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 .
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 30 is 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 30 recites the broad recitation “bird blood”, and the claim also recites “preferably EDTA- and/or heparin-anticoagulated bird blood” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
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 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 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.
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.
Claims 16-30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sousa (US 20190323949 A1) in view of Paseman (US 8594758 B2).
With regards to claims 16 and 27, Sousa discloses an optical system comprising:
a chamber 26 for receiving an element to be characterized by the optical system [0118] (Figs. 3a and 12),
a light source 5 for illuminating the chamber, and
a spectrometer 6 for recording a spectrum of light issuing from the chamber (Claim 1), wherein the light source being coupled to the chamber such a manner that light is guided from the light source to the chamber when the light source is activated [0121, 0129] (Abstract),
wherein in operation:
light is directed onto the element;
measuring a spectrum of reflected components of the light, scattered components of the light, and/or light caused by Raman scattering or fluorescence of the element with the spectrometer;
and determining the parameter by evaluating the spectrum (Abstract).
Sousa fails to explicitly teach wherein the light source comprises at least two separate LEDs that emit light having at least two spectral maxima in different wavelength ranges. Paseman discloses a spectroscopic analysis system (Fig. 1) comprising at least two LEDs that emit light having at least two spectral maxima in different wavelength ranges (column 5, lines 3-13). It would have been well known, obvious, and predictably suitable to one with ordinary skill in the art to modify Sousa with the claimed LEDs as taught by Paseman in order to detect different components within a sample to increase diagnostic flexibility.
With regards to claim 17, Sousa discloses a plurality of illuminating fibers and a single receiving fiber [0110] (Fig. 8).
With regards to claims 18-21 and 28, Sousa discloses uv-vis-nir LEDs [0104], but lacks an explicit teaching of the claimed configurations. Paseman teaches LEDs emitting light at different wavelengths including UV and visible wavelengths (column 5, lines 3-13), wherein multiple components may be detected simultaneously (superimposed light; column 5, lines 3-33). It would have been well known, obvious, and predictably suitable to one with ordinary skill in the art to modify Sousa with the claimed configurations in order to detect different components within a sample to increase diagnostic flexibility.
With regards to claim 22, Sousa discloses wherein the spectrometer comprises a brightness control for controlling a brightness of the light source [0141].
With regards to claims 23-26 and 29, Sousa discloses controlling measurement parameters so the detector operates within its useful linear/dynamic range [0141], but does not teach each of the claimed limitations as claimed. Paseman teaches adjusting the brightness of the light source (column 4, lines 50-52), wherein the intensity of each light source can be independently controlled (column 7, lines 46-47), and further wherein the light source is controlled via a control loop based on a detected output (column 4, lines 50-62). It would have been well known, obvious, and predictably suitable to one with ordinary skill in the art to modify Sousa with the teachings of Paseman in order to optimize performance of the spectrometer.
With regards to claim 30, Sousa discloses the claimed element [0059].
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARCUS H TANINGCO whose telephone number is (571)272-1848. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-6pm EST.
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, David Makiya can be reached at 571-272-2273. 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.
/MARCUS H TANINGCO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2884