DETAILED ACTION
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 3/28/2024, 8/19/2025, and 10/28/2025 were considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 10-14 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 10, the claim depends on claim 1 and establishes a new antecedent basis for components already established in claim 1. The claim should be amended as follows:
Claim 10 (Currently amended)
A deterioration evaluation method using the electron spin resonance device according to claim 1, the method comprising:
a detection step of irradiating [[a]] the measurement target with [[a]] the microwave, applying [[a]] the magnetic field to [[a]] the irradiation surface of the measurement target, the irradiation surface being irradiated with the microwave, and detecting an electron spin resonance signal of the measurement target by electron spin resonance;
an evaluation step of evaluating deterioration of the measurement target from the electron spin resonance signal; and
before the detection step, a preparation step of finding, in advance, a relationship between deterioration of a reference specimen and an electron spin resonance signal of the reference specimen by using the reference specimen having the same configuration as the measurement target,
wherein the preparation step includes a step of finding a critical value by dividing a number of spins in the reference specimen at a time point when a load at which breakage of the reference specimen occurs is applied by a number of spins in the reference specimen before the load is applied, and
the evaluation step includes:
a step of fitting a graph using the following Equation (1), the graph having a horizontal axis representing a number of applications (N) of the load to the measurement target, and a vertical axis representing a standardized number of spins (Nspin1(N)/Nspin1(0)) in the measurement target, and
a step of substituting the critical value to a left side of the following Equation (1) and estimating a number of applications of the load at which breakage of the measurement target occurs, Nspin(N)/Nspin(0)= Alog10 (N + 1) + 1... (1)
where, in Equation (1), Nspin(N) is the number of spins in the measurement target after the load is applied N times, Nspin(0) is the number of spins in the measurement target before the load is applied, and A is a constant.
Regarding claim 11, the claim depends on claim 1 and establishes a new antecedent basis for components already established in claim 1. The claim should be amended as follows:
11 (Currently amended)
A deterioration evaluation method using the electron spin resonance device according to claim 1, the method comprising:
a detection step of irradiating [[a]] the measurement target with [[a]] the microwave, applying [[a]] the magnetic field to [[a]] the irradiation surface of the measurement target, the irradiation surface being irradiated with the microwave, and detecting an electron spin resonance signal of the measurement target by electron spin resonance;
an evaluation step of evaluating deterioration of the measurement target from the electron spin resonance signal; and
before the detection step, a preparation step of finding, in advance, a relationship between deterioration of a reference specimen and an electron spin resonance signal of the reference specimen by using the reference specimen having the same configuration as the measurement target,
wherein the preparation step includes a step of fitting a graph using the following Equation (2), the graph having a horizontal axis representing a number of applications (N) of the load to the reference specimen and a vertical axis representing a standardized number of spins (N'spin1(N)/N'spin1(0)) in the reference specimen, N'spin(N)/N'spin(0)= A'logio (N + 1) + 1...(2)
where, in Equation (2), N'spin1(N) is the number of spins in the reference specimen after the load is applied N times, N'spin1(0) is the number of spins in the reference specimen before the load is applied, and A' is a constant.
Appropriate correction is required.
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) 1, 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 5,889,402 (Kumatoriya).
Regarding claim 1, Kumatoriya teaches an electron spin resonance device comprising a microwave oscillator, a magnet, a modulation coil, and a cavity resonator having an opening (microwave generator 32, magnet 22, modulation coils 48, 50, and cavity resonator 12; see Figs. 1-3), wherein
a microwave generated by the microwave oscillator resonates in the cavity resonator and is emitted from the opening toward a measurement target located outside the opening (a microwave generated by the microwave generator 32 resonates in the cavity 16 and is emitted from through-holes 20, 24 to a specimen 26 facing the through-hole; see Figs. 1-3; see col. 5, line 59 – col. 6, line 13),
the magnet applies a magnetic field toward an irradiation surface of the measurement target, the irradiation surface being irradiated with the microwave (ferromagnetic plate 22 applies a magnetic field that intersects a plane of the specimen at the through-hole 24; see Figs. 1-3; see col. 5, lines 14-39; see col. 6, lines 14-40), and
the modulation coil modulates an intensity of the magnetic field or a frequency of the microwave applied toward the irradiation surface of the measurement target (modulation coils 48, 50 modulate magnetic fields from electromagnets 44, 46; see Fig. 3; see col. 5, line 67-col. 6, line 5),
a permeation region which is irradiated and permeated by the microwave (an area of measurement faces the throughole 24 and the apparent area of measurement is reduced to the diameter of the through-hole 24; see col. 6, lines 29-40), and
the microwave oscillator and the magnet are located at a position facing the measurement target and do not sandwich the measurement target (the microwave generator 32 and/or resonator 10 and ferromagnetic plate 22 face the specimen 26 without sandwiching the specimen; see Figs. 1-3).
Kumatoriya fails to teach the measurement target includes 1011 spins/g or more in a permeation region which is irradiated and permeated by the microwave, however, these limitations correspond to features of the material or article worked upon and do not limit the apparatus claim. See MPEP 2115.
Further, Kumatoriya teaches an electron spin resonance measuring apparatus having an equivalent structure as claimed, but fails to explicitly recite the number of spins/g in the permeation region of the measurement target. Since Kumatoriya teaches an equivalent structure for performing electron spin resonance, it would be a reasonable presumption that the prior art structure inherently performs the function of performing electron spin resonance on a measurement target including 1011 spins/g. See MPEP 2182and MPEP 2114 I. and II.. Further, [0055] of the pending specification characterizes a measurement target including 1011 spins/g as having a high concentration of spins and, “If the measurement target 1 is limited to a substance having a high concentration spin, the electron spin resonance device 10 is not required to have high sensitivity. Thus, the electron spin resonance device 10 according to the present embodiment can be reduced in size and simplified in configuration.” Since Kumatoriya teaches an electron spin resonance device having an equivalent structure as claimed, and the pending application fails to disclose any special technical features or details which enable the claimed apparatus to perform ESR on a target including 1011 spins/g, it would be a reasonable presumption that the structure of Kumatoriya would inherently perform ESR on a measurement target including 1011 spins/g or more without requiring any undue experimentation or providing any new or unexpected results.
Regarding claim 3, Kumatoriya fails to explicitly teach wherein the measurement target is a carbon fiber composite material, however, as in claim 1, these limitations correspond to features of the material or article worked upon and do not limit the apparatus claim. See MPEP 2115. Further, since Kumatoriya taches all the structural components of the apparatus as claimed, the ESR apparatus would reasonably be configured to perform ESR on a carbon fiber composite material without requiring any undue experimentation or providing any new or unexpected results for similar reasons provided for claim 1 above. See MPEP 2182and MPEP 2114 I. and II..
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 5,889,402 (Kumatoriya) in view of US 6,504,367 (Chandrakumar).
Regarding claim 4, Kumatoriya fails to teach wherein the modulation coil sweeps the magnetic field in a range of +/- 2 mT with 319.5 mT as a reference.
Chandrakumar teaches wherein EPR (i.e. ESR) measurements are performed where it is customary to employ field modulation and the EPR spectral profile is recorded by conventional field sweep method. While Chandrakumar fails to teach “the modulation coil sweeps the magnetic field in a range of +/- 2 mT with 319.5 mT as a reference” it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to determine a reference field and field sweep range, as a matter of routine data collection without providing any new or unexpected result. For example, the field at which an ESR signal is present is proportion to the frequency of the MW signal. For a free electron radical at 319 mT would correspond to a Larmor frequency of 8.94 GHz. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to sweep the magnetic field in order to obtain an ESR spectrum, wherein determining the particular values of the field and range would be a matter of routine optimization without requiring undue experimentation or providing any new or unexpected result.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 5,889,402 (Kumatoriya) in view of US 2002/0163336 (Yokoyama).
Regarding claim 5, Kumatoriya teaches wherein the electron spin resonance device is portable (the cavity resonator 10 would reasonably be interpreted as “portable” in view of a broadest reasonable interpretation and MPEP 2144.04 V. A teaches wherein the fact that a claimed device is portable or movable is not sufficient by itself to patentably distinguish over an otherwise old device unless there are new or unexpected results.).
Kumitoriya fails to teach wherein the electron spin resonance device is installable with respect to a measurement target having any shape. Kumitoriya teaches wherein the resonance device comprises a pair of modulation coils 48, 50 and a pair of electromagnets 44, 46 and wherein the sample 26 is placed in between.
Yokoyama teaches wherein the electron spin resonance device is installable with respect to a measurement target having any shape (an ESR resonator 1, main magnet 2, and field modulation coil 3 are placed on a plane 4 such that a sample 5 is placed below this plane and ESR measurements are conducted outside of the resonator which would allow for samples of any shape in an equivalent manner as disclosed; see Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the features wherein the resonator, magnet, and modulation coils are arranged on one side of a sample without sandwiching the samples in between as taught in Yokoyama into Kumitoriya in order to gain the advantage of arranging the resonator components on one side of a sample without sandwiching the sample therebetween in order to allow measurements of samples having any shape to be imaged by ESR.
Claim(s) 6-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 5,889,402 (Kumatoriya) in view of US 2007/0152669 (Park).
Regarding claims 6 and 7, Kumitoriya fails to teach further comprising a plurality of units, wherein each of the plurality of units includes the microwave oscillator, the magnet, the modulation coil, and the cavity resonator; and wherein some units of the plurality of units share at least one of the microwave oscillator, the magnet, or the modulation coil.
Park teaches a plurality of units, wherein each of the plurality of units includes the microwave oscillator, the magnet, the modulation coil, and the cavity resonator, wherein some units of the plurality of units share at least one of the microwave oscillator, the magnet, or the modulation coil (an array of ESR microcoils are contained in a single substrate and the substrate includes an integrated magnet for generating the static magnetic field; see [0017]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the features as taught in Park into Kumitoriya in order to gain the advantage of performing multiple DNA analysis simultaneously.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10-14 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding claim 10, the prior art of record teaches using the electron spin resonance device according to claim 1, the method comprising: a detection step of irradiating a measurement target with a microwave, applying a magnetic field to an irradiation surface of the measurement target, the irradiation surface being irradiated with the microwave, and detecting an electron spin resonance signal of the measurement target by electron spin resonance.
The prior art of record fails to teach or suggest a deterioration evaluation method comprising an evaluation step of evaluating deterioration of the measurement target from the electron spin resonance signal; and before the detection step, a preparation step of finding, in advance, a relationship between deterioration of a reference specimen and an electron spin resonance signal of the reference specimen by using the reference specimen having the same configuration as the measurement target, wherein the preparation step includes a step of finding a critical value by dividing a number of spins in the reference specimen at a time point when a load at which breakage of the reference specimen occurs is applied by a number of spins in the reference specimen before the load is applied, and the evaluation step includes: a step of fitting a graph using the following Equation (1), the graph having a horizontal axis representing a number of applications (N) of the load to the measurement target, and a vertical axis representing a standardized number of spins (Nspin1(N)/Nspin1(0)) in the measurement target, and a step of substituting the critical value to a left side of the following Equation (1) and estimating a number of applications of the load at which breakage of the measurement target occurs, Nspin(N)/Nspin(0)= Alog10 (N + 1) + 1... (1) where, in Equation (1), Nspin(N) is the number of spins in the measurement target after the load is applied N times, Nspin(0) is the number of spins in the measurement target before the load is applied, and A is a constant, in combination with all other limitations of claims 1 and 10.
Claim 14, definite and enabled by the specification, is allowed through a dependence on objected claim 10.
Regarding claim 11, the prior art of record teaches using the electron spin resonance device according to claim 1, the method comprising: a detection step of irradiating a measurement target with a microwave, applying a magnetic field to an irradiation surface of the measurement target, the irradiation surface being irradiated with the microwave, and detecting an electron spin resonance signal of the measurement target by electron spin resonance.
The prior art of record fails to teach or suggest a deterioration evaluation method an evaluation step of evaluating deterioration of the measurement target from the electron spin resonance signal; and before the detection step, a preparation step of finding, in advance, a relationship between deterioration of a reference specimen and an electron spin resonance signal of the reference specimen by using the reference specimen having the same configuration as the measurement target, wherein the preparation step includes a step of fitting a graph using the following Equation (2), the graph having a horizontal axis representing a number of applications (N) of the load to the reference specimen and a vertical axis representing a standardized number of spins (N'spin1(N)/N'spin1(0)) in the reference specimen, N'spin(N)/N'spin(0)= A'logio (N + 1) + 1...(2) where, in Equation (2), N'spin1(N) is the number of spins in the reference specimen after the load is applied N times, N'spin1(0) is the number of spins in the reference specimen before the load is applied, and A' is a constant.
Claims 12-13, definite and enabled by the specification, is allowed through a dependence on objected claim 11.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEVEN LEE YENINAS whose telephone number is (571)270-0372. The examiner can normally be reached M - F 10 - 6.
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, Judy Nguyen can be reached at (571) 272-2258. 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.
/STEVEN L YENINAS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2858
Prosecution Insights