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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 March 5, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The amendments filed March 5, 2026 have been entered. Claims 1, 4-8, 10, 11, 14-18 and 20 remain pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-20 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.
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.
Claim 1 and claims 4-8, 10, 11, 14-18, and 20 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "a single type of particles" in line 2. It is unclear whether “a single type” refers to the same mass, same composition, same size, or another characteristic. For purposes of examination below, the examiner is interpreting “a single type” to mean the particles share at least one common characteristic. Claims 4-8 and 10 are rejected by dependency.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "a single type of particles" in line 2. It is unclear whether “a single type” refers to the same mass, same composition, same size, or another characteristic. For purposes of examination below, the examiner is interpreting “a single type” to mean the particles share at least one common characteristic. Claims 14-18 and 20 are rejected by dependency.
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, 4-6, 10, 11, 14-16, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li (US7999936B1) in view of Bott (US4781460A), as evidenced by "Least Square Method".
Regarding claim 1, Li teaches a particle measurement device (30, Fig. 2) of a dispersion liquid (12, Fig. 2) including a single type of particles, the particle measurement device comprising:
a light source unit (32, Fig. 2) that irradiates the dispersion liquid with measurement light (10, Fig. 2);
a parameter setting unit that sets at least one of a scattering angle (column 4, lines 17-26 disclose the use of varying scattering angles. The examiner is interpreting this to mean the angle is set by some sort of unit) or a measurement wavelength as a measurement parameter (column 3, line 19 and column 4, line 53 disclose a wavelength range is used. The examiner is interpreting this to mean the wavelength is set by some sort of unit);
a scattered light measurement unit (42, Fig. 2) that obtains a plurality of pieces of scattering intensity data by measuring a scattering intensity of scattered light emitted from the dispersion liquid by the measurement light a plurality of times while changing a value of the measurement parameter set by the parameter setting unit a plurality of times (column 3, lines 8-21 disclose the scattered light measurement unit (the second detector) measures scattering over a wavelength range);
a transmittance measurement unit (38, Fig. 2) that measures a transmittance of the dispersion liquid (column 3, lines 8-21 disclose the first detector measures transmittance); and
a computer or a dedicated circuit configured to calculate (column 1, lines 63-64 discloses computational calculations) a refractive complex index including a real part and an imaginary part (column 1, lines 63-65 disclose the calculation of refractive index n and extinction coefficient k, which are the real and imaginary parts of a complex refractive index) and a particle diameter distribution of the single type of particles (Table 1 discloses a particle diameter calculated from measurements taken) and scattering intensity parameter-dependent data from the plurality of pieces of scattering intensity data obtained by the scattered light measurement unit (column 7, lines 1-5 disclose the parameters listed in Table 1 are determined using the scattering intensity parameter data),
the calculated scattering intensity parameter-dependent data and transmittance data of the dispersion liquid using a theoretical formula or a simulation based on a theory of electromagnetic wave behavior that defines a relationship of the complex refractive index, a particle diameter, and the scattering intensity (column 6, lines 33-67 disclose the use of Mie calculations to relate the complex refractive index, scattering, and particle diameter) and a theoretical formula or a simulation based on a theory of electromagnetic wave behavior that defines a relationship of the complex refractive index, the particle diameter, and the transmittance (eq. 1 discloses the use of the Beer-Lambert law to related transmittance, complex refractive index, and particle diameter).
Li fails to teach calculating and fitting scattering intensity time variation characteristic data, and wherein the fitting is performed based on an evaluation value which is calculated by summing a square of a difference between the calculated scattering intensity time variation characteristic data and a theoretical value thereof, a square of a difference between the calculated scattering intensity parameter-dependent data and a theoretical value thereof, and a square of a difference between the transmittance data and a theoretical value thereof, and minimizing the evaluation value.
However, in the same field of endeavor of particle measurement devices, Bott discloses finding scattering intensity time data (column 7, lines 46-52). Further, Bott discloses doing a fitting based on an evaluation value (v(r), column 17, line 42) which is found using the sum of a square of a difference between calculated and theoretical value (a least squares algorithm - column 17, lines 27-59), and minimizing the evaluation value (inherent to the least squares method; column 22, lines 66-68).
Bott discloses the time-variation data allows for a high resolution particle sizing (abstract). Thus, it would be obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to combine the device of Li with the time-dependent scattering data taught in Bott in order to achieve a high resolution particle sizing.
Li discloses fitting the calculated and measured intensity and transmittance spectra, but does not specify how the data is fitted. The least squares method taught by Bott has the advantage of providing a fitting with minimal discrepancies between data actual and predicted data, providing a best fit between the two (see "Least Square Method", graph on page 1 and paragraph 1 of page 2). Thus, it would be obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to combine the fitting of Li with the least squares method of fitting taught in Bott in order to find the best fit between measured and calculated values.
Regarding claim 4, Li as modified by Bott teaches the invention as explained above in claim 1, and further teaches the measurement parameter is the scattering angle, and the scattered light measurement unit obtains the plurality of pieces of scattering intensity data by measuring the scattering intensity of the scattered light of the dispersion liquid for each of a plurality of scattering angles while changing a value of the scattering angle by two angles or more (Li: column 7, lines 27-29 disclose finding scattered light measurements at a range of scattering angles. Fig. 9 also depicts a range of scattering angles, at least two or more).
Regarding claim 5, Li as modified by Bott teaches the invention as explained above in claim 1, and further teaches the measurement parameter is the measurement wavelength, and the scattered light measurement unit obtains the plurality of pieces of scattering intensity data by measuring the scattering intensity of the scattered light of the dispersion liquid for each of a plurality of measurement wavelengths using the measurement wavelength of two wavelengths or more (Li: Fig. 10 depicts a plurality of scattering intensity data at different wavelengths, at least two or more).
Regarding claim 6, Li as modified by Bott teaches the invention as explained above in claim 1, and further teaches wherein the scattered light measurement unit measures a light intensity of a polarized component of the scattered light of the dispersion liquid obtained by irradiating the dispersion liquid with the measurement light having specific polarization, as the scattering intensity (Li: column 4, lines 57-63 disclose the measurement light may be polarized).
Regarding claim 10, Li as modified by Bott teaches the invention as explained above in claim 1, and further teaches the computer or the dedicated circuit is further configured to calculate the complex refractive index of the single type of particles and a particle diameter distribution of a number concentration by fitting using the scattering intensity time variation characteristic data (Bott: column 7, lines 46-52), the scattering intensity parameter-dependent data, the transmittance data , and volume concentration data of the dispersion liquid (Li: column 1, lines 18-27).
As discussed above in claim 1, it would be obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to combine the device of Li with the time-dependent scattering data taught in Bott in order to achieve a high resolution particle sizing.
Regarding claim 11, Li teaches a particle measurement method (column 1, lines 18-26) of a dispersion liquid (12, Fig. 2) including a single type of particles,
wherein at least one of a scattering angle (column 4, lines 17-26 disclose the use of varying scattering angles) or a measurement wavelength is set as a measurement parameter (column 3, line 19 and column 4, line 53 disclose a wavelength range is used), and
the particle measurement method comprises:
a measurement step of measuring a scattering intensity of scattered light emitted from the dispersion liquid by measurement light a plurality of times while changing a value of the set measurement parameter a plurality of times (column 3, lines 8-21 disclose the scattered light measurement unit (the second detector) measures scattering over a wavelength range);
a calculation step of calculating scattering intensity parameter-dependent data from a plurality of pieces of scattering intensity data obtained by the measurement step (column 7, lines 1-5 disclose the parameters listed in Table 1 are determined using the scattering intensity parameter data);
a step of measuring a transmittance of the dispersion liquid and obtaining transmittance data (column 3, lines 8-21 disclose the first detector measures transmittance); and
a step of calculating a complex refractive index including a real part and an imaginary part (column 1, lines 63-65 disclose the calculation of refractive index n and extinction coefficient k, which are the real and imaginary parts of a complex refractive index) and a particle diameter distribution of the single type of particles in the dispersion liquid by fitting the transmittance data of the dispersion liquid (Table 1 discloses a particle diameter calculated from measurements taken), and the scattering intensity parameter-dependent data, which are obtained by the calculation step, using a theoretical formula or a simulation based on a theory of electromagnetic wave behavior that defines a relationship of the complex refractive index, a particle diameter, and the scattering intensity (column 6, lines 33-67 disclose the use of Mie calculations to relate the complex refractive index, scattering, and particle diameter) and a theoretical formula or a simulation based on a theory of electromagnetic wave behavior that defines a relationship of the complex refractive index, the particle diameter, and transmittance (eq. 1 discloses the use of the Beer-Lambert law to related transmittance, complex refractive index, and particle diameter).
Li fails to teach the calculation of scattering intensity time variation characteristic data and the fitting is performed based on an evaluation value which is calculated by summing a square of a difference between the calculated scattering intensity time variation characteristic data and a theoretical value thereof, a square of a difference between the calculated scattering intensity parameter-dependent data and a theoretical value thereof, and a square of a difference between the transmittance data and a theoretical value thereof, and minimizing the evaluation value.
However, Bott discloses a method of finding scattering intensity time data (column 7, lines 46-52). Further, Bott discloses doing a fitting based on an evaluation value (v(r), column 17, line 42) which is found using the sum of a square of a difference between calculated and theoretical value (a least squares algorithm - column 17, lines 27-59), and minimizing the evaluation value (inherent to the least squares method; column 22, lines 66-68).
Bott discloses the time-variation data allows for a high resolution particle sizing (abstract). Thus, it would be obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to combine the method of Li with the time-dependent scattering data taught in Bott in order to achieve a high resolution particle sizing.
Li discloses fitting the calculated and measured intensity and transmittance spectra, but does not specify how the data is fitted. The least squares method taught by Bott has the advantage of providing a fitting with minimal discrepancies between data actual and predicted data, providing a best fit between the two (see "Least Square Method", graph on page 1 and paragraph 1 of page 2). Thus, it would be obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to combine the fitting of Li with the least squares method of fitting taught in Bott in order to find the best fit between measured and calculated values.
Regarding claim 14, Li in view of Bott teaches the invention as explained above in claim 11, and further teaches the measurement parameter is the scattering angle, and in the measurement step, the scattering intensity of the scattered light of the dispersion liquid is measured for each of a plurality of scattering angles while changing a value of the scattering angle by two angles or more (Li: column 7, lines 27-29 disclose finding scattered light measurements at a range of scattering angles. Fig. 9 also depicts a range of scattering angles, at least two or more).
Regarding claim 15, Li in view of Bott teaches the invention as explained above in claim 11, and further teaches the measurement parameter is the measurement wavelength, and in the measurement step, the scattering intensity of the scattered light of the dispersion liquid is measured for each of a plurality of measurement wavelengths using the measurement wavelength of two wavelengths or more (Li: Fig. 10 depicts a plurality of scattering intensity data at different wavelengths, at least two or more).
Regarding claim 16, Li in view of Bott teaches the invention as explained above in claim 11, and further teaches wherein, in the measurement step, a light intensity of a polarized component of the scattered light of the dispersion liquid obtained by irradiating the dispersion liquid with the measurement light having specific polarization is measured as the scattering intensity (Li: column 4, lines 57-63 disclose the measurement light may be polarized).
Regarding claim 20, Li in view of Bott teaches the invention as explained above in claim 11, and further teaches wherein the complex refractive index of the single type of particles and a particle diameter distribution of a number concentration are further calculated by fitting using the scattering intensity time variation characteristic data (Bott: column 7, lines 46-52), the scattering intensity parameter- dependent data, the transmittance data, and volume concentration data of the dispersion liquid (Li: column 1, lines 18-27).
As discussed above in claim 11, it would be obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to combine the device of Li with the time-dependent scattering data taught in Bott in order to achieve a high resolution particle sizing.
Claims 7 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li (US7999936B1) in view of Bott (US4781460A) as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, and further in view of Trainer (US20140152986A1).
Regarding claim 7, Li in view of Bott teaches the invention as explained above in claim 1, but fails to teach the scattered light measurement unit measures at least one of scattering intensity parameter-dependent data obtained by successively irradiating the dispersion liquid with the measurement light having a plurality of polarization states or scattering intensity parameter-dependent data obtained by extracting a polarized component of the scattered light emitted from the dispersion liquid a plurality of times.
However, in the same field of endeavor of particle measurement devices, Trainer discloses irradiating a dispersion liquid with light having a plurality of polarization states (paragraphs [0471]-[0486]).
Trainer discloses polarizing the light source can optimize the accuracy of the particle characterization (paragraph [0471]). Thus, it would be obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine the device of Li as modified by Bott with the plurality of polarization states taught in Trainer in order to optimize the accuracy of the particle characterization.
Regarding claim 17, Li in view of Bott teaches the invention as explained above in claim 11, but fails to teach in the measurement step, at least one of scattering intensity parameter- dependent data obtained by successively irradiating the dispersion liquid with the measurement light having a plurality of polarization states or scattering intensity parameter-dependent data obtained by extracting a polarized component of the scattered light emitted from the dispersion liquid a plurality of times is measured.
However, Trainer discloses irradiating a dispersion liquid with light having a plurality of polarization states (paragraphs [0471]-[0486]).
Trainer discloses polarizing the light source can optimize the accuracy of the particle characterization (paragraph [0471]). Thus, it would be obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine the method of Li as modified by Bott with the plurality of polarization states taught in Trainer in order to optimize the accuracy of the particle characterization.
Claims 8 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li (US7999936B1) in view of Bott (US4781460A) as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, and further in view of Charalampopoulos ("Morphology and dynamics of agglomerated particulates in combustion systems using light scattering techniques". Progress in energy and combustion science, 18(1), 13-45. 1992).
Regarding claim 8, Li in view of Bott teaches the invention as explained above in claim 1, and further teaches the scattering intensity parameter-dependent data of the measurement parameter is calculated based on at least one of a Mie scattering theoretical formula (Li: eq. 2).
Li as modified by Bott fails to teach the calculated scattering intensity time variation characteristic data of the measurement parameter is calculated based on a Stokes-Einstein's theoretical formula.
However, in the same field of endeavor of measuring particle parameters, Charalampopoulos discloses the use of the Stokes-Einstein formula to determine a particles size and scattering data (eqs. 36, 37; page 23).
The Stokes-Einstein theoretical formula is a well-known technique in the art used to investigate a particles properties and its interaction with its dispersing medium. A person of ordinary skill in the art would be able to reasonably apply the known method of the Stokes-Einstein formula to the measurement device taught in Trainer with reasonable success in determining various particle properties. Thus, it would be obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to combine the device of Li as modified by Bott with the use of the Stokes-Einstein formula as taught in Charalampopoulos as it is a well-known formula that determines various particle properties.
Regarding claim 18, Li in view of Bott teaches the invention as explained above in claim 11, and further teaches the scattering intensity parameter-dependent data of the measurement parameter is calculated based on at least one of a Mie scattering theoretical formula (Li: eq. 2).
Li as modified by Bott fails to teach the calculated scattering intensity time variation characteristic data of the measurement parameter is calculated based on a Stokes-Einstein's theoretical formula.
However, Charalampopoulos discloses the use of the Stokes-Einstein formula to determine a particles size and scattering data (eqs. 36, 37; page 23).
The Stokes-Einstein theoretical formula is a well-known technique in the art used to investigate a particles properties and its interaction with its dispersing medium. A person of ordinary skill in the art would be able to reasonably apply the known method of the Stokes-Einstein formula to the measurement device taught in Trainer with reasonable success in determining various particle properties. Thus, it would be obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to combine the method of Li as modified by Bott with the use of the Stokes-Einstein formula as taught in Charalampopoulos as it is a well-known formula that determines various particle properties.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Alexandria Mendoza whose telephone is (571)272-5282. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thur 10:00-7:00 CT.
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, Michelle Iacoletti can be reached at (571) 270-5789. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of 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.
/ALEXANDRIA MENDOZA/Examiner, Art Unit 2877
/MICHELLE M IACOLETTI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2877
Prosecution Insights