DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Amendment
1- The amendment filed on 12/29/2025 has been entered and fully considered. Claims 1-10 remain pending in the application, where the independent claim has been amended. New claims 11-20 have been added.
Response to Arguments
2- Examiner has considered Applicants’ proposed amendments and acknowledges they overcome the 35 USC 112 rejection of the pending claims as set forth in the non-final office action mailed on 9/29/2025. The above rejections are therefore withdrawn.
3- Moreover, Applicant’s amendments and their corresponding arguments, with respect to the rejection of the pending claims under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive.
Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn.
However, upon further consideration, a new ground of rejection is made over the prior art, used previously in the non final office action, in view of new art Bransky et al. (PGPUB 20100018584).
PNG
media_image1.png
358
758
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 9A
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
4- 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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.
5- 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.
In addition, the functional recitation in the claims (e.g. "configured to" or "adapted to" or the like) that does not limit a claim limitation to a particular structure does not limit the scope of the claim. It has been held that the recitation that an element is "adapted to", "configured to", "designed to", or "operable to" perform a function is not a positive limitation but only requires the ability to so perform and may not constitute a limitation in a patentable sense. In re Hutchinson, 69 USPQ 139. (See MPEP 2111.04); see also In In re Giannelli, 739 F.3d 1375, 1378, 109 USPQ2d 1333, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
Also, it should be noted that it has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed device is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed device from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations Ex-parte Masham 2 USPQ2d 1647 1987).
The claimed system in the instant application is capable of performing the claimed functionality, as is the prior art used in the present office action. The Examiner notes that where the patent office has reason to believe that a functional limitation asserted to be critical for establishing novelty in the claimed subject matter may, in fact, be an inherent characteristic of the prior art, it possesses the authority to require the applicant to prove that the subject matter shown to be in the prior art does not possess the characteristic relied on. In re Swinehart and sfiligoj, 169 USPQ 226 (C.C.P.A. 1971).
6- Claims 1-20 are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McLoughlin et al. (PGPUB No. 2022/0044921), hereinafter Zeteo, in view of Bransky et al. (PGPUB 20100018584).
As to claims 1, 16, Zeteo teaches an analysis device (Abstract and Figs. 1-12) comprising: a microfluidic chip (module 902/910 or equivalent) configured to generate a droplet (¶ 6, 33, 45 and Fig. 1, 9C); a machine vision (903) configured to capture a signals of a first point (913) of the microfluidic chip (¶ 45; system trigger laser 903/PMT used to determine droplet size/shape and trigger the LIBS system); and a Laser-Induced Breakdown Spectroscopy -LIBS- module ( Figs. 1, 9 and ¶31, 36-37; module 908/PMT) configured to irradiate a second point (914) of the microfluidic chip with laser and (Claim 16) the second point being located such that the LIBS module is configured to irradiate a droplet of the plurality of droplets when the droplet is located at the second point (¶ 31, 36-37, 47), wherein when a droplet is detected in a signal by the machine vision, the LIBS module is driven to irradiate the second point with the laser, and wherein the microfluidic chip is configured such that the generated/individual droplet of the plurality of droplet(s) is observable when the individual droplet is located/at each of the first point and the second point (Figs. 9; ¶ 31, 36-37, 45-47).
Zeteo does not teach expressly wherein the droplet detected signal is an image captured by the machine vision; (Claim 16) the images including a plurality of images that each capture a respective droplet of the plurality of droplets when the respective droplet is located at the first point.
However, Zeteo discloses, ¶ 11 for ex, that the detector comprises LIBS detectors, which may comprise CCD or ICD cameras so that the captured signal is a captured image (see reference cited in the Conclusion as a mere evidence and not relied upon in this rejection).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to use the apparatus of Zeteo so that the droplet detected signal is an image captured by the machine vision; the images including a plurality of images that each capture a respective droplet of the plurality of droplets when the respective droplet is located at the first point, with the advantage of effectively optimizing and thoroughly assess spatially the position/velocity of the droplets.
Zeteo still does not teach expressly the microfluidic chip comprising: a first fluid inlet configured to supply a first fluid to a first flow path a branch disposed at an end of the first flow path, the branch forming at least a first branch flow path and a second branch flow path configured to carry the first fluid a second fluid inlet configured to supply a second fluid to a second flow path; a joining region disposed at an end of the first branch flow path, an end of the second branch flow path, and an end of the second flow path such that the droplet is generated by the first fluid and the second fluid joining at the joining region, the generated droplet comprising the second fluid: and a third flow path configured to carry the generated droplet, which can be construed as a mere system acted upon by the analysis device (See MPEP § 2115).
However, and in a similar field of endeavor, Bransky teaches a microfluidic system and the method of manufacturing thereof to produce oil/water droplets (Abstract, ¶ 115 for ex.; Figs. 1-18) wherein a first fluid inlet configured to supply a first fluid to a first flow path a branch disposed at an end of the first flow path, the branch forming at least a first branch flow path and a second branch flow path configured to carry the first fluid a second fluid inlet configured to supply a second fluid to a second flow path; a joining region disposed at an end of the first branch flow path, an end of the second branch flow path, and an end of the second flow path such that the droplet is generated by the first fluid and the second fluid joining at the joining region, the generated droplet comprising the second fluid: and a third flow path configured to carry the generated droplet/plurality of droplets (Annotated Fig. 9A or equivalent in Fig. 3, 8, 16 and ¶ 65, 181-183 for ex.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to use the apparatus of Zeteo, in view of Bransky’s suggestions, so that the droplet is imaged in a microfluidic wherein a first fluid inlet configured to supply a first fluid to a first flow path a branch disposed at an end of the first flow path, the branch forming at least a first branch flow path and a second branch flow path configured to carry the first fluid a second fluid inlet configured to supply a second fluid to a second flow path; a joining region disposed at an end of the first branch flow path, an end of the second branch flow path, and an end of the second flow path such that the droplet is generated by the first fluid and the second fluid joining at the joining region, the generated droplet comprising the second fluid: and a third flow path configured to carry the generated droplet, with the advantage of effectively characterizing the water/oil droplets formed in microfluidics.
Moreover, Zeteo suggests/teaches and/or obviates:
(claims 2-4) wherein at least one of the first fluid or the second fluid contains oil; wherein at least one of the first fluid or the second fluid contains crude oil; wherein at least one of the first fluid or the second fluid contains moisture, considered to involve no patentable weight since it’s an article acted upon by the claimed device (See MPEP § 2115; Material or article worked upon does not limit apparatus claims). Moreover, Bransky teaches considering oil/water droplets (¶ 11, 93, 115, 172, 175).
(claim 5) wherein the first point and the second point are located at the same point (Fig. 9C; the intersection range of 50 mm comprises locations where the first/second points are the same).
(claim 6) wherein at least one of the first point or the second point is located in the third flow path through which the generated droplet moves (Figs. 9A-B show multiple paths of dropping droplets with ionization locations thereon. Also, the points would be obvious to be arbitrarily chosen on the third flow of Bransky).
(claim 7) wherein the microfluidic chip further comprises a fine droplet channel, and wherein at least one of the first point or the second point is located in the fine droplet channel in which the generated droplet is accumulated (Fig. 9C or Bransky’s Figs. 3, 8-9, 16 with small droplet generators).
(claims 8, 12-13) wherein the first point and the second point are at different locations, wherein at a first time point the generated droplet is located at the first point and the machine vision captures the image containing the generated droplet, wherein at a second time point the generated droplet is located at the second point and the LIBS module irradiates the second point with the laser such that the droplet is irradiated (see rejection of claim 1); (claim 12) wherein the first point and the second point are separated by a predetermined distance, and wherein the predetermined distance is derived from at least one of a generation speed of the generated droplet, a movement speed of the generated droplet through the microfluidic chip, an image processing time of the machine vision to capture and detect the generated droplet, a signal processing time of the machine vision or the LIBS module, a trigger signal transmitting time, or a laser emitting processing time of the LIBS module (¶ 46-49 for ex.); (claim 13) further comprising a microfluidic chip control unit configured to control at least one of the generation speed or the movement speed (¶ 49; electric control of the acceleration/velocity of the ionized droplets).
.
(claim 9) further comprising a microfluidic chip control unit (110/111) configured to control a generation speed of the generated droplet and a movement speed of the generated droplet within the microfluidic chip (¶ 31, 48-49 for ex.)
(claims 17-19) wherein the first point and the second point are located at a same point, wherein at a first time point a first droplet is located at a reference point on the microfluidic chip, the reference point being spaced away from the first point by a predetermined distance, wherein at the first time point the machine vision captures a reference image of a second droplet of the plurality of droplets at the first point, and wherein at a second time point after the first time point the first droplet is located at the second point and the LIBS module irradiates the second point with the laser such that the first droplet is irradiated and (claim 18) wherein the predetermined distance is derived from at least one of a generation rate of the plurality of droplets, a movement speed of the plurality of droplets through the microfluidic chip, an image processing time of the machine vision to capture and detect a droplet of the plurality of droplets, a signal processing time of the machine vision or the LIBS module, a trigger signal transmitting time, or a laser emitting processing time of the LIBS module; (claim 19) further comprising a microfluidic chip control unit configured to control at least one of the generation rate or the movement speed (see rejection of claims 5, 12-13).
As to claims 10-11, 14-15, 20, Zeteo teaches the analysis device according to claims 1, 12 and 18.
Moreover, Zeteo teaches a processing unit configured to determine whether the generated droplet is in an image captured by the machine vision, and upon determining that the generated droplet is in the image generate a trigger signal (See rejection of claim 1 and the process of detection of the droplet therein); (claims 11/15/20) further comprising a LIBS control unit configured to control the LIBS module to irradiate the second point with the laser upon receiving the trigger signal (Figs. 9; Abstract, ¶ 11-12, 23, 31 for ex.)
Zeteo does not teach expressly wherein the processing unit is an image processing unit configured to analyze a captured image output by the machine vision and to generate a trigger signal when a droplet is present in the captured image.
However, and according to the rationale used in the rejection of claim 1, Zeteo teaches using LIBS detectors, which may comprise CCD cameras and their corresponding image processing units (¶ 11).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to use the apparatus of Zeteo so that the processing unit is an image processing unit configured to analyze a captured image output by the machine vision and to generate a trigger signal when a droplet is present in the captured image, with the advantage of effectively optimizing and thoroughly assess spatially the position/velocity of the droplets.
Conclusion
A Novel Platform for High-Speed, High-Resolution LIBS Imaging to Harrel et al., Photonic Instrumentation Engineering X, edited by Lynda E. Busse, Yakov Soskind, Proc. of SPIE Vol. 12428; (May 2023) (Relevant to LIBS imaging detectors of claims 1, 10)
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).
The examiner has pointed out particular references contained in the prior art of record in the body of this action for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. Applicant should consider the entire prior art as applicable as to the limitations of the claims. It is respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the response, to consider fully the entire references as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMED AMARA whose telephone number is (571)272-7847. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday: 9:00-17:00.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Tarifur Chowdhury can be reached on (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 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.
/Mohamed K AMARA/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2877