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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on April 29, 2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed March 27, 2026 has been entered. Claims 25-37 remain pending in the application. Claims 1-24 were canceled. Claims 25 & 35-37 were amended. Applicant’s amendments to the Claims have overcome each and every objection and 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) rejections previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed December 29, 2026, hereafter referred to as the Non-Final Office Action.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, please refer to pp. 6-10, filed March 27, 2026 have been entered and are fully considered. In light of the amendments, the Applicant has presented a set of arguments pointing out their rationale of how the prior art reference made of record in the most recent Office Action does not teach the currently recited claim limitations. Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant in their submitted response presents the argument that the prior art reference, Zimmels (NPL), does not teach the limitation of “The apparatus of pending claim 25 and the methods of claims 35-37 give a quantitative result.”, specifically the “quantitative result” in reference to “determining the magnetic gradient force” in rejected independent claims 25 & 35-37. Applicant has emphasized that Zimmels’ apparatus does not determine the magnetic gradient force and provides a qualitative approach rather than quantitative.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees and would like to break the argument(s) presented into two sections. The first part the Examiner would like to highlight is regarding the “quantitative result”, please refer to pp. 6-7 of Applicant’s remarks, where the Applicant states that the prior art reference, Zimmels, “follows a qualitative approach”. The examiner appreciates the explanation provided; however, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “The apparatus of pending claim 25 and the methods of claims 35-37 give a quantitative result.”, specifically the “quantitative result” in reference to “determining the magnetic gradient force”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s) or figures. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims, please see MPEP 2145(VI). See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Currently, the claims and/or figures do not recite or define the “quantitative result” or “qualitative approach”. The Applicant may believe that their terminology defines the a “quantitative result” and/or a “qualitative approach”, but when the claims are examined, they are given the broadest reasonable interpretation. Please see MPEP 2145(VI). In the immediate case of this application, the Examiner has taken the interpretation of the rejected independent claims, in the passages provided in pg. 7 of Applicant’s remarks, and pp. 8-12 in the Non-Final OA mailed December 29, 2025.
This leads to the second part the Examiner would like to highlight, how the prior art reference, Zimmels, reads on the rejected independent claims 25 & 35-37. The Examiner mapped the apparatus for “determining a magnetic gradient force” and the methods for “determining a distribution of a magnetic gradient force” ([Abstract], [Pg. 329, Col. 2, ll. 9-13 & 39-40], [Pg. 360, Col. 2, ll. 1-6 & 9-11]) which discloses a complete measuring assembly intended to map and characterize magnetic forces by utilizing the field gradient. Figures 1 & 2 further disclose the gradient force distribution, referring to “iso-directional-force lines”. Based on Figs. 1 & 2, and the paragraph sections mentioned above, and disclosed by Zimmels, and pp. 8-12 from the Non-Final OA mailed December 29, 2025, the Examiner believes that “determining the magnetic gradient force” and “determining a distribution of a magnetic gradient force” are disclosed in rejected independent claims 25 & 35-37.
The Examiner believes that amending the claims to recite some portions of what the Applicant defines as “quantitative” and portions of the additional explanation(s) provided on pp. 6-7 of Applicant’s remarks, may help overcome the teachings of Zimmels. However, based on the reasoning provided above, the Examiner believes Zimmels teaches the limitations recited in the claims as currently presented. Therefore, the rejection(s) of amended independent claims 25 & 35-37, and dependent claims 26-34, which depend from and incorporate the limitations of amended independent claim 25, are respectively maintained.
Applicant in their submitted response presents the argument that the prior art reference, Zimmels (NPL), in view of Leong (NPL), do not teach the limitation of “a diamagnetic particle” in rejected dependent claim 30. Applicant has emphasized that Leong’s nanoparticles are “superparamagnetic nanoparticles (MNP)” where “Diamagnetic particles are weakly repelled by magnetic fields, whereas superparamagnetic materials are strongly attracted to magnetic fields.”
In response to the Applicant’s arguments, please refer to pp. 7-8 of Applicant’s remarks, the Examiner would like to highlight, how the prior art references, Zimmels, in view of Leong, read on the rejected dependent claim 30. The Examiner mapped the measuring assembly “wherein the at least one diamagnetic particle” (Zimmels: [Abstract], [Pg. 359, Col. 2, ll. 16-23], [Pg. 360, Col. 2, ll. 1-11] & [Pg. 361, Col. 2, ll. 1-15]; Leong: [Pg. 8036, Col. 2, ll. 12-19], [Pg. 8038, Col. 1, ll. 29-38] & [Pg. 8047, Table 2]) where Zimmels utilizes glass speres which are known diamagnetic particles, as the physical probes in the fluid, and Leong confirms the behavior of “nonmagnetic colloids” acting as magnetic holes (diamagnetic behavior) within magnetophoretic fields. Further, the Examiner mapped the next limitation, “includes an organic and an inorganic dielectric material” (Zimmels: [Abstract], [Pg. 359, Col. 2, ll. 16-23], [Pg. 360, Col. 2, ll. 1-11] & [Pg. 361, Col. 2, ll. 1-15]; Leong: [Pg. 8047, Table 2]) where Zimmels establishes a baseline of inorganic dielectric (glass) with an organic coating (paint) and Leong teaches composite colloid manufacturing in magnetic separation environments utilizing both organic dielectrics (polymers, APTES, or latex) and inorganic dielectrics (silica), where the combination results in a diamagnetic particle comprising both material types. Based on Table 2 (Leong), and the paragraph sections mentioned above, disclosed by Zimmels, in view of Leong, and pp. 8 (Claim 1) & 12-13 from the Non-Final OA mailed December 29, 2025, the Examiner believes that “wherein the at least one diamagnetic particle includes an organic and an inorganic dielectric material” limitations are disclosed in rejected dependent claims 30.
The Examiner believes that amending the claim to recite some portions of what the Applicant defines as “a diamagnetic particle” and portions of the additional explanation(s) provided on pp. 7-8 of Applicant’s remarks, may help overcome the teachings of Zimmels, in view of Leong. However, based on the reasoning provided above, the Examiner believes Zimmels, in view of Leong, teach the limitations recited in the claim as currently presented. Therefore, the rejection(s) of previously presented dependent claim 30, which depends from and incorporates the limitations of amended independent claim 25, are respectively maintained.
Applicant in their submitted response presents the argument that the prior art reference, Zimmels (NPL), in view of Leong (NPL), has emphasized that Zimmels “does not benefit from using multiphase systems” in combination with Leong, to “map the force distribution in that specific multiphase environment”, of rejected dependent claim 31.
In response to the Applicant’s arguments, please refer to pg. 8 of Applicant’s remarks, the Examiner would like to highlight, how the prior art references, Zimmels, in view of Leong, read on the rejected dependent claim 31. The Examiner mapped the “wherein the liquid contains at least two immiscible phases” (Zimmels: [Abstract], [Pg. 360, Col. 2, ll. 2-7] & [Pg. 368, Col. 1, ll. 9-16]; Leong: [Pg. 8046, Col. 1, ll. 11-16], [Pg. 8054, Col. 2, Ref. (113)] & [Pg. 8047, Table 2]) where Zimmels describes the apparatus using a liquid suspension, allowing for varying the fluid composition to model different separations, and Leong, further applies magnetophoretic separation technologies to liquid mediums containing at least two immiscible phases, identifying oil and water environments (emulsions) The Examiner mapped the next limitation, “and wherein the at least one diamagnetic particle is dispersible in the at least two immiscible phases” (Leong: [8046, Col. 1, ll. 11-21], [Pg. 8047, Table 2] & [Pg. 8054, Col. 2, Ref. (113)]) where Zimmels establishes using glass (silica), a known diamagnetic material, as the probe particle, Leong teaches modifying silica particles with specialized materials to act in emulsions and utilizing “amphiphilic” particles, which is chemically compatible with and dispersible in both aqueous (water) and lipophilic (oil) immiscible phases. The modification of the diamagnetic glass (silica) probe particles of Zimmels to be amphiphilic (dispersible in both oil and aqueous phases), as taught by Leong, for emulsion-based magnetophoretic systems. Based on Table 2 (Leong), and the paragraph sections mentioned above, disclosed by Zimmels, in view of Leong, and pp. 13-114 from the Non-Final OA mailed December 29, 2025, the Examiner believes that the limitations are disclosed in rejected dependent claims 31.
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, Zimmels discloses a measuring assembly utilizing diamagnetic particles (glass spheres) suspended in a liquid (aqueous paramagnetic solutions) to determine magnetic gradient forces. Zimmels focuses on a single-phase aqueous fluid. Leong expands on magnetophoretic processes in complex fluid environments, teaches the use of magnetic separation systems in liquids containing at least two immiscible phases, oil and water emulsions. Leong, further teaches utilizing silica (a diamagnetic material) and “amphiphilic” particles, which are designed to disperse into both immiscible phases. Adapting the measuring assembly of Zimmels to characterize magnetic forces in multiphase industrial liquids, such as the oil-water emulsions taught by Leong. To accurately measure the magnetic gradient forces across the complex emulsions without the probe particles agglomerating or failing to penetrate the distinct liquid phases, a POSITA would be motivated to modify the diamagnetic glass (silica) probe particles of Zimmels to be amphiphilic (dispersible in both oil and aqueous phases), as taught by Leong for emulsion-based magnetophoretic systems.
The Examiner believes that amending the claim to recite some portions of what the Applicant defines as “multiphase systems” and portions of the additional explanation(s) provided on pg. 8 of Applicant’s remarks, may help overcome the teachings of Zimmels, in view of Leong. However, based on the reasoning provided above, the Examiner believes Zimmels, in view of Leong, teach the limitations recited in the claim as previously presented. Therefore, the rejection(s) of previously presented dependent claim 31, which depends from and incorporates the limitations of amended independent claim 25, are respectively maintained.
Applicant in their submitted response presents the argument that the prior art reference, Zimmels (NPL), in view of Barry (US 2020/0064419 A1), do not teach the limitation of “position determination” in rejected dependent claim 32. Applicant has emphasized that Barry uses a “different type of radiation in a different manner for a different purpose.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees and would like to break the argument(s) presented into two sections. The first part the Examiner would like to highlight is regarding the “position determination”, please refer to pg. 9 of Applicant’s remarks, where the Applicant states that the prior art reference, Barry, “uses a different type of radiation in a different manner for a different purpose”. The examiner appreciates the explanation provided; however, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “the transmission of radiation through the probe body to determine the position of the sample particle”, specifically to “determine the position”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s) or figures 4 and 9 of the International Application. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims, please see MPEP 2145(VI). See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Currently, the claims and/or figures do not recite or define “the transmission of radiation through the probe body to determine the position of the sample particle”. The Applicant may believe that their terminology defines “the transmission of radiation through the probe body to determine the positions of the sample particle”, but when the claims are examined, they are given the broadest reasonable interpretation. In the immediate case of this application, the Examiner has taken the interpretation of the rejected independent claims, in the passages provided in pg. 9 of Applicant’s remarks, and pp. 14-16 in the Non-Final OA mailed December 29, 2025.
This leads to the second part the Examiner would like to highlight, how the prior art references, Zimmels, in view of Barry, read on the rejected dependent claim 32. The Examiner mapped the “wherein the measuring device includes a radiation source and a radiation sensor, wherein the radiation source is configured to emit a measuring radiation” (Zimmels: [Pg. 361, Col. 2, ll. 24-27], [Pg. 368, Col. 2, ll. 1-2]; Barry: Fig. 3A; [Abstract], [0006]-[0007] & [0041]) where Barry introduces a measuring device equipped with active radiation sources designed to emit measuring radiation into a sensor cavity, alongside corresponding radiation sensors. Further, the Examiner mapped the next limitation, “and wherein the radiation sensor and the probe body are configured in such a manner that the radiation sensor detects parts of the measuring radiation passing through the hollow space and/or part of the measuring radiation reflected in the hollow space” (Zimmels: Fig. 1; [Abstract], [Pg. 359, Col. 2, ll. 9-13], [Pg. 361, Col. 2, ll. 21-26] & [Pg. 368, Col. 1, ll. 2-22]; Barry: Figs. 3A & 4C; [0006]-[0007], [0041]-[0043], [0058], [Claim 1] & [Claim 15]) where Barry configures the radiation source and sensor around the hollow cavity to detect the portions of the measuring radiation that pass through (transmitted) as well as the portions that bounce back (reflected). The Examiner mapped the last limitation “along an axis that is perpendicular to the reference plane in a space-resolved manner” (Zimmels: [Abstract], [Pg. 359, Col. 2, ll. 9-13], [Pg. 360, Col. 1, ll. 35-38], [Pg. 361, Col. 2, ll. 22-27], [Pg. 363, Col. 1, ll. 1-4 & 18-20]; Barry: [0041]-[0043] & [Claim 15]) where Zimmels configures the measurements to be space-resolved by tracking the exact spatial position of the particles, the spatial distance is resolved along the Y-axis (gravity), which represents the axis perpendicular to the reference plan (the front face of the magnet assembly). combination results in a diamagnetic particle comprising both material types. Based on Table 2 (Leong), and the paragraph sections mentioned above, disclosed by Zimmels, in view of Leong, and pp. 8 (Claim 1) & 12-13 from the Non-Final OA mailed December 29, 2025, the Examiner believes that “wherein the at least one diamagnetic particle includes an organic and an inorganic dielectric material” limitations are disclosed in rejected dependent claims 30.
In response to applicant's argument that Barry is nonanalogous art, it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, Barry teaches magnetic sensor systems configured with dedicated radiation sources (such as optical or microwave sources) and radiation sensors that actively emit measuring radiation and detect the portions transmitted through or reflected within a hollow cavity. Zimmels teaches the core measuring assembly and resolving the spatial position of the particles along a perpendicular axis using an optical device (e.g., cathetometer), and relies on external observation rather than an integrated active radiation source and sensor detecting transmitted or reflected radiation. By incorporating an active radiation source and radiation sensor configuration as taught by Barry, a POSITA would be motivated to substitute the manual cathetometer with an automated source-and-sensor arrangement to continuously and electronically track the transmitted or reflected radiation.
The Examiner believes that amending the claim to recite some portions of what the Applicant defines as “the transmission of radiation through the probe body to determine the position of the sample particle” and portions of the additional explanation(s) provided on pg. 9 of Applicant’s remarks, may help overcome the teachings of Zimmels, in view of Barry. However, based on the reasoning provided above, the Examiner believes Zimmels, in view of Barry, teach the limitations recited in the claim as previously presented. Therefore, the rejection(s) of previously presented dependent claim 32, which depends from and incorporates the limitations of amended independent claim 25, are respectively maintained.
Applicant in their submitted response presents the argument that the prior art references, Zimmels (NPL), in view of Walther (US 2010/0295546 A1), do not teach the limitation of “an impedance measurement of the suspension to determine the positions of the sample.” in rejected dependent claim 33. Applicant has emphasized that “it is not the electrical resistance of a suspension (mixture of a fluid that contains solid particles) that is measured, but rather that of a (solid) piezoelectric material of a suspended beam” where Walther describes “a gradient sensor consisting of a bar made of piezoelectric material that is fixed at one end, while the other end is free and carriers a permanent magnet…generates an electrical voltage that can be measured”.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees and would like to break the argument(s) presented into two sections. The first part the Examiner would like to highlight is regarding “an impedance measurement of the suspension to determine the positions of the sample.”, please refer to pp. 9-10 of Applicant’s remarks, where the Applicant states that the prior art references, Zimmels, in view of Barry, “Contrary to the assertion in the Office Action, it is not the electrical resistance of a suspension (mixture of a fluid that contains solid particles that is measured, …”. The examiner appreciates the explanation provided; however, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “an impedance measurement of the suspension to determine the positions of the sample.”, specifically to “determine the positions of a sample“) are not recited in the rejected claim(s) or figures. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims, please see MPEP 2145(VI). See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Currently, the claims and/or figures do not recite or define the “an impedance measurement of the suspension to determine the positions of the sample.” The Applicant may believe that their terminology defines the quoted limitations above, but when the claims are examined, they are given the broadest reasonable interpretation. In the immediate case of this application, the Examiner has taken the interpretation of the rejected dependent claim, in the passages provided in pp. 9-10 of Applicant’s remarks, and pp. 16-17 in the Non-Final OA mailed December 29, 2025.
The Examiner believes that amending the claims to recite some portions of what the Applicant defined as “an impedance measurement of the suspension to determine the positions of the sample.” and portions of the additional explanation(s) provided on pp. 9-10 of Applicant’s remarks, may help overcome the teachings of Zimmels, in view of Barry. However, based on the reasoning provided above, the Examiner believes Zimmels, in view of Barry teaches the limitations recited in the claims as previously presented. Therefore, the rejection(s) of dependent claims 33, which depends from and incorporates the limitations of amended independent claim 25, are respectively maintained.
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 25-36 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.
Claim 25 recites the limitation "a magnetic gradient force acting on the…" in ll. 9-10, where “a magnetic gradient force” was previously disclosed in claim 25 line 1. The repeated recitation of “a magnetic gradient force”, introduces indefiniteness, for the limitations in the claim. For examination purposes, examiner interprets the repeated recitation to refer to the same previously disclosed limitation, “a magnetic gradient force” in amended independent claim 25. Claims 26-34 are rejected by virtue of dependence to amended independent claim 25, which do not rectify the defect.
Claim 35 recites the limitation "introducing the probe body into a magnetic field…" in line 5, where “a magnetic field” was previously disclosed in claim 35 line 2. The repeated recitation of “a magnetic field”, introduces indefiniteness, for the limitations in the claim. For examination purposes, examiner interprets the repeated recitation to refer to the same previously disclosed limitation, “a magnetic field” in amended independent claim 35.
Claim 36 recites the limitation "moving a probe body within a magnetic field, …" in line 3, where “a magnetic field” was previously disclosed in claim 36 line 2. The repeated recitation of “a magnetic field”, introduces indefiniteness, for the limitations in the claim. For examination purposes, examiner interprets the repeated recitation to refer to the same previously disclosed limitation, “a magnetic field” in amended independent claim 36.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 25-29 & 35-37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by NPL Zimmels et al. (“Characterization of magnetic forces by means of suspended particles in paramagnetic solutions.” IEEE Transactions on Magnetics 12.4: 359-368, Pub. Date Jul. 31, 1976, hereinafter Zimmels).
. Regarding independent claim 25, Zimmels, teaches:
A measuring assembly for determining a magnetic gradient force (Fig. 1 [Abstract], [Pg. 359, Col. 2, ll. 9-13 & 39-40] & [Pg. 360, Col. 2, ll. 1-6 & 9-11]), the measuring assembly comprising:
a probe body in which a hollow space is formed ([Abstract], [Pg. 361, Col. 2, ll. 16-27] & [Pg. 368, Col. 1, ll. 17-22 & 28-30]: the capillary serves as the probe body, and the bore is the hollow space);
a probe suspension in the hollow space, wherein the probe suspension contains a liquid and at least one diamagnetic particle ([Abstract], [Pg. 359, Col. 2, ll. 16-23 & 34-37], [Pg. 360, Col. 2, ll. 1-11], [Pg. 361, Col. 2, ll. 1-15] & [Pg. 362, Col. 1, ll. 1-5]: glass is a standard diamagnetic material);
a measuring device configured to determine a distance of the at least one diamagnetic particle relative to a reference plane on the probe body ([Abstract], [Pg. 361, Col. 2, ll. 23-27], [Pg. 363, Col. 1, ll. 18-20] & [Pg. 368, Col.1, ll.17-22]: cathetometer is used to measure the position of the particles and the capillary axis serves as a reference plane/line on the probe body); and
an evaluation unit configured to determine, from the distance determined by the measuring device, a magnetic gradient force acting on the at least one diamagnetic particle (Fig. 2; [Table I]; [Abstract], [Pg. 359, Col. 2, ll. 19-22 & 39-40], [Pg. 360, Col. 1, ll. 1-8, 22-23 & 36-39], [Pg. 360, Col. 2, ll. 13-20], [Pg. 361, Col. 1, ll. 8-20] & [Pg. 367, Col. 1, ll. 35-39]).
Regarding dependent claim 26, Zimmels, teaches:
The measuring assembly of claim 25 (Fig. 1 [Abstract], [Pg. 359, Col. 2, ll. 39-40], & [Pg. 360, Col. 2, ll. 1-6]), further comprising:
a probe positioning unit configured to determine a geometric location of the hollow space and/or the at least one diamagnetic particle relative to a stationary reference location outside the probe body (Fig. 1; [Pg. 360, Col. 2, ll. 1-6], [Pg. 361, Col. 2, ll. 22-27] & [Pg. 368, Col. 1, ll. 28-34]).
Regarding dependent claim 27, Zimmels, teaches:
The measuring assembly of claim 25 (Fig. 1; [Abstract], [Pg. 359, Col. 2, ll. 39-40], & [Pg. 360, Col. 2, ll. 1-6]), wherein the evaluation unit is further configured to allocate distances determined by the measuring device at different geometric locations to position data determined by the probe positioning unit (Fig. 4; [Pg. 361, Col. 2, ll. 22-23 & 30-32], [Pg. 368, Col. 1, ll. 28-30] & [Pg. 368, Col. 2, ll. 1-2]).
Regarding dependent claim 28, Zimmels, teaches:
The measuring assembly of claim 25 (Fig. 1; [Abstract], [Pg. 359, Col. 2, ll. 39-40] & [Pg. 360, Col. 2, ll. 1-6]), wherein the probe suspension contains exactly one diamagnetic particle (Fig. 1; [Abstract], [Pg. 360, Col. 2, ll. 1-7], [Pg. 368, Col. 1, ll. 28-34] & [Pg. 368, Col. 2, ll. 1]: Fig. 1 further illustrates exactly one particle per capillary tube) with a previously known density ([Pg. 360, Col. 1, ll. 36-39] & [Pg. 361, Col. 2, ll. 9-15]: density is a known constant (pp) required for the force calculation (Eq. 4)).
Regarding dependent claim 29, Zimmels, teaches:
The measuring assembly of claim 25 (Fig. 1; [Abstract], [Pg. 359, Col. 2, ll. 39-40] & [Pg. 360, Col. 2, ll. 1-6]), wherein the probe suspension contains a plurality of diamagnetic particles (Fig. 1; [Abstract], [Pg. 360, Col. 2, ll. 1-9], [Pg. 362, Col. 2, ll. 6-13] & [Pg. 363, Col. 1, ll. 1-4]: Fig. 1 depicts a plurality of particles) of a similar type with a previously known density ([Pg. 361, Col. 2, ll. 9-15] & [Pg. 368, Col. 1, ll. 9-16]).
Regarding independent claim 35, Zimmels, teaches:
A method for determining a distribution of a magnetic gradient force in a magnetic field using a measuring assembly ([Abstract], [Pg. 359, Col. 2, ll. 9-13 & 39-40] & [Pg. 360, Col. 2, ll. 1-6 & 9-11]) that includes a probe body in which a hollow space is formed (Fig. 1; [Abstract], [Pg. 361, Col. 2, ll. 16-24] & [Pg. 368, Col. 1, ll. 17-22 & 28-30]), a probe suspension in the hollow space and containing a liquid and at least one diamagnetic particle ([Abstract], [Pg. 359, Col. 2, ll. 16-23], [Pg. 360, Col. 2, ll. 1-11] & [Pg. 361, ll. 1-15]), and a measuring device ([Pg. 361, Col. 2, ll. 24-27] & [Pg. 368, Col. 1, ll. 1-9]), the method comprising:
introducing the probe body into a magnetic field (Fig. 1; [Pg. 360, Col. 2, ll. 1-7] & [Pg. 361, Col. 2, ll. 16-21]), wherein the probe body is oriented in such a manner that the reference plane is perpendicular to a direction of a gravitational force (Fig. 1; [Pg. 360, Col. 1, ll. 35-39], [Pg. 360, Col. 2, ll. 1-6] & [Pg. 363, Col. 1, ll. 18-20]: the particle’s distance (height) is measured along the Y-axis (gravity), the reference plane for this height measurement (e.g., the bottom of the capillary is perpendicular to the direction of gravity); and
determining a distance between the at least one diamagnetic particle and a reference plane on the probe body using the measuring device ([Abstract], [Pg. 361, Col. 2, ll. 22-27] & [Pg. 368, Col.1, ll.17-22 & 28-34]) for different positions of the probe body in the magnetic field relative to a stationary reference location outside the probe body (Fig. 1; [Pg. 360, Col. 2, ll. 1-6], [Pg. 361, Col. 2, ll. 22-27] & [Pg. 368, Col. 1, ll. 17-22 & 28-34]).
Regarding independent claim 36, Zimmels, teaches:
A method for determining a distribution of a magnetic gradient force in a magnetic field ([Abstract], [Pg. 359, Col. 2, ll. 9-13 & 39-40] & [Pg. 360, Col. 2, ll. 1-6 & 9-11]), the method comprising:
moving a probe body within a magnetic field ([Pg. 361, Col. 2, ll. 22-27], [Pg. 362, Col. 1, ll. 3-5] & [Pg. 368, Col. 1, ll. 28-30]), wherein the probe body has a hollow space (Fig. 1; [Abstract], [Pg. 361, Col. 2, ll. 16-24], [Pg. 362, Col. 1, ll. 3-5] & [Pg. 368, Col. 1, ll. 17-22 & 28-30])
and wherein the hollow space contains a liquid with at least one paramagnetic phase and at least one diamagnetic particle ([Abstract], [Pg. 359, Col. 2, ll. 16-23], [Pg. 360, Col. 2, ll. 1-11], [Pg. 361, Col. 2, ll. 1-15] & [Pg. 362, Col. 1, ll. 3-5]); and
determining a displacement of the at least one diamagnetic particle along an axis that is parallel to a direction of a gravitational force (Fig. 1; [Abstract], [Pg. 360, Col. 1, ll. 35-39], [Pg. 360, Col. 2, ll. 1-6 & 8-11], [Pg. 363, Col. 1, ll. 18-20] & [Pg. 361, Col. 2, ll. 22-27]) relative to an initial position of the at least one diamagnetic particle in the hollow space ([Abstract], [Pg. 361, Col. 2, ll. 23-27], & [Pg. 368, Col.1, ll.17-22]) at different positions of the probe body in the magnetic field (Fig. 1; [Pg. 360, Col. 2, ll. 1-6 & 8-11], [Pg. 361, Col. 2, ll. 22-27], [Pg. 363, Col. 1, ll. 18-20] & [Pg. 368, Col. 1, ll. 28-34]).
Regarding independent claim 37, Zimmels, teaches:
A method for determining a magnetic gradient force in a magnetic field ([Abstract], [Pg. 359, Col. 2, ll. 9-13 & 39-40] & [Pg. 360, Col. 2, ll. 1-6 & 9-11]), the
method comprising:
positioning a probe body in the magnetic field ([Abstract], [Pg. 361, Col. 2, ll. 22-27], [Pg. 362, Col. 1, ll. 1-5] & [Pg. 368, Col. 1, ll. 28-30]), wherein the probe body has a hollow space (Fig. 1; [Abstract], [Pg. 361, Col. 2, ll. 16-27] & [Pg. 368, Col. 1, ll. 17-22 & 28-30]) and wherein the hollow space contains a liquid with at least one paramagnetic phase and at least one diamagnetic particle ([Abstract], [Pg. 359, Col. 2, ll. 16-23], [Pg. 360, Col. 2, ll. 1-11], [Pg. 361, Col. 2, ll. 1-15] & [Pg. 362, Col. 1, ll. 1-5]);
determining a displacement of the at least one diamagnetic particle along an axis that is parallel to a direction of a gravitational force (Fig. 1; [Abstract], [Pg. 360, Col. 1, ll. 31-39], [Pg. 360, Col. 2, ll. 1-6], [Pg. 361, Col. 2, ll. 22-27], [Pg. 362, Col. 1, ll. 1-8] & [Pg. 363, Col. 1, ll. 18-20]) relative to an initial position of the at least one diamagnetic particle in the hollow space ([Abstract], [Pg. 360, Col. 2, ll. 8-11], [Pg. 361, Col. 2, ll. 22-27], [Pg. 362, Col. 1, ll. 1-8] & [Pg. 368, Col.1, ll.17-22]); and
determining, based on the displacement, a susceptibility of the at least one paramagnetic phase, and a difference in density between a density of the at least one diamagnetic particle and a density of the at least one paramagnetic phase ([Pg. 360, Col. 1, ll. 1-8, 25-26, & 31-44], [Pg. 360, Col. 2, ll. 1-6 & 11-20] & [Pg. 361, Col. 1, ll. 1-20]: Equation (4) equates the magnetic gradient force variable to the density difference at the displacement equilibrium position y where the force balances the weight defined by the density different (pp-pf) and utilizes the susceptibility difference (xf-xp) for characterization (Eq.1, Eq. 9)), a physical variable which describes a magnetic gradient force on the at least one diamagnetic particle ([Abstract] & [Pg. 359, Col. 2, ll. 6-13]).
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.
Claims 30-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zimmels, in view of NPL Leong et al. (“Unified view of magnetic nanoparticle separation under magnetophoresis.” Langmuir 36.28: 8033-8055, Pub. Date Jun. 18, 2020, hereinafter Leong).
Regarding dependent claim 30, Zimmels, teaches:
The measuring assembly of claim 25 (Fig. 1; [Abstract], [Pg. 359, Col. 2, ll. 39-40], & [Pg. 360, Col. 2, ll. 1-6]),
Zimmels, is silent in regard to:
wherein the at least one diamagnetic particle includes an organic and an inorganic dielectric material.
However, Leong, further teaches:
wherein the at least one diamagnetic particle includes an organic and an inorganic dielectric material ([Pg. 8036, Col. 2, ll. 12-19] & [Pg. 8047, Table 2]: Table 2 lists specific coating materials for particles, showing the combination of organic and inorganic components).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the organic/inorganic material strategies taught by Leong (e.g., coating a silica/glass sphere with a polymer) in the apparatus of Zimmels to ensure the particles are wettable and have the precise known density required for the equilibrium measurements, leading to the claimed invention with predictable results (KSR).
Regarding dependent claim 31, Zimmels, teaches:
The measuring assembly of claim 25 (Fig. 1; [Abstract], [Pg. 359, Col. 2, ll. 39-40], [Pg. 360, Col. 2, ll. 1-6] & [Pg. 368, Col. 2, ll. 10-11]), wherein the liquid contains at least two immiscible phases ([Abstract], [Pg. 360, Col. 2, ll. 2-7] & [Pg. 368, Col. 1, ll. 9-16]: describes the apparatus using a liquid suspension but allows for varying the fluid composition to model different separations),
Zimmels, is silent in regard to:
and wherein the at least one diamagnetic particle is dispersible in the at least two immiscible phases.
However, Leong, further teaches
and wherein the at least one diamagnetic particle is dispersible in the at least two immiscible phases ([Pg. 8046, Col. 1, ll. 11-16] & [Pg. 8054, Col. 2, Ref. (113) ]: teaches particles that interact with and disperse within multiphase systems such as amphiphilic particles (dispersible in both organic/oil and water/aqueous phases) or particles residing at the interface).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine Zimmels' device to design a separator for the petroleum industry (as suggested by the “beneficiation processes” in Zimmels), to substitute the single-phase paramagnetic liquid with the “oil-water” or “emulsion” fluids described by Leong, to accurately map the force distribution in that specific multiphase environment, leading to the claimed invention with predictable results (KSR).
Claim 32 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zimmels, in view of Barry et al. (US 2020/0064419 A1, Pub. Date Feb. 27, 2020, hereinafter Barry).
Regarding dependent claim 32, Zimmels, teaches:
The measuring assembly of claims 25 (Fig. 1; [Abstract], [Pg. 359, Col. 2, ll. 39-40], [Pg. 360, Col. 2, ll. 1-6] & [Pg. 368, Col. 2, ll. 10-11]), wherein the measuring device includes a radiation source ([Pg. 361, Col. 2, ll. 24-27] & [Pg. 368, Col. 2, ll. 1-2]: a cathetometer is an optical telescope system that requires ambient or directed light (radiation) to visualize the target) and the probe body are configured in such a manner that the radiation sensor detects part of the measuring radiation passing through the hollow space (Fig. 1; [Abstract], [Pg. 359, Col. 2, ll. 9-13], [Pg. 361, Col. 2, ll. 21-26] & [Pg. 368, Col. 1, ll. 2-22]) along an axis that is perpendicular to the reference plane in a space-resolved manner ([Abstract], [Pg. 359, Col. 2, ll. 9-13], & [Pg. 361, Col. 2, 22-27]: the cathetometer views the X-Y cross section (reference plan) while scanning or viewing perpendicular to the Z-axis, or measuring positions within the plan).
Zimmels, is silent in regard to:
and a radiation sensor, wherein the radiation source is configured to emit a measuring radiation, and wherein the radiation sensor and/or part of the measuring radiation reflected in the hollow space
However, Barry, further teaches
and a radiation sensor (Fig. 3A; [Abstract] & [0006]-[0007]), wherein the radiation source is configured to emit a measuring radiation ([0006] & [0041]), and wherein the radiation sensor ([0007] & [Claim 1]) and/or part of the measuring radiation reflected in the hollow space ([0042]-[0043] & [Claim 15])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the measuring assembly of Zimmels, which utilizes manual optical devices (cathetometers) and transparent fluid to map force lines by incorporating radiation sensor/source taught by Barry to improve automation and accuracy, Barry teaches that advanced readout methods (optical/microwave) provide “higher visibility and lower shot noise and higher signal-to-noise-ration”, and to modernize, by replacing a manual optical tool (cathetometer) with an automated radiation sensor such as a the photodetector or microwave detector of Barry, to further improve the accuracy and speed of the mapping procedure described by Zimmels, leading to the claimed invention with predictable results (KSR).
Claims 33-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zimmels, in view of Walther et al. (US 2010/0295546 A1, Pub. Date Nov. 25, 2010, hereinafter Walther).
Regarding dependent claim 33, Zimmels, teaches:
The measuring assembly of claim 25 (Fig. 1; [Abstract], [Pg. 359, Col. 2, ll. 9-13 & 39-40], [Pg. 360, Col. 1, ll. 31-34], [Pg. 360, Col. 2, ll. 1-11] & [Pg. 368, Col. 2, ll. 10-11]), in a space-resolved manner ([Abstract] & [Pg. 361, Col. 2, ll. 22-23]).
Zimmels, is silent in regard to:
wherein the measuring device includes an impedance measuring device configured to determine an electrical impedance of the probe suspension along an axis that is perpendicular to the reference plane
However, Walther, further teaches
wherein the measuring device includes an impedance measuring device ([0101]-[0102] & [0112]) configured to determine an electrical impedance of the probe suspension ([0102]) along an axis that is perpendicular to the reference plane ([0084] & [0112])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the measuring assembly of Zimmels, by incorporating the impedance-based detection means of Walther, providing a solution for detecting magnetic gradient forces using electrical readout (impedance analysis of a probe element) which allows for automation and higher precision compared to visual optical/inspection, replacing the optical detection of Zimmels and modernizing with the electrical impedance monitoring of Walther, showing that impedance measurement of a piezoelectric element is an effective way to detect the mechanical displacement of a structure subjected to a magnetic gradient force, the substitution yields the claimed impedance measuring device configured for space-resolved determination of force distribution, retaining the spatial mapping technology of Zimmels and applied to the electrical signals from sensors based on Walther’s principles, leading to the claimed invention with predictable results (KSR).
Regarding dependent claim 34, Zimmels, teaches:
The measuring assembly of claim 34 (Fig. 1; [Abstract], [Pg. 359, Col. 2, ll. 9-13 & 39-40], [Pg. 360, Col. 1, ll. 31-34], [Pg. 360, Col. 2, ll. 1-11] & [Pg. 368, Col. 2, ll. 10-11]),
Zimmels, is silent in regard to:
wherein the impedance measuring device includes at least one first electrode on a first side of the hollow space and at least two second electrodes on a second side of the hollow space, and wherein the first side and the second side are opposite one another in relation to a hollow space axis of the hollow space.
However, Walther, further teaches
wherein the impedance measuring device includes at least one first electrode on a first side of the hollow space (Fig. 5; [0097]: describes the “electrode of the excitation means 40”, specifically 40.2, located on the movable mass (first side of the gap)) and at least two second electrodes on a second side of the hollow space (Fig. 5; [0097]: describes the detection electrodes 35.4 and 35.1 located on the fixed support side (second side) facing the single electrode 40.2), and wherein the first side and the second side are opposite one another in relation to a hollow space axis of the hollow space (Fig. 5; [0097]: figure illustrates the electrodes are arranged across the gap (hollow space) between the moving mass 31 and the fixed frame 34).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the measuring assembly to determine magnetic gradient force distribution using a particle in a hollow space (capillary) of Zimmels, by incorporating the differential capacitive sensor with electrodes on opposite sides of a moving element to quantify displacement caused by a magnetic gradient force of Walther, according to known methods. A POSITA would be motivated to look to known micro-sensor and displacement measurement techniques of Walther, to automate or make Zimmels’ qualitative/visual methods more precise. Adapting the sensing principle and teachings of Walther, to include using opposing electrodes to differentially measure the displacement of a magnet under a magnetic gradient force, to Zimmels’ assembly apparatus by placing the electrodes on opposite sides of the capillary’s axis to detect particle or a sensitive element’s position. Providing a solution for detecting magnetic gradient forces using electrical readout (impedance analysis of a probe element) which allows for automation and higher precision compared to visual optical/inspection, replacing the optical detection of Zimmels and modernizing with the capacitive sensing techniques of Walther. This combination yields expected results of the impedance measuring device with electrodes configured for space-resolved determination of force distribution, retaining the spatial mapping technology of Zimmels and applied to the electrical signals from sensors based on Walther’s principles, and yielding expected predictable results (KSR).
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 HUGO NAVARRO whose telephone number is (571)272-6122. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 07:30-5:00 pm MST.
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, Eman Alkafawi can be reached at 571-272-4448. 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.
/HUGO NAVARRO/ Examiner, Art Unit 2858 April 28, 2026
/EMAN A ALKAFAWI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2858 5/4/2026
Prosecution Insights