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 .
This action is responsive to the amendment of 1/21/2026.
Response to Arguments
Specification
The objections to the specification are overcome by amendment.
Claim Objections
The objections to the claims are overcome by amendment.
Claim Interpretation
After reconsideration and in the absence of relevant amendments, arguments, or evidence from Applicant, those claim elements are still found to invoke 35 U.S.C. § 112(f).
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b)
The rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) are overcome by amendment.
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 102
Applicant’s first argument is that Nicoli teaches a “lower size detection threshold” based on a global sensitivity limit instead of separately setting a threshold for each particle size range, quoting the amended section of claim 1, however, this argument is not persuasive. In particular, the claim language, even as amended, does not require that the thresholds be set separately for multiple particle size or particle size ranges, nor that such a threshold be separate from the sensitivity limit of the device. Claim 2, which depends on claim 1, makes it clear that the detection sensitivity of the detector (e.g., how small a signal can be distinguished from noise, as taught by Nicoli) is a valid basis for choosing a measurement reference value.
Applicant’s second argument is that Nicoli does not teach that the measurement reference value corresponds to a particle size to be measured, which is the smallest size within a particle size range including sizes of particles corresponding to the second detection signal, however, this argument is not persuasive. Nothing in the claim language excludes that threshold value from matching the detection limit of the device, the particle size to be measured from matching the smallest detectable particle size, and the particle size range from matching the range of sizes that the device is designed and calibrated to detect. Further, Nicoli does teach adjusting parameters of the device that determine that threshold.
Since claim 1 is not found allowable, claim 7 is not found allowable based on similar arguments.
Since the independent claims are not allowable, their dependent claims are not automatically allowable.
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:
the light irradiation part in claims 1 and 7, interpreted as a containing a laser, based on page 9, lines 23-24 of the specification and
the measurement part in claims 1 and 7, interpreted as containing a photodiode (PD), an avalanche photodiode (APD), or a photomultiplier tube (PMT), based on page 10, lines 2-3.
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.
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 § 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.
Claim(s) 1-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nicoli (US Patent 6794671).
Regarding claim 1, Nicoli teaches a particle measuring apparatus comprising:
a light irradiation part (FIG. 29, light source 160);
a measuring part (FIG. 29, detector DLE or DLS); and
at least one control part operably connected to the light irradiation part (COL. 49, lines 54-56) and the measuring part (FIG. 29, to send the signals to signal conditioning and other steps),
wherein the at least one control part is configured to
irradiate a particle measurement space with first light for measuring particles (FIG. 29, beam 162),
obtain a first detection signal for second light, which is generated from the first light influenced by the particles in the particle measurement space (FIG. 29, signal VLE(t) or VLS(t). Also see FIG. 15A),
identify a second detection signal based on a measurement reference value corresponding to a particle size (FIG. 19A), wherein the measurement reference value is a threshold value corresponding to a particle size to be measured, and is set as a minimum reference value allowing detection of particles having said particle size (COL. 27, lines 19-22 discuss the relationship between a threshold for particle sizes to be measured and the threshold of the corresponding signal. In particular, the measurement reference value in the detection signal is the smallest ΔVLE distinguishable from noise for the light extinction detection mode (COL. 27, lines 19-22). Since, with what Nicoli calls “correct design”, pulse height ΔVLS for the light scattering mode increases monotonically with size of particles (COL. 33, lines 28-30), the same is true for the light scattering mode.),
measure a number of particles corresponding to the particle size based on the second detection signal (FIG. 20A),
wherein the second detection signal is a portion of the first detection signal that is greater than or equal to the measurement reference value (FIG. 14, Note that information regarding the correspondence between particle size and measurement thresholds is found in matrix M, exemplified in FIG. 16),
wherein the particle size is a smallest particle size within a particle size range (COL. 27, lines 19-22 discuss the relationship between a threshold for particle sizes to be measured and the threshold of the corresponding signal. Note that the smallest pulse heights correspond to the smallest particles in the size range to be measured.), and wherein the particle size range includes sizes of the particles corresponding to the second detection signal (FIG. 20 uses particle sizes on the horizontal axis).
Regarding claim 2, Nicoli teaches the particle measuring apparatus of claim 1 (as described above), wherein the measurement reference value is determined based on at least one of an intensity of the first light (FIG. 14, steps 102 and 104) or a detection sensitivity of the measuring part for the second light (FIG. 14, step 122).
Regarding claim 3, Nicoli teaches the particle measuring apparatus of claim 1 (as described above), wherein the measurement reference value is determined based on a configuration of an optical system included in the light irradiation part (COL. 51, lines 49-59).
Regarding claim 4, Nicoli teaches the particle measuring apparatus of claim 1 (as described above), wherein the first light includes light emitted from a laser source (FIG. 29, light source 160), and wherein the second light includes light scattered from the particle (FIG. 29, when using DLS detector), or light that has been partially absorbed or attenuated by the particle (FIG. 29, when using DLE detector).
Regarding claim 5, Nicoli teaches the particle measuring apparatus of claim 1 (as described above), wherein the measuring part calculates "c1, c2, ..., and cm" (FIG. 20) using "f(V1) to f(Vm)" (FIG. 14, matrix M) and "C[V1] to C[Vm]," (FIG. 17, deconvolution results) where
ci is the number of particles (FIG. 20, vertical axis) belonging to a particle size range Ri to be calculated (FIG. 20, horizontal axis),
Vk is a minimum measurement reference value at which particles of size dk are able to be measured (FIG. 6 and FIG. 7, note that each size of particle has a particular maximum pulse height at which it can scatter or attenuate light),
C[Vk] is the total number of particles measured by applying the measurement reference value Vk (FIG. 17, deconvolution results), and
f(Vk) is the number of particles when the measurement reference value is Vk and is a function of an experimentally determined measurement reference value (FIG. 14, columns 6, 8, 12, 17, 19, 20, 26, 29, and 31 are measured experimentally, and the rest are determined based on those experimentally measured values).
Regarding claim 6, Nicoli teaches the particle measuring apparatus of claim 5 (as described above), wherein, when ci[Vk] is the number of particles in the particle size range Ri measured by applying the measurement reference value Vk, the measuring part calculates "c1, c2, ..., and cm" through equations each transformed to include at least one of "f(Vi) to f(Vm)" and at least one of "C[V1] to C[Vm]," by using the equations of
ci = ci[V1] + ci[V2] +...+ ci[Vm],
C[Vk] = c1[Vk] + c2[Vk] +...+ cm[Vk],
ci[Vk] = 0 when (i < k),
ci[Vk] = ci[Vk] when (i = k), and
c
i
V
k
=
f
(
V
k
)
f
(
V
i
)
×
c
i
[
V
i
]
when (i > k)
(FIG. 13, deconvolution of raw data to remove the effect caused by each size of particle creating peaks of all heights less than a certain (size dependent) maximum).
Regarding claim 7, Nicoli teaches a method of operating a particle measuring apparatus, the method comprising:
irradiating a particle measurement space with first light for measuring particles through a light irradiation part (FIG. 29, light source 160);
obtaining a first detection signal for second light (FIG. 29, detector DLE or DLS), which is generated from the first light influenced by the particles in the particle measurement space (FIG. 29, optical sensing zone (OSZ) 168), through a measuring part (FIG. 29, detector DLE or DLS);
identifying a second detection signal based on a measurement reference value corresponding to a particle size through the measuring part (FIG. 19A), wherein the measurement reference value is a threshold value corresponding to a particle size to be measured, and is set as a minimum reference value allowing detection of particles having said particle size (COL. 27, lines 19-22 discuss the relationship between a threshold for particle sizes to be measured and the threshold of the corresponding signal. In particular, the measurement reference value in the detection signal is the smallest ΔVLE distinguishable from noise for the light extinction detection mode (COL. 27, lines 19-22). Since, with what Nicoli calls “correct design”, pulse height ΔVLS for the light scattering mode increases monotonically with size of particles (COL. 33, lines 28-30), the same is true for the light scattering mode.); and
measuring a number of particles corresponding to the particle size based on the second detection signal through the measuring part (FIG. 20A),
wherein the second detection signal is a portion of the first detection signal that is greater than or equal to the measurement reference value (FIG. 14, Note that information regarding the correspondence between particle size and measurement thresholds is found in matrix M, exemplified in FIG. 16),
wherein the particle size is a smallest particle size in a particle size range, and wherein the particle size range includes sizes of the particles corresponding to the second detection signal (FIG. 20 uses particle sizes on the horizontal axis. Note that the smallest pulse heights correspond to the smallest particles in the size range to be measured.).
Regarding claim 8, Nicoli teaches the method of claim 7 (as described above), wherein the measurement reference value is determined based on at least one of an intensity of the first light (FIG. 14, steps 102 and 104) or a detection sensitivity of the measuring part for the second light (FIG. 14, step 122).
Regarding claim 9, Nicoli teaches the method of claim 7 (as described above), wherein the measurement reference value is determined based on a degree of focusing of the first light (COL. 17, lines 35-43 discuss the effect of the focusing on the performance of the system, which includes the way the data is cleaned up), and
wherein the degree of focusing corresponds to a configuration of an optical system included in the light irradiation part (FIG. 29, it is inherent that the degree of focus of a beam, such as beam 162, that passes through a lens, such as focusing means 164, will correspond to the configuration of that lens, simply by the nature of lenses.).
Regarding claim 10, Nicoli teaches the method of claim 7 (as described above), wherein the first light includes light emitted from a laser source (FIG. 29, light source 160), and wherein the second light includes light scattered from the particle (FIG. 29, when using DLS detector), or light that has been partially absorbed or attenuated by the particle (FIG. 29, when using DLE detector).
Regarding claim 11, Nicoli teaches the method of claim 10 (as described above), wherein the measuring part calculates "c1, c2, ..., and cm" (FIG. 20) using "f(V1) to f(Vm)" (FIG. 14, matrix M) and "C[V1] to C[Vm]," (FIG. 17, deconvolution results) where
ci is the number of particles (FIG. 20, vertical axis) belonging to a particle size range Ri to be calculated (FIG. 20, horizontal axis),
Vk is a minimum measurement reference value at which particles of size dk are able to be measured (FIG. 6 and FIG. 7, note that each size of particle has a particular maximum pulse height at which it can scatter or attenuate light),
C[Vk] is the total number of particles measured by applying the measurement reference value Vk (FIG. 17, deconvolution results), and
f(Vk) is the number of particles when the measurement reference value is Vk and is a function of an experimentally determined measurement reference value (FIG. 14, columns 6, 8, 12, 17, 19, 20, 26, 29, and 31 are measured experimentally, and the rest are determined based on those experimentally measured values).
Regarding claim 12, Nicoli teaches the method of claim 11 (as described above), wherein, when ci[Vk] is the number of particles in the particle size range Ri measured by applying the measurement reference value Vk, the measuring part calculates "c1, c2, ..., and cm" through equations each transformed to include at least one of "f(Vi) to f(Vm)" and at least one of "C[V1] to C[Vm]," by using the equations of
ci = ci[V1] + ci[V2] +...+ ci[Vm],
C[Vk] = c1[Vk] + c2[Vk] +...+ cm[Vk],
ci[Vk] = 0 when (i < k),
ci[Vk] = ci[Vk] when (i = k), and
c
i
V
k
=
f
(
V
k
)
f
(
V
i
)
×
c
i
[
V
i
]
when (i > k)
(FIG. 13, deconvolution of raw data to remove the effect caused by each size of particle creating peaks of all heights less than a certain (size dependent) maximum).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 PAUL D SCHNASE whose telephone number is (703)756-1691. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 AM - 5:00 PM ET.
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, Tarifur Chowdhury can be reached at (571) 272-2287. 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.
/PAUL SCHNASE/Examiner, Art Unit 2877
/TARIFUR R CHOWDHURY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2877
Prosecution Insights