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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
1. 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).
2. With respect to applicant’s remarks filed on 03/28/26 regarding rejected claims on page 7, the examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicants argues “The Office action mentions the beam of the primary reference (hereinafter "NORTH") and alleges that the "axis 24" shown in FIG. 1 of NORTH is one of two axes of a focused laser beam. However, neither FIG. 1 nor the corresponding text of "NORTH" shows or describes a focused laser beam that is focused along two axes. The Office action also refers to "axis XX" being the other axis but NORTH provides no illustration or text suggesting an axis "XX" that is one of two axes of a focused laser beam”.
The following North’s figure 1 is in 3D. The figure 1 discloses light beam 12, having circle section F, is clearly focused at point 20 in two directions of axes ZZ and YY. Although North does not provide any illustrations to show XX, YY, ZZ axes, for better to understand, the Examiner added the three axes of Cartesian coordinate, XX, YY, ZZ, in order to easily explain the focused laser beam 12 focusing along at least two directions of axes YY and ZZ.
3. The new added limitation “an active area of the photodetector captures the scattered light and after the scattered light is received by the active area, the corresponding signal derived from the capturing of the light is amplified and processed by at least an analog-to-digital converter (ADC)” has been found in reference of Vacca et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 12,399,104), (column 10, lines 43-58; Column 28, lines 14-18). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to modify North by having an analog-to-digital converter in order to convert analog signal to digital signal for processing light signal (Vacca, column 10, lines 43-58; Column 28, lines 14-18).
4. Grounds for the rejection of claims are provided below as necessitated by amendment.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
5. 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.
6. Claim(s) 1-2, 5-10, 21-22, 25, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 as being unpatentable over North Jr. (U.S. Pat. No. 4,989,977), in view of Vacca et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 12,399,104). Hereafter “North”, “Vacca”.
Regarding Claims 1, 28, North teaches an apparatus, comprising:
a detection chamber (figure 1, area around focused light region 20 is not different from a detection chamber),
a conduit configured to convey a test fluid to the detection chamber (the following figure 1, element A is not different from a conduit configured to convey a test fluid 16);
a nozzle at an end of the conduit comprising an opening and configured to eject the test fluid into the detection chamber via the opening (the following figure 1, nozzle 18 at an end of the conduit A comprising an opening B); and
a detection system configured to monitor at least one characteristic of the test fluid when it is ejected from the opening of the nozzle (Abstract; Column 3, lines 48-56), and the detection system, comprising:
a laser configured to produce a focused laser beam, wherein the focused laser beam is focused along at least two axes (the following figure 1, light beam 12 is focused along at least two axes: YY and ZZ. Please see the explanation in paragraph 2 above); and
a photodetector configured to detect light scattered from the focused laser beam after the beam hits a particle in the test fluid as the fluid is ejected from the opening of the nozzle (the following figure 1, nozzle 18 has an opening B, and the fluid 16 is ejected from the opening B of the nozzle 18. Photodetector 21; Abstract; Column 3, lines 48-56; Column 4, lines 9-21),
wherein an active area of the photodetector captures the scattered light and after the scattered light is received by the active area, (the following figure 1, active area D of photodetector 21 captures the scattered light C)
However, North does not teach the corresponding signal derived from the capturing of the light is amplified and processed by at least an analog-to-digital converter (ADC). Vacca teaches the corresponding signal derived from the capturing of the light is amplified and processed by at least an analog-to-digital converter, (column 10, lines 43-58; Column 28, lines 14-18). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to modify North by having an analog-to-digital converter in order to convert analog signal to digital signal for processing light signal (Vacca, column 10, lines 43-58; Column 28, lines 14-18).
Further, according to claim 28, North also teaches wherein the beam and a nozzle exit of the apparatus intersect at a beam waist of the beam, and wherein the beam waist is the part of the beam that has a narrower width than the width of the nozzle exit and comprises a focus point of the laser beam, (the following figure 1, beam waist E, nozzle exit B. The beam waist E has a narrower width than the width of the nozzle exit B and comprises a focus point 20 of the laser beam 12).
Regarding Claim 2, North teaches the opening of the nozzle is circular, and wherein the beam diameter of the focused laser beam is smaller than the diameter of the opening (the following figure 1, the opening B of the nozzle 18 is circular, beam diameter of the focused laser beam E, at region 20, is smaller than the diameter of the opening B of nozzle 18).
Regarding Claims 5, 6, North teaches the beam diameter of the focused laser beam is smaller than the largest width and smallest width across the opening of the nozzle (the following figure 1, the beam diameter of the focused laser beam E, at region 20, is smaller than the largest width and smallest width across the opening B of the nozzle 18).
Regarding Claim 7, North teaches the beam diameter of the focused laser beam is smaller than the stream diameter of the stream of the test fluid as the laser beam intersects the stream, (figure 1, the beam diameter of the focused laser beam E, at the region 20, is smaller than the stream diameter of the stream of the test fluid 16 as the laser beam 12 intersects the stream 16 at the region 20).
Regarding Claim 8, North teaches the beam cross-section area of the focused laser beam, at the intersection of the stream, is smaller than the cross-section area of the stream of the test fluid (the following figure 1, the beam cross-section area of the focused laser beam E, at the region 20, is smaller than the cross- section area of the stream of the test fluid 16).
Regarding Claim 9, North teaches the photodetector comprises a lensless light scatter collection system (figure 1, detector 21).
Regarding Claim 10, North teaches the opening and at least another part of the nozzle are in the detection chamber (the following figure 1, the opening B and at least another part of the nozzle 18 are in the area around focused light region 20, this area is not different from a detection chamber).
Regarding Claims 21, 25, North teaches the active area is an active area of a photodiode of the photodetector configured to capture the scattered light (the following figure 1, active area D of photodetector 21 captures the scattered light C).
Regarding Claim 22, North teaches the beam and a nozzle exit of the apparatus intersect at a beam waist of the beam, and wherein the beam waist is the part of the beam that has a narrower width than the width of the nozzle exit and comprises a focus point of the laser beam (the above figure 1, beam waist E, nozzle exit B. The beam waist E has a narrower width than the width of the nozzle exit B and comprises a focus point 20 of the laser beam 12).
[AltContent: textbox (F)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (E)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (C)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (D)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: rect][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (A)][AltContent: textbox (B)][AltContent: textbox (Z)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (X)][AltContent: textbox (Y)][AltContent: textbox (X)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Z)][AltContent: textbox (Y)]
PNG
media_image1.png
724
416
media_image1.png
Greyscale
7. Claim(s) 3, 4, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over North Jr. (U.S. Pat. No. 4,989,977), in view of Vacca et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 12,399,104), further in view of Richard Terence et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 3,568,933). Hereafter “North”, “Vacca”, “Richard”.
With regard to claims 3, 4, North in view of Vacca teach all the limitations of claim 1 as stated above except for the opening of the nozzle is oval, and wherein the beam diameter of the focused laser beam is smaller than the largest/smallest diameter of the opening. North teaches the beam diameter of the focused laser beam is smaller than the largest/smallest diameter of the opening (figure 1, the beam diameter of the focused laser beam E, at the region 20, is smaller than the largest/smallest diameter of the opening of nozzle 18). Although North does not teach the opening of the nozzle is oval. Richard teaches the opening of the nozzle is oval, (column 8, lines 21-24). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to modify North by having opening of the nozzle is oval in order to produce a spray having a generally oval shape (Richard, column 8, lines 21-24).
8. Claim(s) 23, 24, 26, 27, 29-30, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 as being unpatentable over North Jr. (U.S. Pat. No. 4,989,977), in view of Vacca et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 12,399,104), further in view of Wanders et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2014/0273068). Hereafter “North”, “Vacca”, “Wanders”.
Regarding Claims 23, 24, 26, 27, 29, 30, North in view of Vacca teach all the limitations of claims 1, 22, 28, as stated above except for the laser beam passes through an aperture in a housing of the apparatus, and wherein the aperture limits stray light from entering a scattered light collection area of the apparatus, and the aperture is integrated into the housing such that they are one part. Wanders teaches these limitations, (Figures 1, 1C, 2, opening 43 is not different from an aperture in a housing of the flowcell 22; [0149]. It is inherent that the opening 43 limits stray light from entering a scattered light collection area 44 of the apparatus, and this limitation is just an intended used). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to modify North in view of Vacca by having an opening in order to implement inspection system more efficiently (Wanders, Figures 1, 1C, 2, opening 43 is not different from an aperture in a housing of the flowcell 22; [0149])
Conclusion
9. 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Fax/Telephone Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TRI T TON whose telephone number is (571)272-9064. The examiner can normally be reached on 8am-4pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Michelle Iacoletti can be reached on (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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
May 5, 2026
/Tri T Ton/
Primary Examiner Art Unit 2877
Prosecution Insights