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 .
Response to Arguments/Amendments
Applicant’s amendments overcome the previous 103 rejections. Therefore, the previous 103 rejections have been withdrawn. However, upon further search and consideration, a new rejection is made based on newly found prior art (see below for details).
However, due to the amendments to claim 1, dependent claim 5 contains allowable subject matter (see the allowable subject matter section for more details).
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: heat dissipating member in claim 6.
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 § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eisenlauer (US 4752131 A) in view of Elings (US 4421860 A), Sugasawa (US-20140368820-A1), Wolf (US 20070291254 A1), and Pottier (WO 02061405 A2).
Regarding claim 1, Eisenlauer teaches a particle analysis device comprising
a flow cell (3) through which a sample containing particles flows (figures 1-2),
a light source (6) that irradiates light to the particles in the flow cell (figures 1-2),
a photodetector (9) that detects secondary light from the particles (figures 1-2), and
an circuit (10) that calculates from a light intensity signal output by the photodetector and analyzes the particles contained in the sample (column 4, lines 15-40; column 2, lines 15-30), wherein
an optical system unit (3 and 6) including the flow cell (3) and the light source (6), and a
control unit (9 and 10) including the photodetector (9) and the circuit (10) are separately provided from each other and are connected through a light guide member (8) that guides the secondary light to the photodetector (figures 1-2).
PNG
media_image1.png
782
532
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Eisenlauer doesn’t explicitly teach the circuit calculates an autocorrelation function; the optical system unit including a casing that houses the flow cell and the light source; the control unit provided separately from the optical system unit; wherein the photodetector and the arithmetic circuit of the control unit are arranged outside of the casing of the optical system unit.
Like Eisenlauer (and like Applicant), Elings is directed to an optical particle analysis device that uses dynamic light scattering and teaches that a circuit that calculates an autocorrelation function from a light intensity signal output by the photodetector and analyzes the particles contained in the sample using the autocorrelation function provides the benefits of enhancement of detection and high sensitivity (abstract; column 2, lines 585-65; column 12, lines 15-25).
PNG
media_image2.png
314
770
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Eisenlauer by having the calculate an autocorrelation function from a light intensity signal output by the photodetector and analyzes the particles contained in the sample using the autocorrelation function in order to enhance detection and achieve high sensitivity.
It’s unclear to the Examiner whether the circuit of the above combination is an arithmetic circuit. If it is, then the claim is rendered obvious by the above combination. If not, then it is noted that its conventional for the circuit that calculates an autocorrelation function to be an arithmetic circuit (see additional prior art for multiple examples); additionally, like Eisenlauer (and like Applicant), Sugasawa is directed to an optical particle analysis device and concerned with particle size distribution and teaches the circuit is an arithmetic circuit (paragraph 30) and cooperatively works with other devices to determine sizes with high accuracy (paragraphs 13 and 30). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the above combination such that the circuit is an arithmetic circuit in order to use a conventional type of circuit that is known in the art in order to quickly provide high accuracy calculations of particle sizes.
The above combination doesn’t explicitly teach the optical system unit including a casing that houses the flow cell and the light source; the control unit provided separately from the optical system unit; wherein the photodetector and the arithmetic circuit of the control unit are arranged outside of the casing of the optical system unit.
Like Eisenlauer (and like the instant application), Wolf is directed to an optical measurement system using flow cells and to a particle analysis device and teaches the optical system unit including a casing that houses the flow cell (paragraph 93) and the light source (10; figure 5); a control unit (41) provided separately from the optical system unit; wherein the circuit of the control unit are arranged outside of the casing of the optical system unit (figure 5).
PNG
media_image3.png
448
752
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
480
666
media_image4.png
Greyscale
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the above combination such that the optical system unit including a casing that houses the flow cell and the light source; the control unit provided separately from the optical system unit; wherein the arithmetic circuit of the control unit are arranged outside of the casing of the optical system unit -- in order to provide protection to the light source and flow cell so they’re not damaged by the environment.
The above combination doesn’t explicitly teach the photodetector is also outside of the casing.
Like the above combination (and like the instant application), Pottier is directed to an optical measurement device and is concerned with the problem of housing the components and teaches the photodetector can be provided in a separate housing connected by an optical fiber (page 8, lines 19-23).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the above combination such that the photodetector is also outside of the casing to provide more flexibility with respect to the positioning of the components and ensure that none of the housings become too large.
Claims 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eisenlauer, Elings, and Sugsawa, Wolf, and Pottier as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Aubrit (US 20210063296 A1).
Regarding claims 2-3, Eisenlauer doesn’t explicitly teach the light guide member guides the secondary light emitted from the particles to the photodetector without losing phase information of the secondary light (claim 2); the light guide member is an optical fiber having a core diameter ranging from a core diameter to be single-mode for the light emitted from the light source to a core diameter of up to 20 times that diameter (claim 3).
Like Eisenlauer (and like Applicant), Aubrit is directed to an optical particle analysis device that measures the dimensions of particles using light scattering (paragraph 1) and teaches the light guide member guides the secondary light emitted from the particles to the photodetector without losing phase information of the secondary light (single-mode fiber in paragraphs 30 and 83; 153 and 163 in figure 1); the light guide member is an optical fiber having a core diameter ranging from a core diameter to be single-mode for the light emitted from the light source to a core diameter of up to 20 times that diameter (single-mode fiber in paragraphs 30 and 83; 153 and 163 in figure 1).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the above combination such that the light guide member guides the secondary light emitted from the particles to the photodetector without losing phase information of the secondary light; the light guide member is an optical fiber having a core diameter ranging from a core diameter to be single-mode for the light emitted from the light source to a core diameter of up to 20 times that diameter – in order to ensure high precision measurements by minimizing distortions in the detected light signal.
Claims 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eisenlauer, Elings, and Sugsawa, Wolf, and Pottier as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Corbett (US 20170307495 A1).
Regarding claims 4, Eisenlauer teaches a connection portion that is placed between the light guide member and the optical system unit and that connects the light guide member and the optical system unit (figure 1).
Eisenlauer doesn’t explicitly teach, wherein the connection portion is operated from outside the optical system unit (claim 4);
Like Eisenlauer (and like Applicant), Corbett is directed to an optical particle analysis device that measures particle distribution using dynamic light scattering (paragraph 1) and teaches a connection portion (implied by the end of the detection optical fiber being mounted in claim 19) that is placed between the light guide member and the optical system unit and that connects the light guide member and the optical system unit (sample area; claim 19), wherein the connection portion is operated from outside the optical system unit (by the translation stage in claim 19); the connection portion is configured to allow adjusting a position of the incident side end part of the light guide member (implied by translation stage in claim 19) in a direction to the irradiation direction of the light from the light source to the flow cell.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the above combination such that it comprises a connection portion that is placed between the light guide member and the optical system unit and that connects the light guide member and the optical system unit, wherein the connection portion is operated from outside the optical system unit; and he connection portion is configured to allow adjusting a position of the incident side end part of the light guide member in a direction to the irradiation direction of the light from the light source to the flow cell – in order to quickly adjust the sampling area of the detected light
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eisenlauer, Elings, and Sugsawa, Wolf, and Pottier as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Han (KR 102310367 B1)
Regarding claim 6, Eisenlauer doesn’t explicitly teach the optical system unit comprises a heat dissipating member placed between the light source and a casing constituting the optical system unit.
Like Eisenlauer (and like Applicant), Han is directed to an optical particle analysis device and teaches the optical system unit comprises a heat dissipating member (151, 150) placed between the light source (laser diode; LD; 160) and a casing (110) constituting the optical system unit.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the above combination such that the optical system unit comprises a heat dissipating member placed between the light source and a casing constituting the optical system unit in order to prevent the system for overheating while still providing protection from the environment.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eisenlauer, Elings, and Sugsawa, Wolf, and Pottier as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Martins (US 20210270711 A1).
Regarding claim 7, Eisenlauer teaches doesn’t explicitly teach the optical system unit comprises a mirror that reflects transmitted light that is emitted from the light source and that is transmitted through the flow cell, and a low reflectance member to which the transmitted light reflected by the mirror is irradiated.
Like Eisenlauer (and like Applicant), Martins is directed to an optical particle analysis device and teaches the optical system unit comprises a mirror (232) that reflects transmitted light that is emitted from the light source (220) and that is transmitted through the flow cell (paragraph 53), and a low reflectance member (230) to which the transmitted light reflected by the mirror is irradiated (since the mirror, 232, reflects light to the other low-reflecting surfaces of 230 as explained in paragraphs 56-57) .
PNG
media_image5.png
492
814
media_image5.png
Greyscale
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the above combination such that the optical system unit comprises a mirror that reflects transmitted light that is emitted from the light source and that is transmitted through the flow cell, and a low reflectance member to which the transmitted light reflected by the mirror is irradiated in order to limit the amount of unscattered light that is received by the detector and thus obtain a higher accuracy measurements of the scattered light.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eisenlauer, Elings, Sugsawa, Wolf, and Pottier as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Reed (US 20150056710 A1).
Regarding claim 8, Eisenlauer doesn’t explicitly teach the optical system unit comprises one or more light reducing filters that reduce the light from the light source and a motor that drives the one or more light reducing filters, andthe control unit comprises a control circuit that controls the motor.
Like Eisenlauer (and like Applicant), Reed is directed to an optical particle analysis device and dynamic light scattering and teaches the optical system unit comprises one or more light reducing filters that reduce the light from the light source and a motor that drives the one or more light reducing filters, and the control unit comprises a control circuit that controls the motor (paragraphs 72-73).
PNG
media_image6.png
490
446
media_image6.png
Greyscale
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the above combination such that the optical system unit comprises one or more light reducing filters that reduce the light from the light source and a motor that drives the one or more light reducing filters, andthe control unit comprises a control circuit that controls the motor – in order to be able to precisely adapt the intensity of the light beam to the desired measurement needs, while ensuring flexibility for future measurements.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eisenlauer, Elings, Sugsawa, Wolf, and Pottier as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Caro (US 20100141940 A1).
Regarding claim 9, Eisenlauer doesn’t explicitly teach the casing of the optical system unit includes a sample introduction port and a sample derivation port for connection to a sample line.
Like Eisenlauer (and like the instant application), Caro is directed to a particle analysis system and optical measurement system using flow cells and teaches the casing of the optical system unit includes a sample introduction port and a sample derivation port (the inlet and outlet, 2 and 3) for connection to a sample line (figure 1).
PNG
media_image7.png
536
468
media_image7.png
Greyscale
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the above combination such that the casing of the optical system unit includes a sample introduction port and a sample derivation port for connection to a sample line in order to provide a more flexible, modular design by being able to store the waste container and sample source container separately (also see additional prior art).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 5 is 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art of record (taken alone or in combination) fails to anticipate or render obvious, “an arithmetic circuit that calculates an autocorrelation function from a light intensity signal output by the photodetector and analyzes the particles contained in the sample using the autocorrelation function, wherein an optical system unit including a casing that houses the flow cell and the light source, and a control unit provided separately from the optical system unit and including the photodetector and the arithmetic circuit are separately provided from each other, wherein the photodetector and the arithmetic circuit of the control unit are arranged outside of the casing of the optical system unit and are connected to the optical system unit through a light guide member that guides the secondary light from casing of the optical system unit to the photodetector. … further comprising a connection portion that is placed between the light guide member and the optical system unit and that connects the light guide member and the optical system unit, wherein the connection portion is operated from outside the optical system unit … wherein the connection portion is configured to allow adjusting a position of the incident side end part of the light guide member in a direction orthogonal to the irradiation direction of the light from the light source to the flow cell,” in combination with the other claimed limitations.
Additional Prior Art
Corbett (US 11199486 B2) Discloses
PNG
media_image8.png
390
596
media_image8.png
Greyscale
US 10955327 B2 discloses
PNG
media_image9.png
546
686
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Wolf (US 20040080750 A1) discloses
PNG
media_image10.png
570
608
media_image10.png
Greyscale
US 5202953 A discloses autocorrelation arithmetic circuit 25
US 20010019516 A1 discloses 1autocorrelation arithmetic circuit 28
US 20160143628 A1 discloses autocorrelation arithmetic circuit.
Schulte (US 20120242992 A1) is directed to an optical measurement device that uses optical fibers to guide the light to the detector and teaches a connection portion (coupler and GRIN lens) that is placed between the light guide member and the optical system unit and that connects the light guide member (fiber) and the optical system unit (102 and the light source), wherein the connection portion is operated from outside the optical system unit (by using 201, 202); the connection portion is configured to allow adjusting a position of the incident side end part of the light guide member in a direction orthogonal (lateral in figure 2) to the irradiation direction of the light from the light source to the flow cell (figures 1-2; paragraph 38).
PNG
media_image11.png
371
526
media_image11.png
Greyscale
Fulwyler (US 3989381 A) discloses a sample introduction port (16; 20) and a sample derivation port (38; 36) for connection to a sample line (figure 1).
PNG
media_image12.png
626
600
media_image12.png
Greyscale
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RUFUS L PHILLIPS whose telephone number is (571)270-7021. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th, 2 -10 pm.
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, Michelle Iacoletti can be reached at (571) 270-5789. 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.
/RUFUS L PHILLIPS/ Examiner, Art Unit 2877