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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 09/15/2025 has been entered.
Response to the argument
Response to the discussions on Claim rejections under 112b
35 USC 112 b rejection has been withdrawn based upon the amendment and explanation on the remark page 7.
Response to the discussions on Claim rejections under 103
AS to the claim 1, the applicant argues 1) Mariefeld does not teach the newly amended limitation 2) Combination of Mariefeld and Neijzen lack motivation since the Mariefeld for interaction forces between materials focusing on contact angle and contact force while Neijzen for optics and surfaces 3) Neijzen does not disclose the newly amended feature of “optical structure is a solid structure and does not have an internal recess for receiving a test specimen”.
However, it is not persuasive or moot.
First, 1) for the amended claim 1, the examiner is not depending on Mariefeld.
As a result, the argument is moot.
Second, 2) Mariefeld is in the are of developing sample container to improve an optical or spectroscopic examination of a sample as discussed in the Abstract of Mariefeld. Therefore, Mariefeld does in the same art of endeavor with Neijzen. Therefore, the argument is not persuasive.
Third, 3) Neijzen clearly disclose the feature of “optical structure is a solid structure and does not have an internal recess for receiving a test specimen” since the the thick bottom optical structure is a solid structure and does not have an internal recess for receiving a test specimen. See the applicant’s 1A or 1B which is exactly same with Neijzen’s 110.
Therefore, the rejection deemed proper.
Applicant further argues, as to the claims 2-4 based upon their dependencies and the same reason provided above applies the same.
AS to the claims 2 and 4, the applicant argues for the same limitation again and the applicant is depending on the Neijzen for the limitation not Mariefeld.
Therefore, the rejection deemed proper.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, and 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Neijzen (US 20140118745 A1 hereinafter Neijzen).
As to claim 1, Neijzen teaches a detection tube (Fig. 1), comprising:
a main body (110) comprising a bottom wall (112) and a side wall (shown in Fig. 1) extending from a periphery of the bottom wall to a first direction (upper direction), and the side wall and the bottom wall jointly form a detection groove (inside area where the sample is); and
an optical structure (bottom part of 110 under the sample area) connected to the bottom wall (112), the optical structure comprises an incident surface (left side of 110) and an exit surface (right side of 110), the incident surface and the exit surface are extended from the periphery of the bottom wall (as shown by Fig. 1) to a second direction opposite to the first direction (direction into its thickness, down direction) there is a first distance between portions of the incident surface (Fig. 1 distance between 113 and 114 closer to 112 of the container) and the exit surface adjacent to the bottom wall, there is a second distance between portions of the incident surface and the exit surface away from the bottom wall, and the first distance is greater than the second distance (distance between 113 and 114 farther to the inner side of the container), wherein the optical structure (bottom part of 110) is a solid structureand does not have an internal recess for receiving a test specimen (as shown in the Fig. 1).
As to claim 3, Neijzen teaches the detection tube of claim 1.
Neijzen further teaches the optical structure is solid ([0066]) and a refractive index thereof is greater than 1.4 ([0087]).
As to claim 4, Neijzen teaches the detection tube of claim 1.
Neijzen further teaches the optical structure further comprises a connecting surface (112), and the connecting surface connects the incident surface and the exit surface at their ends away from the bottom wall, a thickness between the incident surface and the exit surface from the bottom wall (lower most part of the bottom) to the connecting surface (upper most part of the bottom) is gradually increased (Fig. 1).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 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.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Neijzen
In view of MARIENFELD (EP 4049756 A1 hereinafter Mariefeld, the examiner will use US 20230390774 for citing purposes).
As to claim 2, Neijzen teaches the detection tube of claim 1.
While Neijzen does not explicitly disclose an included angle between the incident surface and the bottom wall or between the exit surface and the bottom wall is between 64 degrees and 80 degrees Examiner believes that finding an optimal angle for the container shape is within the customary practice of container building skilled person in the art.
Furthermore, Marienfeld teaches an included angle between the incident surface and the bottom wall or between the exit surface and the bottom wall is between 64 degrees and 80 degrees ([0018] 90-25 degree =65 degree and [0025] various angles including 75 degree).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify the device of Neijzen by having structure an included angle between the incident surface and the bottom wall or between the exit surface and the bottom wall is between 64 degrees and 80 degrees since the modification is within the realm of a person of ordinary skill in the art for the various reasons including optimally fitting to the rest of the detecting apparatus.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SUNGHEE Y GRAY whose telephone number is (571)270-3211. The examiner can normally be reached on T-R, 8:00 am-4:00 pm and F 8 :00 to 2:00 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Kara Geisel can be reached on (571) 272-2416. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-270-4211.
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.
/SUNGHEE Y GRAY/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2886
Prosecution Insights