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 .
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
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: light collection unit in claims 1-7 and 14-23. The light emitting unit of claim 1 is not found to invoke 112(f) as it is modified by sufficient structure to perform the function as claimed.
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 § 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.
Claims 4-7 are 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.
The term “long-focus” in claim 4 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “long-focus” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The examiner could only find disclosure that the lenses used are spherical or aspherical, and that one focal length used is 2400 mm. However, this does not setup a reasonable limit on what would fall within and outside of the range of “long-focus”. In other words is only 2400 mm long-focus, or is some variance of that value still considered long-focus. Further applicant seems to imply that any spherical or aspherical lens could be applied, of which essentially infinite variation is possible in defining focal length. As such the examiner is unclear as to what range of focal length would fall within or outside of the range of “long-focus”. For examination purpose at this time the examiner will interpret any focal distance as “long-range” and simply that any divergent or collimated lens would read on the instant claim. Claims 5-7 are rejected for their dependency on instant claim 4.
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 –
Claim(s) 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chiu et al. (U.S. PGPub No. 2021/0016276 A1).
As to claim 1, Chiu discloses and shows in figures 17a and 19, a detection system for nanoparticles, comprising:
a light emitting unit (all optics upstream of the microscope labeled in figure 19 including the lasers at wavelengths 640, 561, 488, and 405, as shown more clearly in figure 17a, the microscope focus light onto the microfluidic sample channel) configured to emit a light beam (laser line shown in figure 17a) and project the light beam onto a nanoparticle to be detected (as disclosed the system is for measuring nanoparticles) ([0088]; [0090]; [0480]; the examiner notes that the legend of figure 19 provides most of the disclosure of the optics present therewithin); and
a light collection unit (all optics downstream of the microscope in figure 19; where the examiner is interpreting said optics as structural equivalents for performing the same function as claimed) configured to collect light beams from the nanoparticle so as to analyze the nanoparticles according to the collected light beams (i.e. the twenty-one APDs as disclosed) ([0472], ll. 1-5; [0473], ll. 1-3; [0480]);
wherein the light emitting unit comprises a plurality of light sources (i.e. lasers at wavelengths 640, 561, 488, and 405) and a focusing lens (e.g. the periscope lens, achromat lens and the lens inside the microscope), and the light beams emitted by the plurality of light sources are focused through the focusing lens on a same detection position through which the nanoparticle is to pass ([0220], ll. 12-22; [0471], ll. 21-33; whereas explicitly disclosed the lines are made co-linear also explicitly shown in the image of figure 17A).
As to claim 2, Chiu discloses and shows in figure 17a and 19 a detection system , wherein the light beams emitted by the plurality of light sources have wavelengths different from each other (e.g. 633, 405, 561, 488 nm as explicitly shown), and a dichroic mirror (labeled as D) is provided between each light source and the focusing lens (explicitly shown in figures 17a and 19) ([0472], ll. 1-3; [0480], ll. 3-7).
As to claim 3, Chiu discloses and shows in figures 17A and 19, a detection system, wherein the light beams emitted by the plurality of light sources are reflected or transmitted to be collinear beams via the dichroic mirrors ([0471], ll. 21-33; where the examiner notes that figure 17A does not appear to show the beams a exactly co-linear, however Chiu does explicitly disclose them as co-linear).
As to claim 4, Chiu discloses and shows a detection system, wherein a long-focus lens (where the examiner is interpreting a focal length of 150 mm as “long-focus” is provided between each light source and the corresponding dichroic mirror (clearly shown as F or CL in figure 19, where the legend explicitly disclose that the focal lengths are 150 or 200 mm) ([0480], ll. 3-8).
As to claim 5, Chiu discloses and shows a detection system, wherein the dichroic mirrors and the long-focus lens are adjustable so as to adjust a position of a focus point of the light beam in a direction perpendicular to an optical axis of the light beam directed toward the nanoparticle (Fig. 17A, where applicant has claimed what is essentially an intended use and the examiner is interpreting that the prior art is capable of the noted use. As nothing about the adjustment is tied to any particular structure that actually does any adjustment. As such clearly a person have ordinary skill in the art can move the claimed lenses of Chiu to adjust focus position, this is also implied as possible in [0471], ll. 28-33).
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) 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chiu et al.
As to claims 6 and 7, Chiu does not explicitly disclose a detection system, wherein a beam expander is provided between each light source and the corresponding long-focus lens, and the beam expander is configured according to a required size of a spot of the light beam, and further configured to adjust a waist position of the light beam in a direction along the optical axis or wherein the beam expander is composed of two optical parts, a distance between the two optical parts is adjustable, each of the two optical parts is selected from one of a convex lens, a convex lens group, a concave lens and a concave lens group.
However, Chiu does disclose and show in figure 1 and ([0427], ll. 1-7) the basic concept of using a set of convex lenses to expand the incoming beam from a light source. Obviously this could be added to the embodiment of figures 17A and 19, to likewise expand the beams from the light sources in those embodiments. Obviously the expanders purpose is to change the incoming light beam to the required size, in adjusting size obviously position overall of the beam waist is also adjusted to be a larger positional area along the optical axis. Again clearly said lenses are adjustable as they are the same structural components as claimed and can be moved by a user.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Chiu does not explicitly disclose a detection system, wherein a beam expander is provided between each light source and the corresponding long-focus lens, and the beam expander is configured according to a required size of a spot of the light beam, and further configured to adjust a waist position of the light beam in a direction along the optical axis or wherein the beam expander is composed of two optical parts, a distance between the two optical parts is adjustable, each of the two optical parts is selected from one of a convex lens, a convex lens group, a concave lens and a concave lens group in order to provide the advantage of expected results and increased accuracy, in expanding the beam one can ensure that the desired area under test is fully illuminated with an even intensity beam.
Claim(s) 8, 9, 11, 13-14, and 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chiu et al. in view of Chen (U.S. PGPub No. 2015/0115174 A1).
As to claim 8, Chiu does disclose in ([0025]) that the system can measure essentially all types of scattering, specifically side-scattered, forward-scattered and fluorescence.
Chiu does not explicitly disclose a detection system, wherein the light collection unit comprises a side collection part comprising: an optical focusing lens group comprising a concave mirror and an aspheric lens and configured to focus a light beam emitted from the nanoparticle; a collection fiber into which the optical focusing lens group focuses the light beam; and a beam splitter configured to divide the incident light beam from the collection fiber into a side scattered light beam and a fluorescent light beam; a first wavelength division multiplexer configured to receive the side scattered light beam from the beam splitter via a first fiber; and a second wavelength division multiplexer configured to receive the fluorescent light beam from the beam splitter via a second fiber.
However, Chen does disclose and show in figure 32 and in ([0428]; [0444]) as explicitly shown in figure 32, Chen has a flow cell type system (channel 604) that has a focusing lens group with a concave mirror (601) and an aspheric lens (602). The focusing is an inherent result of impinging light on a concave surface like mirror 601 as well-known in the art, and would do so with the nanoparticles in Chiu. Chen does not explicitly disclose a collection fiber distinct from the fibers 852 to collect light from lens 602. However, the examiner takes Office Notice that the use of fibers as is already done in Chen also directly after lens 602 is obvious, as it relays light without the concern for ambient light noise. As disclosed in Chen the light beams relayed along fibers 852, are both light that is scattered (side scattered as explicitly shown in figure 32) and fluoresced from the particles under test. The use of a fiber holder (940), where the examiner notes that Chen discloses 940 as “a fiber holder”. However, figure 32 explicitly discloses where the fiber holder 940 splits light along three paths (i.e. fibers 852), as such it can be interpreted as a beam splitter. Where since each of the beams that travel along fibers 852, contain both scattered and fluoresced light, one fiber can be interpreted as having a side scattered light beam, and one a fluorescent light beam. Chiu also discloses the use of a first and second wavelength division multiplexers (90, which as shown comprises at least three in Chen) connected via their own distinct fibers 852.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Chiu with a detection system, wherein the light collection unit comprises a side collection part comprising: an optical focusing lens group comprising a concave mirror and an aspheric lens and configured to focus a light beam emitted from the nanoparticle; a collection fiber into which the optical focusing lens group focuses the light beam; and a beam splitter configured to divide the incident light beam from the collection fiber into a side scattered light beam and a fluorescent light beam; a first wavelength division multiplexer configured to receive the side scattered light beam from the beam splitter via a first fiber; and a second wavelength division multiplexer configured to receive the fluorescent light beam from the beam splitter via a second fiber in order to provide the advantage of increased efficiency and expected results in using a common collection multiwavelength detection system, one can efficiently relay scattered and fluoresced light to the detectors with minimal losses in using fiber (i.e. increase the signal-to-noise ratio).
As to claim 9, Chiu does not explicitly disclose a detection system, wherein the collection fiber has a diameter different from diameters of the first and second fibers.
However, Chen does disclose in ([0411], ll. 3-13; [0430], ll. 32-37; [0448], ll. 1-4) that number of fibers are not limited to the ones disclosed. Further that a collection fiber can be multi-mode and have a larger diameter. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art that the collection fiber of all the light from the flow cell would be larger in diameter in receiving a greater amount of total light than that split to each of the first and second fibers. In doing so obviously one could prevent losses of not sufficiently receiving all the light focused from the flow cell.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Chiu with a detection system, wherein the collection fiber has a diameter different from diameters of the first and second fibers in order to provide the advantage of increased efficiency in using a larger diameter collection fiber one can obviously reduce optical losses in the system by capturing as much light as possible from the sample via for example a multi-modal fiber with a large diameter as disclosed in Chen.
As to claim 11, Chiu does not explicitly disclose a detection system, wherein the first wavelength division multiplexer comprises a plurality of optical transmission paths corresponding to a plurality of optical channels and a first filter and a second filter for each of the plurality of optical channels, and wherein for each optical channel, the first filter and the second filter are arranged at a certain distance from each other along the optical transmission path of the optical channel in a non-parallel manner.
However, Chen does disclose and show in figure 27 and in ([0423]) the use of a wavelength division multiplexer that has a plurality of optical transmission paths each with a first (903) and second filter (0904’). Clearly the filters are at a certain distance from one another and as explicitly shown are tilted relative to each other and not oriented at the same parallel plane. In doing so the filters can relay light to either mirrors (907, or 910) in the case of the first filter, or to lenses 905’ in the case of the second filter.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Chiu with a detection system, wherein the first wavelength division multiplexer comprises a plurality of optical transmission paths corresponding to a plurality of optical channels and a first filter and a second filter for each of the plurality of optical channels, and wherein for each optical channel, the first filter and the second filter are arranged at a certain distance from each other along the optical transmission path of the optical channel in a non-parallel manner in order to provide the advantage of increased efficiency in using the zig-zag architecture as taught by Chen one can use an array of detectors while make the system more compact and portable ([0416], ll. 14-17).
As to claim 13, Chiu does not explicitly disclose a detection system, wherein the light collection unit further comprises a forward collection part comprising: a concave mirror having an ellipsoidal surface, wherein a reflective material is coated on the ellipsoidal surface to reflect and focus the forward scattered light beam from the nanoparticle; and a forward detector that receives the light beam reflected from the concave mirror.
However, Chen does disclose and show in figure 37 and in ([0451]) the use of a forward scattering system coupled to the flow cell (409). The light is relayed to detector 408 via a concave mirror 406, where inherently in the configuration as shown there is a reflective material on mirror 406 in order for it to be reflective. This system could obviously be coupled to the system of Chiu in order to add another measurement of light from the nanoparticle under test. Lastly the examiner notes that because of the view of figure 37 it is unclear as to what geometric shape the mirror is constructed as. Chen does disclose and show in figure 11, where the concave mirror in being adapted to a rectangular flow cell can be in the form of ellipsoidal. Further the change in shape absent criticality or an unexpected result is within the level of ordinary skill in the art In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Chiu with a detection system, wherein the light collection unit further comprises a forward collection part comprising: a concave mirror having an ellipsoidal surface, wherein a reflective material is coated on the ellipsoidal surface to reflect and focus the forward scattered light beam from the nanoparticle; and a forward detector that receives the light beam reflected from the concave mirror in order to provide the advantage of increased accuracy in using a common forward scattering light collection system one can accurately measure axial loss as another measure of particle size ([0452], ll. 1-3).
As to claim 14, Chiu does not explicitly disclose a sample processing instrument for nanoparticles, comprising: a fluidic system configured to transport various processing and cleaning fluids; a flow cell provided with a sample needle for supplying a sample containing nanoparticles therein, wherein sheath fluid supplied by the fluidic system wraps the sample in the flow cell to obtain a stable sample flow; and the detection system according to claim 1, wherein the detection system is configured to detect nanoparticles in a sample flowing through the flow cell, and instead uses a common microfluidics chip based flow cell implementation.
However, Chen does disclose and show in figures 8b and 14 and in ([0256]; [0315], ll. 1-14; [0376]) the use of a common fluidic system (70) that is capable of the intended use of transporting various processing and cleaning fluids. The examiner notes that applicant fails to claim any particular reservoirs that hold each of the noted fluids as such the “configured to transport” is being interpreted as intended use. A flow cell (619, or shown in part at 603 in figure 14) provided with a sample needle (part of tube not labeled but explicitly shown that is inserted into chamber (620). Where sheath fluid is supplied to wrap the sample in a flow cell to obtain a stable sample flow (i.e. hydro-dynamically focused).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Chiu with a sample processing instrument for nanoparticles, comprising: a fluidic system configured to transport various processing and cleaning fluids; a flow cell provided with a sample needle for supplying a sample containing nanoparticles therein, wherein sheath fluid supplied by the fluidic system wraps the sample in the flow cell to obtain a stable sample flow; and the detection system according to claim 1, wherein the detection system is configured to detect nanoparticles in a sample flowing through the flow cell in order to provide the advantage of expected results, as exchanging one common fluidic arrangement with another produces the same expected result of efficient focusing of the particles under test into a small confined flow path for accurate optical measurement of particle size of samples under test.
As to claim 21, Chiu discloses a sample processing instrument, wherein the sample processing instrument is adapted to detect particles ranging from 40 nanometers to 1000 nanometers ([0250], where the examiner further notes that this limitation is merely the sample worked upon by the apparatus and fails to further limit the apparatus beyond the system of the prior art need be capable of use with the sample, please see MPEP 2115).
As to claim 22, Chiu as modified by Chen is capable of the intended use of a processing instrument, wherein the fluidic system is configured to supply sheath fluid at a flow rate of 0.5 mL/min to 1.5 mL/min, and supply the sample at a flow rate of 1 uL/min to 6 uL/min ([0376], [0378]; [0382] from Chen, the citation are merely for compact prosecution, as the noted limitation in merely intended use as it is not linked to any particular structure for performing the structure, as such both Chiu and Chen are found to be capable of the intended use as having met all the claimed structural requirements, further Chen explicitly discloses the ability to control and vary sheath flow rate).
Claim(s) 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chiu et al. in view of Chen further in view of Zhang et al. (CN 110118718 A, where the examiner has provided a machine translation hereinwith for citations).
As to claims 15 and 16, Chiu in view of Chen does not explicitly disclose a sample processing instrument, wherein the flow cell is provided with a bubble discharge passage through which bubbles in fluid in the flow cell are discharged or wherein the flow cell is provided with at least two bubble discharge passages at different levels, wherein two bubble discharge passages of the at least two bubble discharge passages are located at a bottom and a top of a fluid converging chamber of the flow cell, respectively.
However, Zhang does disclose and show in figure 1 and in (page 5, ll. 21-26) the use of a exhaust control valve 120 in the flow cell at the “bottom” of the flow cell. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to also have a second exhaust control valve 120 at the top of the flow cell to allow further bubble removal opportunity, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Chiu in view of Chen with a sample processing instrument, wherein the flow cell is provided with a bubble discharge passage through which bubbles in fluid in the flow cell are discharged or wherein the flow cell is provided with at least two bubble discharge passages at different levels, wherein two bubble discharge passages of the at least two bubble discharge passages are located at a bottom and a top of a fluid converging chamber of the flow cell, respectively in order to provide the advantage of increased accuracy as extremely well-known bubbles create noise in the particle measurements in flow cell systems, removing them in as many areas as possible increases analysis accuracy as explicitly disclosed in Zhang.
Claim(s) 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chiu et al. in view of Chen further in view of Kanda (U.S. PGPub No. 2012/0308436 A1).
As to claims 18-20, Chiu does not explicitly disclose a sample processing instrument, wherein the fluidic system comprises: a pump comprising a cylinder and a piston reciprocating in the cylinder; and a switching device configured to selectively fluidly communicate the pump to the sample needle or a sample source or wherein the switching device comprises a three-way valve comprising a first port connected to the pump and a second port connected to the sample needle and a third port connected to the sample source, and wherein the three-way valve is switched between a first position where the pump is allowed to communicate with the sample needle and a second position where the pump is allowed to communicate with the sample source or wherein the switching device comprises a three-way connector and a two-way valve, the three-way connector comprises a first port connected to the pump, a second port connected to the sample needle and a third port connected to the sample source, the two-way valve is arranged between the third port and the sample source, and is switched between an opened position where the third port is allowed to communicate with the sample source and a closed position where the communication between the third port and the sample source is interrupted.
However, Chen does disclose and show in figure 14 and in ([0376]) the use of both a piston pump which is a cylinder and piston reciprocating in the cylinder, and arguable also a peristaltic pump as shown in figure 14, where 3 cylinders reciprocate around in a forwards or backwards motion inside a larger cylinder.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Chiu with a sample processing instrument, wherein the fluidic system comprises: a pump comprising a cylinder and a piston reciprocating in the cylinder in order to provide the advantage of expected results in using one of many possible pumps as explicitly disclosed in Chiu to relay the sample to the flow cell measurement area in a low cost widely available manner.
Chen in view of Chiu still fails to disclose a sample processing instrument, wherein the fluidic system comprises: a switching device configured to selectively fluidly communicate the pump to the sample needle or a sample source or wherein the switching device comprises a three-way valve comprising a first port connected to the pump and a second port connected to the sample needle and a third port connected to the sample source, and wherein the three-way valve is switched between a first position where the pump is allowed to communicate with the sample needle and a second position where the pump is allowed to communicate with the sample source or wherein the switching device comprises a three-way connector and a two-way valve, the three-way connector comprises a first port connected to the pump, a second port connected to the sample needle and a third port connected to the sample source, the two-way valve is arranged between the third port and the sample source, and is switched between an opened position where the third port is allowed to communicate with the sample source and a closed position where the communication between the third port and the sample source is interrupted.
However, Kanda does disclose and show in figures 1 and 3 and in ([0045]) the basic concept of using a three-way valve/connector (38) to allow switching of the connection of the sample or a sheath fluid to be received at the sample needle. Specifically the valve is either open to the sample during measurement or open to the sheath fluid during cleaning where the sample obviously would not be in connection with the sample needle. Kanda does fail to disclose the two way valve, however this is just an obvious modification to what is already done with the same expected result. In other words moving the valve so it is on the sheath path tube so it becomes two way vs the three way valve as shown is an obvious and predictable modification to yield the same result of allowing cleaning of the sample pathway.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Chen in view of Chiu with a sample processing instrument, wherein the fluidic system comprises: a switching device configured to selectively fluidly communicate the pump to the sample needle or a sample source or wherein the switching device comprises a three-way valve comprising a first port connected to the pump and a second port connected to the sample needle and a third port connected to the sample source, and wherein the three-way valve is switched between a first position where the pump is allowed to communicate with the sample needle and a second position where the pump is allowed to communicate with the sample source or wherein the switching device comprises a three-way connector and a two-way valve, the three-way connector comprises a first port connected to the pump, a second port connected to the sample needle and a third port connected to the sample source, the two-way valve is arranged between the third port and the sample source, and is switched between an opened position where the third port is allowed to communicate with the sample source and a closed position where the communication between the third port and the sample source is interrupted in order to provide the advantage of increased accuracy as using sheath fluid to provide a simple cleaning function ensures measurement accuracy when moving through varied nanoparticle sample solutions.
Claim(s) 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chiu et al. in view of Chen further in view of Jones et al. (U.S. PGPub No. 2013/0095575 A1).
As to claim 23, Chiu does not explicitly disclose a sample processing instrument, wherein a filter with precision ranging from 5 nm to 20 nm is provided for the sheath fluid in the fluidic system.
However, Chen does disclose and show in figure 14 and in ([0032], ll. 8-11; [0380], ll. 7-10) the use of a filter cartridge on the sheath flow path. However, no particular precision is detailed in Chen. Jones provides evidence that a sheath fluid line filtering of 20nm is known in ([0016]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Chiu with a sample processing instrument, wherein a filter with precision ranging from 5 nm to 20 nm is provided for the sheath fluid in the fluidic system in order to provide the advantage of increased accuracy in filtering the sheath fluid as disclosed in Jones one can reduce error (i.e. background noise) in the measurements of the sample under test ([0016]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL P LAPAGE whose telephone number is (571)270-3833. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8-5:30.
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.
/Michael P LaPage/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2877
Prosecution Insights