample when the testing apparatus detects levels of crystal and/or bacteria that exceed a predetermined threshold level, [i.e., wherein a load sensor, “implicit by the microscopy-based image technology”, alerts a user, when an amount of the camphor crystals in the camphor supply is low, “Crystal/Bacteria flag may alert the user of a testing apparatus …when levels of crystal and/or bacteria that exceed a predetermined threshold level”]).
Karasawa, Feldman, Wan, and Das et al are combinable because they are all concerned with fluid sample-based features tracking. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, to modify the combine teaching Karasawa, Feldman, and Wan, to use the feature flag, as though by Das, in order to notify the user based on detecting levels of objects in the fluid that exceed a predetermined threshold level, (Das, Par. 0054)
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Karasawa et al, (“Motion modes of two self-propelled camphor boats on the surface of a surfactant-containing solution”, Journal of Colloid and Interface Science 511 (2018) 184–192) in view of Grinstaff et al (US-PGPUB 20160033383)
Karasawa obviously discloses the limitations of claim 1.
Karasawa does not expressly disclose analyzing whether there is a presence of surfactants in the sampled fluidic body
Grinstaff discloses analyzing whether there is a presence of surfactants in the sampled fluidic body, (see at least: Par. 0009, changes in the surface tension of bodily fluids are indicative of a number of diseases or abnormal conditions; and from Par. 0038, using surface tension sensor for use in detecting surfactant levels in a liquid sample, [i.e., analyzing whether there is a presence of surfactants in the sampled fluidic body, implicitly based on the changes in the surface tension of bodily fluids]).
Karasawa and Grinstaff are combinable because they are both concerned with fluid sample-based features tracking. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, to modify Karasawa, to determine changes in the surface tension of bodily fluids, as though by Grinstaff, in order to detect surfactant levels in a liquid sample, (Grinstaff, Par. 0038)
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Karasawa, and Grinstaff, as applied to claim 9 above; and further in view of Labib et al, (US-PGPUB 20150343386), (from IDS)
The combine teaching Karasawa, and Grinstaff as whole discloses the limitations of claim 7.
The combine teaching Karasawa, and Grinstaff as whole does not expressly disclose wherein the fluidic body is rinse water that has been used to clean dairy membranes.
However, Labib discloses wherein the fluidic body is rinse water that has been used to clean dairy membranes, (see at least: Par. 0156, as soon as the cleaning is finished, the membrane is immediately rinsed with RO water to remove any residual cleaning composition form the surface and pore structure of the membrane)
Karasawa, Grinstaff, and Labib are combinable because they are all concerned with fluid sample-based features tracking. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, to modify the combine teaching Karasawa and Grinstaff, to rinse the membrane with RO water, as though by Labib, in order to remove any residual cleaning composition, form the surface and pore structure of the membrane, (Labib, Par. 0156).
Claims 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Karasawa and Grinstaff, as applied to claim 9 above; and further in view of Ninan et al, (US-PGPUB 20230283976)
In regards to claim 11, the combine teaching Karasawa and Grinstaff as whole discloses the limitations of the claim 9
The combine teaching Karasawa and Grinstaff does not expressly disclose wherein the analyzing comprises evaluating a sequence of images captured in succession at a set time interval.
Ninan discloses wherein the analyzing comprises evaluating a sequence of images captured in succession at a set time interval, (see at least: Par. 0131, tracking data analyzer (e.g., 660 of FIG. 6B, etc.) to detect and analyze (human) face(s) in tracking video images (e.g., an image or a sequence of time-consecutive images acquired by a camera sensor or camera, etc.), [i.e., wherein the analyzing comprises evaluating a sequence of images captured in succession at a set time interval, “detecting and analyzing (human) face(s) in tracking video images”]).
Karasawa and Grinstaff and Ninan are combinable because they are all concerned with feature detection. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, to modify the combine teaching Karasawa and Grinstaff, to use the tracking data analyzer, as though by Ninan, in order to detect and analyze the features of interest, (Par. 0131)
In regards to claim 12, the combine teaching Karasawa, Grinstaff, and Ninan as whole discloses the limitations of the claim 11.
Karasawa further discloses wherein the analyzing is carried out by artificial intelligence (AI), by the imaging technology, and/or a customer programmable logic controller, (see at least: Page 185, section 2.1, stationary or oscillatory motion of the movable boat (see below) was observed at around the center of the straight section of the track, and the motion of the camphor boats was recorded using video camera, [i.e., implicitly using the imaging technology]).
Ninan also discloses the analyzing is carried out by artificial intelligence (AI), by the imaging technology, and/or a customer programmable logic controller, (see at least: Par. 0050, the camera sensors can be turned on to acquire tracking images, “i.e., implicitly using the imaging technology”).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Karasawa and Grinstaff, and Ninan et al, as applied to claim 12 above; and further in view of Cagnazzo et al, (US-PGPUB 20230047115)
The combine teaching Karasawa, Grinstaff, and Ninan as whole discloses the limitations of the claim 11.
The combine teaching Karasawa, Grinstaff, and Ninan as whole compressing the sequence of images
Cagnazzo discloses compressing the sequence of images, (see at least: Par. 0002, 0058, method for compressing the image sequence implemented by the device 1).
Karasawa, Grinstaff, Ninan, and Cagnazzo are combinable because they are all concerned with feature detection. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, to modify the combine teaching Karasawa, Grinstaff, and Ninan, to use the processing device 1, as though by Cagnazzo, in order to compress the image sequence)
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Karasawa et al, (“Motion modes of two self-propelled camphor boats on the surface of a surfactant-containing solution”, Journal of Colloid and Interface Science 511 (2018) 184–192) in view of Kurane et al, (US-PGPUB 20070171298)
Karasawa obviously discloses claim 1.
Karasawa further discloses determination of whether the camphor crystals are dancing in the sampled portion of the fluidic body, (see at least: Page 185, section 2.1, and Page 189, section 3.3, “see the rejection of claim 1 above for more details”).
Karasawa does not expressly disclose utilizing a high contrast background to facilitate the determination of whether the camphor crystals are dancing in the sampled portion of the fluidic body.
Kurane discloses utilizing a high contrast background to facilitate the determination of whether the camphor crystals are dancing in the sampled portion of the fluidic body, (see at least: Par. 0016, when the background image and the image of the specific region are combined with each other, it is possible to obtain an image having the object and the background with high contrast and to accurately capture the image of a moving object, [i.e., utilizing a high contrast background, “background with high contrast “, to facilitate the determination of whether the camphor crystals are dancing in the sampled portion of the fluidic body, “implicit by capturing the image of a moving object relative to the dark background”]).
Karasawa and Kurane are combinable because they are all concerned with object motion tracking. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, to modify Karasawa, to use the background with high contrast, as though by Kurane, in order to reduce the amount of processing in a movement detecting process, (Par. 0016)
Claims 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Karasawa et al, (“Motion modes of two self-propelled camphor boats on the surface of a surfactant-containing solution”, Journal of Colloid and Interface Science 511 (2018) 184–192) in view of Feldman et al, (US-PGPUB 20150226683)
In regards to claim 19, Karasawa discloses camphor-based dynamic tensiometer, (see at least: Fig. 2, the oscillatory system shown in Fig. 2; and Fig. 3a) time dependence of the surface tension at the two sampling points), comprising:
a container, (see at least: Fig. 1, oval track);
a camphor supply, (see at least: Page 185, section 2.1, An aqueous solution of sodium dodecylsulfate …was poured into the track …and two camphor boats were laid on its surface, which is the solution that comprises camphor features was technically inside a supplier before it’s being poured into the track);
transporting a mechanism from a supply to a surface of the fluidic body, (see at least: Page 185, section 2.1, An aqueous solution of sodium dodecylsulfate …was poured into the track …and two camphor boats were laid on its surface, [i.e., transporting a mechanism from a supply to a surface of the fluidic body, “implicit by pouring aqueous solution of sodium from a supply into a surface of a container as shown in Fig. 1”]);
an IP camera, (Page 185, section 2.1, video camera (Casio, EXILIM EX-100); and
a controller for analyzing movement of the camphor when applied at a surface of a fluidic body, (see at least: Page 185, section 2.1, second paragraph, stationary or oscillatory motion of the movable boat (see below) was observed at around the center of the straight section of the track, and the motion of the camphor boats was recorded using video camera, in order to analyze the movable boat’s position and velocity by comparing each recorded frame with a template image of the camphor boat; and from Page 189, section 3.3, first paragraph, the oscillation period and amplitude of the resulting motion of the movable boat are shown in Table 1. Accordingly, the stationary or oscillatory motion of the movable boat (see below) was observed by video camera, to analyzing movement of the camphor when applied at a surface of a fluidic body, [i.e., a controller for analyzing movement of the camphor when applied at a surface of a fluidic body, “implicit by determining the oscillation period and amplitude of the resulting motion of the movable boat”]).
Karasawa does not expressly disclose a dispensing mechanism for transporting and crushing camphor from the camphor supply to the container.
However, Feldman et al discloses a dispensing mechanism for transporting and crushing camphor from the camphor supply to the container, (see at least: Fig. 5, and Par. 0108, control valve 42 is used in inlet pipe 41 for directing a liquid sample to the multi sensor monitoring system 30 mounted on bypass pipe 15, “implicitly crushing and transporting the sampled liquid to the surface of the fluidic body).
Karasawa and Feldman are combinable because they are both concerned with fluid sample-based features tracking. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, to modify Karasawa, to use control valve 42, as though by Feldman, in order to direct a liquid sample to the multi sensor monitoring system 30, (Feldman, Par. 0108), to thereby provide efficiently the sample for analysis without particles, (Feldman, Par. 0009)
In regards to claim 20, the combine teaching Karasawa and Feldman as whole discloses the limitations of claim 19.
Feldman further discloses one or more valves that control fluid flow into and/or out of the container, (Feldman, see at least: Fig. 5, Par. 0108, “control valve 42”), wherein the one or more valves are actuated by the controller, (Feldman, see at least: Fig. 4, and Par. 0106, “control unit 8”).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 17 is 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.
With respect to claim 17, the prior art of record, alone or in reasonable combination, does not teach or suggest, the following limitation(s), (in consideration of the claim as a whole):
“wherein the mechanism comprises an oscillatory chemical reaction comprising Fe(phen)32+ (ferroin) transforming into Fe(phen)33+ (ferrin) alternately”
The non-patent-literature Karasawa, (“Motion modes of two self-propelled camphor boats on the surface of a surfactant-containing solution”, Journal of Colloid and Interface Science 511 (2018) 184–192), discloses a process for evaluating characteristics of a fluidic body comprising:
transporting a mechanism from a supply to a surface of the fluidic body, (see at least: Page 185, section 2.1, An aqueous solution of sodium dodecylsulfate …was poured into the track …and two camphor boats were laid on its surface, [i.e., transporting a mechanism from a supply to a surface of the fluidic body, “implicit by pouring aqueous solution of sodium from a supply into a surface of a container as shown in Fig. 1”]);
activating the mechanism by utilizing a difference in surface tension in a first area of a fluidic body and a second area of the fluidic body proximate the first area, (see at least: Page 185, left-hand-column, first paragraph, “primary driving force of the motion of camphor boats is the surface tension difference between the front and the back of the boat”; and Page 185, left-hand-column, second paragraph, the dissolved molecules from the self-propelled objects are adsorbed or sublimated on the liquid surface and induce a concentration and surface tension difference, [i.e., activating the mechanism, “driving force”, by utilizing a difference in surface tension in a first area of a fluidic body and a second area of the fluidic body proximate the first area, “surface tension difference between the front and the back surface of the boat”]);
monitoring rotational and/or oscillatory movement of the mechanism with imaging technology, (see at least: Page 185, section 2.1, an oval-shaped track was prepared to study the motion of the camphor boats, …. stationary or oscillatory motion of the movable boat (see below) was observed at around the center of the straight section of the track, and the motion of the camphor boats was recorded using video camera, [i.e., monitoring rotational and/or oscillatory movement of the mechanism, “implicit by observing and recording oscillatory motion of the movable boat in the liquid surface sample”, with imaging technology, “implicit by using the video camera”]); and
classifying and/or quantifying the rotational and/or oscillatory movement of the mechanism with imaging technology and a controller, (see at least: Page 185, section 2.1, second paragraph, stationary or oscillatory motion of the movable boat (see below) was observed at around the center of the straight section of the track, and the motion of the camphor boats was recorded using video camera, in order to analyze the movable boat’s position and velocity by comparing each recorded frame with a template image of the camphor bot; and from Page 189, section 3.3, first paragraph, the oscillation period and amplitude of the resulting motion of the movable boat are shown in Table 1, which the oscillation period and amplitude of the resulting motion of the movable boat is technically equivalent to the oscillation amount (quantifying) of the movable boat, [i.e., quantifying the oscillatory movement of the mechanism, “implicit by the oscillation period and amplitude of the movable boat”, with imaging technology and a controller, “implicit by recording the motion of the camphor boats, by using video camera”. Furthermore, the data shown Table 1 is technically determined by a processor (controller)]).
However, Karasawa fails to teach or suggest, either alone or in combination with the other cited references, wherein the mechanism comprises an oscillatory chemical reaction comprising Fe(phen)32+ (ferroin) transforming into Fe(phen)33+ (ferrin) alternately.
A further prior art of record, Hernandez et al, (US-PGPUB 20210087696) discloses an oscillatory chemical reaction, where the concentrations of some reactants and products change with time in a periodic or quasi-periodic manner, (see Par. 0002); but fails to teach or suggest, either alone or in combination with the other cited references, wherein the mechanism comprises an oscillatory chemical reaction comprising Fe(phen)32+ (ferroin) transforming into Fe(phen)33+ (ferrin) alternately.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AMARA ABDI whose telephone number is (571)272-0273. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00am-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, Vu Le can be reached at (571) 272-7332. 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.
/AMARA ABDI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2668 12/19/2025