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 .
Claims 1 – 15 are canceled.
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 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1
The claim uses two terms “panels” and “plates” which appear to be the upper and lower mechanism holding the sample. Upon reading the spec, these two terms appear synonymous. It would be less confusing to use one term or the other consistently to avoid confusion—i.e., the idea they might be different things serving a different purpose.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 16, 31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chou (CA-3064744-A1) in view of Rapoport (CN-104931646-A).
Regarding claim 16
Chou discloses
A device for analyzing a liquid or pasty sample (Summary of Invention, page 1 lines 30-34), which is provided in the form of drops, using nuclear spin resonances of the sample (page 2 lines 3-8, CA 03064744 WO 2018/217953 PCT/US2018/034230),the device comprising:
a first panel and a second panel (Fig. 29A, CA 03064744 WO 2018/217953 PCT/US2018/034230);
a mechanism operable to enable setting a measuring position and a recording position of the device such that the sample can be inserted between the first plate
and the second plate in the recording position (page 36, line 5- page 37, line 3, under Experiment-2 Heating Zone Area Size Measurements),
wherein the first plate and the second plate are arranged substantially parallel to each other in the measuring position (page 44 line 1- page 45 line 17, under Experiment-11, Fig. 4a & 4b and Fig 5, the plates are parallel), and
wherein a spacer sets a defined distance between the first plate and the second plate ( page 44 line 1- page 45 line 17, under Experiment-11);
a sensor unit including a sensor component, which forms at least one sub-region of the first plate and/or the second plate and at least partially contacts the sample (Fig. 13, the sensor rays make contact with the sample, in the sample holder),
wherein the sensor unit is configured to detect a variable that is influenced by the nuclear magnetic resonances of the sample (page 44 line 1- page 45 line 17, CA 03064744 2019-11-22 WO 2018/217953 PCT/US2018/034230); and
Although strongly implied, Chou does not explicitly teach
“an analysis unit configured to determine at least one chemical and/or physical property of the sample using the detected variable”.
Rapoport, however, teaches
an analysis unit configured to determine at least one chemical and/or physical property of the sample using the detected variable (Invention Contents, ¶ 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the “analysis unit analyzing a chemical property” as taught by Rapoport in the device of Chou.
The justification for this modification would be to analyze the chemical properties of the sample.
Regarding claim 31
Chou in view of Rapoport teach the device according to claim 16,
Rapoport, applied to claim 31, further teaches
wherein the defined distance between the first plate and the second plate is between 1 millimeter (mm) and 100 um (¶ 28 – 34 under CA 03064744 2019-11-22 WO 2018/217953 PCT/US2018/03423).
Claim(s) 17—19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chou (CA-3064744-A1) in view of Rapoport (CN-104931646-A) in view of
Ramaneti (US-20190314766-A1).
Regarding claim 17
Chou in view of Rapoport teach the device according to claim 16,
Chou in view of Rapoport do not teach
“wherein the sensor component comprises at least one crystal body having at least one vacancy or at least one gas cell”.
Ramaneti, however, teaches
wherein the sensor component comprises at least one crystal body having at least one vacancy or at least one gas cell ([0081]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the “sensor with nitrogen vacancy center/crystal” as taught by Ramaneti in the device of Chou in view of Rapoport.
The justification for this modification would be to create a sensor with nanoscale resolution.
Regarding claim 18
Chou in view of Rapoport in view of Ramaneti teach the device according to claim 17,
Ramaneti, applied to claim 18, further teaches
wherein the at least one crystal body is a diamond having at least one nitrogen vacancy center or having at least one silicon vacancy center, silicon carbide having at least one silicon vacancy center, or hexagonal boron nitride having at least one vacancy color center ([0081]).
Regarding claim 19
Chou in view of Rapoport in view of Ramaneti teach the device according to claim 17,
wherein the gas cell is a cell which includes at least one gaseous alkali metal ([0005] & [0112], most metal oxides are alkali).
Claim(s) 20—23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chou (CA-3064744-A1) in view of Rapoport (CN-104931646-A) in view of Yang (CN-109342380-A).
Regarding claim 20
Chou in view of Rapoport teach the device according to claim 16,
Chou in view of Rapoport do not teach
“wherein the sensor unit includes an excitation unit operable for the optical excitation of the sensor component and a detection unit operable for the detection of a fluorescence signal,
from the sensor component, which fluorescence signal is influenced by the nuclear spin resonances of the sample”.
Yang, however, teaches
wherein the sensor unit includes an excitation unit operable for the optical excitation of the sensor component and a detection unit operable for the detection of a fluorescence signal,
from the sensor component, which fluorescence signal is influenced by the nuclear spin resonances of the sample (¶ 10 under Example 5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the “sensor component as taught by Yang in the device of Chou in view of Rapoport.
The justification for this modification would be to have a biological detection sensor that detects biological signals be they a spin resonance in an MRI/spectroscopy machine or any other detection system.
Regarding claim 21
Chou in view of Rapoport in view of Yang teach the device according to claim 20,
Yang, applied to claim 21, further teaches
wherein the excitation unit and/or the detection unit are disposed adjacent the first plate and/or the second plate such that an optical beam path through the sample can be generated (¶ 27 under Description).
Regarding claim 22
Chou in view of Rapoport in view of Yang teach the device according to claim 21,
Yang, applied to claim 22, further teaches
wherein the detection unit is configured such that the detection unit detects the fluorescence signal from the sensor component and does not detect the excitation light of the excitation unit (¶ 27 under Description).
Regarding claim 23
Chou in view of Rapoport in view of Yang teach the device according to claim 22,
Yang, applied to claim 22, further teaches
wherein the detection unit includes an absorption filter, wherein the absorption filter is arranged between the detection unit and the first plate or the second panel (the filled specimen container—both sides are the first and second plates, ABSTRACT).
Claim(s) 24, 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chou (CA-3064744-A1) in view of Rapoport (CN-104931646-A) in view of St Cyr (CN-204951607-U).
Regarding claim 24
Chou in view of Rapoport teach the device according to claim 16,
wherein the mechanism is a folding mechanism (¶ 3 under Invention Contents. The mechanism holding the plates is a hinge. Hinges open and close in a “folding” manner).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the “hinge mechanism” as taught by St Cyr in the device of Chou in view of Rapoport.
The justification for this modification would be to have a convenient way to open and close the sample tray.
Regarding claim 25
Chou in view of Rapoport in view St Cyr of teach the device according to claim 24,
St Cyr, applied to claim 25, further teaches
wherein the folding mechanism comprises a hinge mechanism (¶ 3 under Invention Contents. The mechanism holding the plates is a hinge. Hinges open and close in a “folding” manner).
Claim(s) 26, 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chou (CA-3064744-A1) in view of Rapoport (CN-104931646-A) in view of
Hincks (WO-2016044917-A1).
Regarding claim 26
Chou in view of Rapoport teach the device according to claim 16,
Chou in view of Rapoport do not teach
“further comprising an inductor configured to induce a preferred polarization of the nuclear spins of the sample”.
Hincks, however, teaches
further comprising an inductor configured to induce a preferred polarization of the nuclear spins of the sample ([0058]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the “the inductor to induce polarization of nuclear spins” as taught by Hincks in the device of Chou in view of Rapoport.
The justification for this modification would be to control the nuclear spin in the NMR sample ([0058], Hincks).
Regarding claim 27
Chou in view of Rapoport in view of Hincks teach the device according to claim 26,
Hincks, applied to claim 27, further teaches
wherein the inductor is a magnetic field device configured to generate a magnetic field at least in a region of the sample ([0058]).
Claim(s) 28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chou (CA-3064744-A1) in view of Rapoport (CN-104931646-A) in view of
Hincks (WO-2016044917-A1) in view of Spreiter (EP-19556614-A2).
Regarding claim 28
Chou in view of Rapoport in view of Hincks teach the device according to claim 27,
Chou in view of Rapoport in view of Hincks do not explicitly teach
“wherein the magnetic field device is arranged adjacent the excitation unit and/or detection unit such that a homogeneous magnetic field can be generated in the region of the sample,
wherein the magnetic field device is configured as a yoke or in two parts”.
Spreiter, however, teaches
wherein the magnetic field device is arranged adjacent the excitation unit and/or detection unit such that a homogeneous magnetic field can be generated in the region of the sample (¶ 5 under “claims”),
wherein the magnetic field device is configured as a yoke or in two parts (¶ 5 under “claims”, two coils create a two-part field).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the “homogeneous
magnetic field near region of the sample” as taught by Spreiter in the device of Chou in view of Rapoport in view of Hincks.
The justification for this modification would be to make sure the magnetic field is as homogeneous as possible for imaging.
Claim(s) 29, 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chou (CA-3064744-A1) in view of Rapoport (CN-104931646-A) in view of
Skog (CN-106029900-A).
Regarding claim 29
Chou in view of Rapoport teach the device according to claim 16,
Chou in view of Rapoport do not disclose
“wherein the device is configured to operate on a sample having a volume of less than 100 microliters (ul)”.
Skog, however, teaches
wherein the device is configured to operate on a sample having a volume of less than 100 microliters (ul) (line 33 above “References”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the “small mL sample” as taught by Skog in the device of Chou in view of Rapoport
The justification for this modification would be to have a sample size that it conveniently small to fit between the small glass platens.
Regarding claim 30
Chou in view of Rapoport teach the device according to claim 16,
Although strongly implied, Chou in view of Rapoport do not explicitly teach
“wherein the device is configured to operate on a sample having a volume of less than 10 ul”.
Skog, however, teaches
wherein the device is configured to operate on a sample having a volume of less than 10 ul (line 33 above “References”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the “small mL sample” as taught by Skog in the device of Chou in view of Rapoport
The justification for this modification would be to have a sample size that it conveniently small to fit between the small glass platens.
Claim(s) 32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chou (CA-3064744-A1) in view of Rapoport (CN-104931646-A) in view of Bogachev (RU-133310-).
Regarding claim 32
Chou in view of Rapoport teach the device according to claim 16,
Chou in view of Rapoport do not teach
“wherein the sensor unit includes a microwave source configured for excitation of the sensor component”.
Bogachev, however, teaches
wherein the sensor unit includes a microwave source configured for excitation of the sensor component (Claims).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the “sensor in the microwave range” as taught by Bogachev in the device of Chou in view of Rapoport.
The justification for this modification would be to use a sensor that can penetrate solid material (the sensor must penetrate the solid glass to read from the sample that is sandwiched between).
Claim(s) 33 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chou (CA-3064744-A1) in view of Rapoport (CN-104931646-A) in view of Crowley (CN-101294919-A).
Regarding claim 33
Chou in view of Rapoport teach the device according to claim 16,
Chou in view of Rapoport do not disclose
“wherein the sensor component is a coating on a surface of the first plate facing the sample and/or the second plate”.
Crowley, however, teaches
wherein the sensor component is a coating on a surface of the first plate facing the sample and/or the second plate (Fig. 2 & 5, Ref 110, ¶ 22 under Specific implementation Examples).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the “sensor component as a coating on a surface” as taught by Crowley in the device of Chou in view of Rapoport.
The justification for this modification would be to have a sensor very close to the specimen that is being probed to get a high SNR ratio from the sample.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FREDERICK WENDEROTH whose telephone number is (571)270-1945. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7 a.m. - 4 p.m.
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, Walter Lindsay can be reached at 571-272-1674. 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.
/Frederick Wenderoth/
Examiner, Art Unit 2852
/WALTER L LINDSAY JR/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2852