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 Objections
Claims 8 and 18 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 8: Line 7 recites “the at least one measurement variable”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Therefore, for purposes of examination, the Examiner assumes that this limitation should instead read --the at least one measurement parameter--.
Claim 18: Line 7 recites “the at least one measurement variable”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Therefore, for purposes of examination, the Examiner assumes that this limitation should instead read --the at least one measurement parameter--.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ayers (US 2014/0118731), hereinafter Ayers, in view of Zindy et al. (US 2010/0073173), hereinafter Zindy.
Claim 1: Ayers discloses a method for performing spectroscopic measurement of at least one analyte of interest in an inhomogeneous sample (50) using a spectroscopic system (10, Fig. 1), wherein the method comprises:
generating (at 12) and aiming an illumination beam (14) which forms a focal region upon a surface of the sample (50) or within a volume of the sample (50) [0023] where there is relative motion between the sample (50) and the focal region at a relative speed (evident from down arrow within 50 in Fig. 1; “a fluid 50 as it travels in a pipe 52”, [0022]).
Ayers is silent with respect to selecting a desired ratio between an exposure time for a detector and a transit time for a particle.
Zindy, however, in the same field of endeavor of optical flow detection, discloses a method for performing optical measurement using an optical system (Fig. 1), wherein the method comprises:
selecting a desired ratio between an exposure time for a detector and a transit time for a particle to traverse a focal region (“the exposure time capable of detecting a particle in particulate should be maximised so as to improve chance of its detection” [0081]; “Exposure time should be in the order of particle transit time across on emitter beam” [0082]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Ayers’ method to select a desired ratio between the exposure time and the transit time for the purpose of optimizing the method to improve the chances of detecting a particle (Zindy [0081]).
Ayers’ modified method further comprises:
acquiring one or more spectral data sets corresponding to one or more spectra for a region of the sample within the focal region (Ayers, claim 14); and
analyzing the one or more spectral data sets to generate one or more corresponding analytical results (Ayers, claim 15).
Claim 11: Ayers discloses spectroscopic system (10, Fig. 1) for performing spectroscopic measurement of at least one analyte of interest in an inhomogeneous sample (50), wherein the system (10) comprises:
a light source (12) for generating an illumination beam (14) [0023];
a sample measurement apparatus (16/18) that is optically coupled to the light source (12) for transmitting the illumination beam (14) to form a focal region upon a surface of the sample (50) or within a volume of the sample (50) [0023] where the sample (50) and the focal region move relative to one another at a relative speed (evident from down arrow within 50 in Fig. 1; “a fluid 50 as it travels in a pipe 52”, [0022]);
a spectrometer (22) that is optically coupled to the sample measurement apparatus (16/18) for receiving light that is scattered, reflected, or emitted from the sample (50) in response to the illumination beam (14) [0022]; and
a computing device (“non-transient computer readable media storing program instructions operative to control a portable Raman spectroscopy system” [0016]) that includes at least one processor (36) that is configured to execute software instructions causing the computing device to perform the spectroscopic measurement [0028].
Ayers is silent with respect to the computing device selecting a desired ratio between an exposure time for a detector and a transit time for a particle.
Zindy, however, in the same field of endeavor of optical flow detection, discloses an optical system (Fig. 1), wherein the system comprises:
a computing device that includes at least one processor (8) that is configured to execute software instructions causing the computing device to perform an optical measurement by:
selecting a desired ratio between an exposure time for a detector and a transit time for a particle to traverse a focal region (“the exposure time capable of detecting a particle in particulate should be maximised so as to improve chance of its detection” [0081]; “Exposure time should be in the order of particle transit time across on emitter beam” [0082]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Ayers’ computing device to select a desired ratio between the exposure time and the transit time for the purpose of optimizing the system to improve the chances of detecting a particle (Zindy [0081]).
Ayers’ modified computing device further comprises:
acquiring one or more spectral data sets for a region of the sample within the focal region (Ayers, claim 14); and
analyzing the one or more spectral data sets to generate one or more corresponding analytical results (Ayers, claim 15).
Claims 2,12: Ayers, in view of Zindy, further discloses wherein selecting the desired ratio between the exposure time and the transit time comprises selecting: the exposure time (“the exposure time capable of detecting a particle in particulate should be maximised so as to improve chance of its detection”, Zindy [0081]).
Claims 3,13: Ayers further discloses determining a relative proportion of the at least one analyte of interest in the sample mixture via a statistical analysis of the one or more analytical results (claim 11).
Claims 4,14: Ayers does not explicitly disclose wherein the exposure time of the detector is in a range of one tenth of the transit time to ten times the transit time.
However, Zindy does disclose wherein “[e]xposure time should be in the order of particle transit time” [0082].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Ayers’ selected ratio so that the exposure time is in the same order of magnitude as the transit time for the purpose of improving the chances of particle detection (Zindy [0081]).
Claims 5,15: Ayers, in view of Zindy, discloses wherein “[e]xposure time should be in the order of particle transit time”, Zindy [0082]), but does not explicitly disclose wherein the exposure time of the detector is selected to be equal to the transit time.
However, the Examiner takes Official notice that it is well known to optimize a system, as indicated by Zindy: “The parameters associated with the invention should be optimised for each environment” [0081].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the selected ratio such that the spectroscopic system is optimized, which may include a selected ratio of one, for the purpose of improving the chances of particle detection (Zindy [0081]).
Claims 6,16: Ayers further discloses maintaining the focal region in a stationary position while the sample is moving past the focal region at the relative speed (evident from down arrow within 50 in Fig. 1; “a fluid 50 as it travels in a pipe 52”, [0022]).
Claims 7,17: Ayers, in view of Zindy, further discloses: (a) estimating, measuring, or selecting a size of the particle and/or (b) estimating, measuring or selecting the relative speed for achieving the desired ratio between the exposure time and the transit time (“detecting particulate of varying particle size and for gas having a range of flow rates in the duct”, Zindy [0081]).
Claims 8,18: Ayers does not explicitly disclose gradually increasing or decreasing a measurement parameter to obtain a plurality of spectral data sets.
Zindy, however, discloses determining the optimal exposure time (“the exposure time capable of detecting a particle in particulate should be maximised so as to improve chance of its detection” [0081]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the spectroscopic measurement by gradually increasing or decreasing the exposure time for the purpose of finding the optimal value of the exposure time that maximizes the chances of particle detection while minimizing the amount of noise (Zindy [0081,0083]).
Ayers’ modified spectroscopic measurement further comprises:
obtaining a plurality of spectral data sets (inherent result of performing the measurement for each of a plurality of exposure times),
evaluating an intensity of particle detections for each of the plurality of spectral data sets (“the rate and duration of sparkles may be logged, and the amplitude of the light sparkled may be an indication of particulate intensity”, Zindy [0087]), and
then selecting a desired value for the at least one measurement parameter that produces a maximum rate of distinct particle detections of the at least one analyte of interest (“In general… the exposure time capable of detecting a particle in particulate should be maximised so as to improve chance of its detection”, Zindy [0081]).
Claims 9,19: Ayers further discloses wherein the analysis of each spectral data set is performed to detect a presence and/or concentration of the at least one analyte of interest in the sample (50) (“analyzing steps as required to ascertain the greatest concentration of the marker material”, claim 11).
Claims 10,20: Ayers further discloses wherein the spectroscopic system (10) is configured to perform Raman spectroscopy [0022].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to HINA F AYUB whose telephone number is (571)270-3171. The Examiner can normally be reached on 9am-5pm ET Mon-Fri.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, Applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the Examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner’s supervisor, Tarifur Chowdhury can be reached on 571-272-2287. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Hina F Ayub/
Primary Patent Examiner
Art Unit 2877