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 .
Remarks
This Office Action fully acknowledges Applicant’s remarks filed on July 9th, 2026. Claims 1-17 are pending.
Claim Objections
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities: The amended recitation “a data processor the optical detector…” is missing a prepositional phrase between processor and the. Appropriate correction is required. For purposes of Examination, this is interpreted as “in” so as to coincide with the likewise amendments in claims 1 and 10 and the discussion by Applicant on page 6 of the remarks to the “within” nature of the two elements.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the data processor in the optical detector in cls. 1, 10, and 11, and the microfluidics instrument (including a pump and valve) as in cls. 1, 10, and 11 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: The amended recitations in claims 1, 10, and 11 to “a data processor in the optical detector…wherein the data processor controls a valve or a pump of the microfluidics instrument…” as well as in claim 10 to the amended step of “calculating a baseline for the refractive index…monitoring the refractive index for a deviation…and…communicating to the microfluidics instrument to control a valve or pump in response to the deviation…” lack antecedent basis in the disclosure.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
Data processor… configured to communicate with the microfluidics instrument and controls a valve or a pump of the microfluidics instrument…as in cls. 1, 10, and 11.
An offset adjustment structure being coupled to the at least one optical fiber to adjust its position relative to the flow channel.
3. At least one energy source having a defined wavelength and a transmission axis as in cl.10
4. At least one energy source signal carrier structured and configured to carry the defined wavelength…as in cl. 10.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
Unclear from the disclosure. Further clarification required (see below under 35 USC 112 2nd/b).
Unclear from the disclosure. Further clarification is required.
3. At least one light source and equivalents thereof as in par.[0037] of Applicant’s pre-grant publication US 2024/0149266.
4. At least one optical fiber and equivalents thereof as in pars.[0005,0007,0032,0064].
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 1-17 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 amendments in independent claims 1, 10, and 11 to “a data processor in the optical detector…wherein the data processor controls a valve or a pump of the microfluidics instrument…” is drawn to new matter in the claims (*Examiner notes the typographical error in claim 11 in which the recitation provides “a data processor the optical detector…” that is construed to be a typographical error and is read as in claims 1 and 10 with the “in” proviso).
Examiner notes Applicant’s purported showing of support for these amendments in pars.[0023,0042].
Examiner asserts that par.[0023] purports the use of software and data processing algorithms to identify key thresholds and determine fluid type signatures so as to differentiate between different quantities of water and the like. Similar discussion is found with respect to a generally postulated “simple-to-use sensor with software and data processing algorithms for processing a sample…” This discussion is drawn to discussion of what Applicant sets forth is missing from the precedent technologies and needed herein, and does not provide basis to the claimed data processor in the optical detector for the recited functionalities herein.
Par.[0042] discloses “methods to utilize the flow cell with a detector can include a response by the sensor to control other instrument functions…such as in when a sensor detects a change in the fluid’s composition, a valve or pump may be activated or deactivated to control a response.
This does not speak to or provide basis for the internal disposition of a data processor in the optical detector. Additionally, this sets forth an optical detector and a sensor as distinct elements (notably, the claims provide the optical detector), as would be expected, and the claimed “data processor” is not akin to a sensor. A sensor is a recognized term of the art as a device that detects a specific chemical or physical parameter/analyte and converts it into a measurable response. Data processor is likewise a recognized term of the art and construes a downstream data/signal processing element.
This section, along with that of par.[0023], also does not provide support for the cooperative communication and control functionality so as to control a valve or pump of the microfluidics instrument. Par.[0042] speaks to a detector and a sensor, wherein it is the sensor’s detected change informing activation of a valve or pump.
The discussion to particular control imparted coincident with an interpreted refractive index and adjustment of a valve or pump of a microfluidic instrument is also without support and drawn to new matter in the claims.
The discussion in par.[0042] is generalized and prophetic and does not provide for the particular, structured implementation set forth in the claims (as in all of claims 1, 10, and 11).
Examiner further notes that par.[0039] discusses that the refractive index may affect of be affected by various elements, but this disclosure does not discuss or provide basis for a control scheme in detecting refractive index and imparting a control of a valve or pump coincident therewith (or “interpret” refractive index, in which such terminology is not particularly defined as to what constitutes “interpreting” as it may refer to an indirect or estimation evaluation as opposed to a direct sensed parameter that is directly correlated to RI).
This is likewise seen through the methodology and the likewise-configured data processor, as well as in the amended “calculating a baseline for the refractive index…monitoring the refractive index for a deviation…and…communicating to the microfluidics instrument to control a valve or pump in response to the deviation…”
Examiner notes the general discussion found in par.[0007], but there is inadequate disclosure to the calculation of a baseline refractive index and monitoring its deviation in accordance with making an adjustment to the valve or controller as claimed.
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 1-17 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.
The metes and bounds of the structure(s) and equivalents thereof given to the recited “a data processor in the optical detector…wherein the data processor controls a valve or a pump of the microfluidics instrument…” are indefinitely defined herein.
As discussed above under 35 USC 112 a/1st with the concordant sections cited by Applicant as providing support thereto, there is a lack of clarity as to the structural constituency of such a data processor in the optical detector for the recited functionalities therein. Examiner notes that the remainder of the disclosure likewise fails to render clear metes and bounds.
As above, Examiner notes that par.[0042] speaks to an optical detector and a sensor, however a sensor is known as a device that detects a specific chemical or physical parameter/analyte and converts it into a measurable response.
“Data processor” is likewise a recognized term of the art and construes a downstream data/signal processing element.
However, a data processor alone provides insufficient structure for the recited functionalities provided therewith. Notably, the data processor is provided with the functionality to control a valve or a pump of the microfluidics instrument, in which data processor alone does not provide such functionality.
This potentially speaks to added elements of combination of a controller and actuator, however, the disclosure is not clear to this end and concordant with the claim recitation. And as discussed above, there is a lack of disclosure to this beyond the generally offered methods of use therewith a “sensor” that is not provided herein. It also appears from the disclosure that “sensor” refers to the device as a whole, or at least characterizing the light source, optical detector, data processor collectively as a “sensor.”
For purposes of Examination, this recitation is treated as a data processor in communication with the optical detector or as a whole of the light interrogation/detection and signal processing element(s), as most closely can be seen through Applicant’s disclosure.
As discussed above, the amended recitation to the “offset adjustment structure being coupled to the at least one optical fiber to adjust its position relative to the flow channel” presents an alternative-type “means for” recitation in which a generic placeholder of “structure” is utilized along side functional language of “to adjust its position relative to the flow channel” without sufficient structure recited within the recitation.
And further examination of the specification does not render clear metes and bounds as to the structure(s) and equivalents thereof that constitute the offset adjustment structure for its recited functionality.
Examiner notes par.[0036] of Applicant’s pre-grant publication 2024/0149266, however the disclosure therein does not discuss or define its constituent structure(s). Further, it is noted there are numerical identifiers 132 and 232 to the offset adjustment structure, but such showings in the drawings also do not clearly convey the metes and bounds of the structure(s) constitutes this element for its recited functionality.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 6, 9, 11, 12, 14, and 16 as best understood, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Andreis et al. (US 2018/0126347) in view of Garrett (USPN 6,542,231) and Gavin et al. (USPN 5,731,212), hereafter Gavin.
With regard to claims 1 and 10, Andreis discloses a fluidics differentiation system comprising a flow channel 32 with a generally round cross-section (as inferred by a pipe) defining a flow path for a liquid, a microfluidics instrument 10 in fluidic communication with the flow channel (pars.[0033,0050 figs. 11, 12, 15, 16], for example). Andreis further discloses a light source 36 (energy source as in cl. 10) being structured and configured to generate a light that travels along an optical axis wherein the optical axis is offset from the flow path at a non-zero angle (see figs. 16-18, for example), an optical detector 38 (energy source detector as in cl. 10) wherein the optical detector is structured and configured to interpret a refractive index of the liquid (pars.[0037,0041,0050,0051,0065], for example). Andreis further discloses a data processor (electronic control unit 22) in the optical detector being structured and configured to communicate with the microfluidics instrument wherein the data processor controls a valve or a pump of the microfluidics instrument in response to the interpretation of the refractive index of the liquid form the optical detector (pars.[0014-0016,0036], fig. 11, for example). With regard to claim 2, Andreis discloses that the light source is capable of transmitting blue light (an active transmission step is not construed given that the claims are drawn to a device in which process steps are not afforded patentable weight) (discussion to light source in the visible spectrum; par.[0073]). With regard to claim 4, Andreis discloses that the flow path and the optical axis are offset at an angle ranging from the non-zero angle to ninety degrees (figs. 16-18, for example). With regard to claim 9, Andreis discloses a light source capable of providing visible light and thus capable from 400 to 495nm, and wherein such recitation thereto is treated as a capability of the light source whereas discussion to an active method step incurs no patentable weight in a device claim (par.[0073], for example). With regards to claims 12, 14,and 16, Andreis discloses the that flow channel further comprises an interrogation point wherein the flow channel is structured and configured to allow the liquid to act as a lens to redirect light from the light source (see, for example, an output output end from the inlet side of the pipe; further noting that Andreis discloses the commensurately claimed structural element of a flow channel [modified below] wherein Applicant has set forth an “interrogation point” that does not offer further, particular structure to the flow channel, and the commensurately structured flow channel of Andreis is thereby said to constitute such in as much as claimed and required herein, and noting that the claim recitation itself and Applicant’s par.[0025] discloses that the liquid, which is a prospective element and not positively claimed, is that which acts as a lens).
With regard to claims 1, 10, and 11 Andreis does not specifically disclose that the flow channel comprises a transparent tube
Further, to the extent that the pipe of Andreis is not taken as explicitly providing a generally round cross-section, such a modification would have been obvious.
Further, as in 1, 10, and 11 Andreis does not specifically disclose at least one optical fiber (energy source carrier as in cl. 10) structured and configured to carry the light from the light source to the liquid and then onto the optical detector. Further, as in claim 6, Andreis does not disclose two optical fibers as claimed.
Garrett discloses a flow cell with a coupled liquid sample analyzer in which an input optical fiber 26 is provided for interrogation light to the fluid and an output optical fiber 34 is provided for receiving the light transmitted therethrough to an optical detector, wherein the fibers are coated so as to transmit the maximum number of modes (abstract; lines 43-67, col. 8, fig. 4, for example).
Gavin discloses a test apparatus and method for testing cuvette accommodated samples (abstract). Gavin discloses a transparent conduit in which the fluid is disposed so as to be optically interrogated and measured by a detector therewith (abstract, lines 1-17, co. 3, fig. 9, for example).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Andreis to utilize two optical fibers, as in cls. 1, 6, 10, and 11, structured and configured to carry the light from the light source to the liquid and then onto the optical detector such as taught by the analogous art of Garrett to a discloses a flow cell with a coupled liquid sample analyzer in which providing an input and output optical fiber as claimed provides an obvious, analogous arrangement to the prism arrangement in Andreis in which an arrangement utilizing an input and output optical fiber provides for assuredly delivering a confined and complete beam of interrogation light and of maximum modes for interacting with the fluid so as to provide enhanced optical interrogation thereof as would likewise be appreciated in Andreis.
Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize a flow channel tube that is transparent such as suggested by the analogous art of Gavin to a test apparatus for testing fluid sample accommodated in flow paths in which a provision to a flow channel tube that is transparent allows for optical interrogation thereof as likewise seen in Andreis in which an open area is utilized and a provision to an optically transparent material offers an alternative, analogous arrangement for likewise providing an optically assessable zone to be interrogated and detected as desired in Andreis (and wherein Andreis contemplates materials to the optical sensor that have optical characteristics compatible with the measurement requirements; par.[0059]).
Claim(s) 3, 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Andreis in view of Garett and Gavin as applied to claims 1, 2, 6, 9-12, 14, and 16 above, and further in view of Tsukii et al. (US 2012/0092667), hereafter Tsukii.
With regard to claim 3, Andreis/Garrett/Gavin does not specifically disclose an offset adjustment structure coupled to the at least one optical fiber as claimed. With regard to claim 4, Andreis provides for such (see figs. 16-18, for example).
Tsukii discloses an optical information analyzing device and analyzing method (abstract). Tsukii discloses providing an offset adjustment structure in that of an irradiation position adjusting mechanism that adjust the position of the irradiation unit 30 so as to align the optical axis of the optical fiber 31 with the optical axis 51a of the optical fiber 51 of the transmitted light receiving unit (pars.[0057,0065], fig. 1, for example).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide an optical adjustment structure such as taught by the analogous art of Tsukii to that of optically analyzing a sample within a channel in which the interrogation radiation is conveyed to and from the sample by optical fibers and in which such optical adjustment mechanism provides means for properly establishing the sought alignment of the irradiation optical axis as similarly desired in Andreis.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Andreis in view of Garrett and Gavin as applied to claims 1, 2, 6, 9-12, 14, and 16 above, and further in view of in view of Dittrich et al. (“An Integrated Microfluidic System…” Analytical Chemistry 2003, 75, 5767-5774), hereafter Dittrich.
Andreis/Garrett/Gavin does not specifically disclose an inline filter disposed on the at least one optical fiber.
Dittrich discloses a micro-total-analysis system based on a microfluidic on-chip device for sorting cells and particles (abstract). Dittrich discloses providing an emission filter to the optical fiber prior to the optical detector to provide sensitive detection and sorting of cells and particles (page 5769, col. 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Andreis/Garrett/Gavin to utilize an inline filter disposed on the at least one optical fiber such as taught by the analogous prior art of Dittrich to a microfluidic system for analyzing particles in which such an emission filter provides for particular and sensitive detection of targeted emissions from the fluid/fluid mixture in order to achieve sensitive optical assaying thereof.
Further, to the extent that the emission filter is not construed as being disposed on the at least one fiber, such a modification represents an obvious engineering design choice so as to directly convey the emission signal to the emission filter and wherein making integral represents such an obvious engineering design choice for accomplishing a likewise function of filtering the emission signal thereafter the distal end of the emission fiber (see also MPEP 2144 V, B).
Claim(s) 7 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Andreis in view of Garrett and Gavin as applied to claims 1, 2, 6, 9-12, 14, and 16 above, and further in view of Zheng et al. (US 2011/0234757), hereafter Zheng, and evidenced through Lo et al. (US 2009/0155832), hereafter Lo.
Andreis/Garrett/Gavin does not specifically disclose the optical detector is one of a point detector and an array detector, and the transparent tube has a refractive index ranging from 1.0 to 2.0.
Zheng discloses optofluidic microscopes for 2D and 3D imaging (abstract). Zheng discloses a body defining a fluid channel and wherein the sample surface is coincident with a two-dimensional light detector array to capture frames as the sample moves through the channel (abstract; pars.[0008-0010,0034), and wherein the fluid channel is a PDMS microfluidic channel (par.[0117] implicitly having an RI from 1.0 to 2.0 as evidenced through Lo et al. (US 2009/0155832; par.[0049]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Andreis/Garrett/Gavin so as to provide an optical detector as an array detector and the transparent tube having an RI from 1.0 to 2.0 such as suggested by the analogous prior art of Zhen to optofluidic sample analysis of flowing fluids wherein provision to an array detector affords greater resolution and specificity in allowing the mixture to be imaged and affording a greater level of detail in the optical analysis to be realized, and wherein a choice of PDMS as the transparent tube material represents an obvious choice for a material of construction in which PDMS likewise affords the desired optical transparency properties for the optical assays and would have a reasonable expectation of success therein.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Andreis in view of Garrett and Gavin Kleiss et al. (USPN 3,124,148), hereafter Kleiss.
*Examiner re-asserts the above discussion in the base rejection of claim 1 above as it pertains likewise to that of claim 1 and the provided infrastructure in the method of claim 1.*
However, Andreis does not specifically disclose “calculating a baseline…monitoring the refractive index for a deviation…and…control a valve or a pump…in response to the deviation…” such a modification would have been obvious.
Kleiss discloses a fluid blending system. Kleiss discloses calculating a reference/predetermined refractive index, detecting a deviation from the reference/predetermined refractive index and generating a signal coincident therewith in which the measured RI is compared with the predetermined value and adjusting the flow in response to a deviation (lines 40-62, col. 3, for example).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Andreis/Garrett/Gavin to provide “calculating a baseline…monitoring the refractive index for a deviation…and…control a valve or a pump…in response to the deviation…” such as suggested by the analogous art of Kleiss to a fluid blending system for maintaining a desired blend in which Andreis is likewise concerned with providing a particular fluid mixture for a desired beverage and implementing a step in calculating a baseline RI to be monitored and adjusting the valve as in Andreis coincident with a deviation from the baseline represents an obvious and analogous approach for assuredly producing a desired fluid mixture in Andreis.
Further, as above, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Andreis to utilize two optical fibers, as in cl. 10, structured and configured to carry the light from the light source to the liquid and then onto the optical detector such as taught by the analogous art of Garrett to a discloses a flow cell with a coupled liquid sample analyzer in which providing an input and output optical fiber as claimed provides an obvious, analogous arrangement to the prism arrangement in Andreis in which an arrangement utilizing an input and output optical fiber provides for assuredly delivering a confined and complete beam of interrogation light and of maximum modes for interacting with the fluid so as to provide enhanced optical interrogation thereof as would likewise be appreciated in Andreis.
Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize a flow channel tube that is transparent such as suggested by the analogous art of Gavin to a test apparatus for testing fluid sample accommodated in flow paths in which a provision to a flow channel tube that is transparent allows for optical interrogation thereof as likewise seen in Andreis in which an open area is utilized and a provision to an optically transparent material offers an alternative, analogous arrangement for likewise providing an optically assessable zone to be interrogated and detected as desired in Andreis (and wherein Andreis contemplates materials to the optical sensor that have optical characteristics compatible with the measurement requirements; par.[0059]).
Claim(s) 13, 15, and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Andreis in view of Garrett and Gavin as applied to claims 1, 2, 6, 9-12, 14, and 16 above, and further in view of Newell et al. (US 2006/0012776).
Andreis/Garrett/Gavin does not specifically disclose wherein the optical detector is structured and configured to detect a scatter signal as in claims 13, 15, and 17.
Newell discloses a refractive index sensor for sensing refractive index of a fluid wherein an optical detector as in element 60 is structured and configured to detect backscattered light and element 62 detects scattered light beyond the critical angle, wherein the scatter signals are utilized in determining the refractive index of the fluid and monitor changes thereof (par.[0038], fig. 7, for example).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize an optical detector structured and configured to detect a scatter signal as in claims 13, 15, and 17 such as suggested by the analogous art of Newell to a refractive index sensor for sensing and monitoring refractive index of a fluid in which a provision to an optical detector configured to detect a scatter signal provides an obvious alternative sensing means to likewise determine and monitor a refractive index of the fluid as likewise desired in Andreis/Garrett/Gavin.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-17 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.
As discussed above, in view of the amendments to the claims, claims 1-17 are herein rejected under the above-cited grounds of rejection for the reasons discussed therein and which further include discussion with respect to Applicant’s remarks where pertinent.
Conclusion
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 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 NEIL N TURK whose telephone number is (571)272-8914. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 930-630.
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, Charles Capozzi can be reached at 571-270-3638. 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.
/NEIL N TURK/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1798
