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 .
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.
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: “image processing unit” in claims 6 & 7.
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.
Applicant teaches the image processing unit 108 extracts the measurement target region (an image region of the specimen) from the captured image acquired by the area camera (0018). Therefore, one of ordinary skill would understand the image processing unit is computer hardware/software.
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.
Claim 6 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. In regards to claim 6, the claimed subject matter “the surface light source has a size of a surface where at least a part of a location where the light transmitted through the biological sample” is rendered indefinite. Examiner notes it is unclear as to how the surface light source (fig 1, 102) has the size of a surface where light has transmitted through biological sample (fig 1, 101). Examiner interprets claim as the light source being the same size as the light beam since the surface of light transmitted through sample would be the size of the light beam. Based upon the specification, the surface light source is larger than the light beam (fig 6a, 102). Clarification 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, 8, & 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morken WO 0224412 in view of Tran US 6609946 in further view of paper of Kirubanandan Shanmugam, “Engineering surface roughness of nanocellulose film via spraying to produce smooth substrates”, 2019 hereafter Shanmugam in further view of GUREVICH US 20050083451.
With respect to claim 1, Morken teaches a biological sample measuring device for measuring a sample separated into a plurality of component regions, the biological sample measuring device comprising:
a surface light source (fig 1, 48) configured to radiate light to the sample (fig 1, 12);
an imager (fig 1, 34) configured to generate a two-dimensional captured image (fig 14B) of the sample using the light from the sample;
a first mirror (fig 1, 32) configured to receive light from the sample;
a second mirror (fig 1, 19) configured to reflect the light (fig 1, 48) reflected “reflective surface…allows the image…sample…nearer…camera” (pg. 7, ¶ 1) on the first mirror toward the imager; and
an absorber (fig 1, 30), wherein
the absorber is disposed at a position where the light is blocked “reduces reflections and glare” (pg. 6, ¶ 3) on a reflection path on which the light reflected on the second mirror returns toward the sample.
Morken does not teach light transmitted through a biological sample.
Tran’s background of invention, in the same field of endeavor as Morken of polishing semiconductors, teaches optically analyzing a transparent film on a wafer during polishing, wherein light is traveling through the sample (col 2, lines 1-5).
Tran does not teach a biological sample.
Shanmugam, in the field of endeavor of printed circuits (abstract, lines 1-3), teaches optically examining the roughness (fig 2) of a biological material i.e. nanocellulose layer on a silicon wafer substrate (pg. 2, col 2, ¶ 5, lines 1-5) (pg. 2, col 1, ¶ 3, lines 1-5). Examiner notes nanocellulose is a transparent material. At the time prior to the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to try observe a biological material via Morken’s imager for quality control purposes with a reasonable expectation of success. Examiner further notes light would transmit through the nanocellulose layer and reflect off of the silicon wafer towards the second mirror during imaging.
The combination does not teach an absorber configured to absorb the light.
Gurevich, in the same field of endeavor as Morken of glare reduction via polarizers (pg. 6, ¶ 3 Morken), teaches a polarizer filter i.e. absorber configured to reduce glares by absorbing external light (0003, lines 15-17). At the time prior to the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Gurevich’s absorber with the Morken’s filter as a design choice for removing unwanted glares.
With respect to claim 8 according to claim1, the combination teaches the biological sample measuring device further comprising: a carry-in port (fig 1, 29 Morken) through which the biological sample is introduced “securely mounted on a stub” into the biological sample measuring device (pg. 4, ¶ 9 Morken).
With respect to claim 11, Morken teaches a sample measurement method for measuring a sample housed in
a container to which a label is attached and separated into a plurality of component regions, the
biological sample measurement method comprising:
a step of radiating light from a surface illumination light source (fig 1, 48) to the sample (fig 1, 12);
a step of generating a two-dimensional captured image (fig 14B) of the biological sample by an
imager (fig 1, 34) using the light from the sample (fig 1, 12);
a step of reflecting the light from the sample by a first mirror (fig 1, 32);
a step of reflecting the light reflected on the first mirror toward the imager by a second
mirror (fig 1, 19); and
the absorber (fig 1, 30) is disposed at a position where the light is blocked “reduces reflections and glare” (pg. 6, ¶ 3) on a reflection path on which the light reflected on the second mirror returns toward the sample.
Morken does not teach a biological sample.
Tran’s background of invention, in the same field of endeavor as Morken of polishing semiconductors, teaches optically analyzing a transparent film on a wafer during polishing, wherein light is traveling through the sample (col 2, lines 1-5).
Tran does not teach a biological sample.
Shanmugam, in the field of endeavor of printed circuits (abstract, lines 1-3), teaches optically examining the roughness (fig 2) of a biological material i.e. nanocellulose layer on a silicon wafer substrate (pg. 2, col 2, ¶ 5, lines 1-5) (pg. 2, col 1, ¶ 3, lines 1-5). Examiner notes nanocellulose is a transparent material. At the time prior to the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to try observe a biological material via Morken’s imager for quality control purposes with a reasonable expectation of success. Examiner further notes light would transmit through the nanocellulose layer and reflect off of the silicon wafer towards the second mirror during imaging. Examiner further notes light would transmit through the nanocellulose layer and reflect off of the silicon wafer towards the second mirror during imaging.
The combination does not teach an absorber configured to absorb the light.
Gurevich, in the same field of endeavor as Morken of glare reduction via polarizers (pg. 6, ¶ 3 Morken), teaches a polarizer filter i.e. absorber configured to reduce glares by absorbing external light (0003, lines 15-17). At the time prior to the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Gurevich’s absorber with the Morken’s filter as a design choice for removing unwanted glares.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morken WO 0224412 in view of 0224412 in view of Tran US 6609946 in further view of paper of Kirubanandan Shanmugam, “Engineering surface roughness of nanocellulose film via spraying to produce smooth substrates”, 2019 hereafter Shanmugam.
With respect to claim 12, Morken teaches a biological sample measuring device for measuring a sample separated into a plurality of component regions, the biological sample measuring device comprising:
a surface light source (fig 1, 48) configured to radiate light to the sample (fig 1, 12);
an imager (fig 1, 34) configured to generate a two-dimensional captured image (fig 14B) of the
sample using the light transmitted from the sample (fig 1, 12);
a mirror (fig 1, 19) configured to reflect the light from the sample toward the imager; and
the absorber (fig 1, 30) is disposed at a position where the light is blocked “reduces reflections and glare” (pg. 6, ¶ 3) on a reflection path on which the light scattered on or transmitted through the biological sample is reflected on the imager and returns toward the sample.
Morken does not teach light transmitted through a biological sample.
Tran’s background of invention, in the same field of endeavor as Morken of polishing semiconductors, teaches optically analyzing a transparent film on a wafer during polishing, wherein light is traveling through the sample (col 2, lines 1-5).
Tran does not teach a biological sample.
Shanmugam, in the field of endeavor of printed circuits (abstract, lines 1-3), teaches optically examining the roughness (fig 2) of a biological material i.e. nanocellulose layer on a silicon wafer substrate (pg. 2, col 2, ¶ 5, lines 1-5) (pg. 2, col 1, ¶ 3, lines 1-5). Examiner notes nanocellulose is a transparent material. At the time prior to the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to try observe a biological material via Morken’s imager for quality control purposes with a reasonable expectation of success. Examiner further notes light would transmit through the nanocellulose layer and reflect off of the silicon wafer towards the second mirror during imaging.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-5,7,9,10, & 13-15 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims or to include the limitation(s) and any intervening claims into the base claim. Claim 6 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the 35 U.S.C 112 rejection and include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims or to include the limitation(s) and any intervening claims into the base claim. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
As to claim 2, the prior art of record, taken alone or in combination, fails to disclose or render obvious “the absorber is disposed at a position where the light reflected from the first mirror toward the second mirror is not obstructed on a path of the light between the first mirror and the second mirror”, in combination with the rest of the limitations of claim 2.
As to claim 3, the prior art of record, taken alone or in combination, fails to disclose or render obvious “the absorber includes a first portion configured to block the light and a second portion configured to block the light by having a bent shape at least one location”, in combination with the rest of the limitations of claim 3.
As to claim 4, the prior art of record, taken alone or in combination, fails to disclose or render obvious “the first range is a region sandwiched by a first tangent line in contact with a first side surface of a container that houses the biological sample and a second side surface of the imager, and a second tangent line in contact with a third side surface on a side opposite to the first side surf ace of the container and a fourth side surface on a side opposite to the second side surface of the imager”, in combination with the rest of the limitations of claim 4.
As to claim 5, the prior art of record, taken alone or in combination, fails to disclose or render obvious “the second range is a region sandwiched by a third tangent line in contact with one end of a light-emitting surface of the surface light source and a fifth side surface of the imager, and a fourth tangent line in contact with the other end of the light-emitting surface and a sixth side surface on a side opposite to the fifth side surface of the imager”, in combination with the rest of the limitations of claim 5.
As to claim 6, the prior art of record, taken alone or in combination, fails to disclose or render obvious “the image processing unit specifies the target portion of the captured image without using a portion generated from the light transmitted through the part”, in combination with the rest of the limitations of claim 6.
As to claim 7, the prior art of record, taken alone or in combination, fails to disclose or render obvious “the image processing unit calculates a difference between a portion generated using the first wavelength component in the first captured image and a portion generated by the second wavelength component in the second captured image, and the image processing unit specifies a range of the target portion by specifying a portion where the difference is equal to or larger than a threshold”, in combination with the rest of the limitations of claim 7.
As to claim 9, the prior art of record, taken alone or in combination, fails to disclose or render obvious “a light-emitting direction of the surface light source and a light-receiving direction of the imager are parallel to each other, and an orientation in which the surface light source emits the light and an orientation of the light when the imager receives the light are opposite to each other”, in combination with the rest of the limitations of claim 9.
As to claim 10, the prior art of record, taken alone or in combination, fails to disclose or render obvious “the biological sample measuring device measures the biological sample housed in a container to which a label is attached”, in combination with the rest of the limitations of claim 10.
As to claim 13, the prior art of record, taken alone or in combination, fails to disclose or render obvious “the absorber is disposed at a position where the light reflected from the mirror toward the imager is not obstructed on a path of the light between the mirror and the imager”, in combination with the rest of the limitations of claim 13.
As to claim 14, the prior art of record, taken alone or in combination, fails to disclose or render obvious “the first range is a region sandwiched by a first tangent line in contact with a first side surface of a container that houses the biological sample and a second side surface of the imager, and a second tangent line in contact with a third side surface on a side opposite to the first side surf ace of the container and a fourth side surface on a side opposite to the second side surface of the imager.”, in combination with the rest of the limitations of claim 14.
As to claim 15, the prior art of record, taken alone or in combination, fails to disclose or render obvious “the second range is a region sandwiched by a third tangent line in contact with one end of a light-emitting surface of the surface light source and a fifth side surface of the imager, and a fourth tangent line in contact with the other end of the light-emitting surface and a sixth side surface on a side opposite to the fifth side surface of the imager”, in combination with the rest of the limitations of claim 15.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MAURICE C SMITH whose telephone number is (571)272-2526. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-5pm EST.
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, Kara Geisel can be reached at (571) 272-2416. 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.
/MAURICE C SMITH/Examiner, Art Unit 2877