DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim(s) 1-4 and 6-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1).
Claim(s) 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05/06/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In regards to the applicant’s arguments that the prior art fails to disclose collection optics and a detector disposed on a side of the flow cell opposite to the laser, the Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Attention is brought to paragraphs 29, 40 and 97 of the reference to Knollenberg, wherein various lenses and imaging optics may be utilized to “detect light transmitted through the particle interrogation zone” (par. 29), and wherein the system may utilize a “forward-scattering particle detector”. Therefore, the prior art is understood to disclose the claimed collection optics and a detector located on a side of the flow cell opposite to the laser.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1-4 and 6-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1) as being anticipated by US Publication 2023/0087059 to Knollenberg et al.
In regards to claims 1-4 and 6-16, Knollenberg discloses and shows in Figures 5 and 8-9, an optical particle counter (par. 95-101) comprising:
a flow cell (E) adapted to contain a flow of liquid dispersion (par. 10-12, 28, 75, 96-97);
a laser (A) that generates a beam of laser light directed at the flow cell (par. 10-12, 23, 73);
an optical isolator (B) located between the laser and the flow cell adapted to allow light to pass in a direction from the laser to the flow cell, and to prevent laser light that is reflected from the flow cell from entering the laser as optical feedback (par. 10-12, 67, 76); and
an optical detection system comprising collection optics (F) and an optical detector (G) positioned on a side of the flow cell opposite the laser, wherein the collection optics are arranged to receive light that passes through the flow cell, including laser light scattered by a particle in the liquid dispersion, and to direct the received light to the optical detector (par. 10-12, 29, 40, 72, 97; wherein various lenses and imaging optics may be utilized to “detect light transmitted through the particle interrogation zone” (par. 29); and wherein the system may utilize a “forward-scattering particle detector” (par. 40));
[claim 2] wherein the optical detector is configured to receive laser light that passes through the flow cell, including laser light scattered by the particle in the liquid dispersion passing through the laser light, and is configured to produce an electronic output signal correlated to an intensity of the received laser light (Figure 5) (par. 10-12, 29, 40, 72, 96-97);
[claim 3] wherein the optical detector is adapted to detect particles of a size greater than 0.15 micron passing through the beam of laser light (par. 31, 63-65, 115);
[claim 4] wherein the optical isolator is effective to reduce mode-hopping by the laser compared to a comparable counter that does not include the optical isolator located between the laser and the flow cell (par. 8-9, 67, 77);
[claim 6] comprising a liquid dispersion in the flow cell, the liquid dispersion comprising a liquid medium and particles dispersed in the liquid medium (par. 28, 31, 63-65);
[claims 7 and 13] wherein the liquid dispersion comprises:
at least 90 weight percent liquid medium, and less than 10 weight percent dispersed particles, based on total weight liquid dispersion (par. 31, 115; wherein the liquid and particle concentrations are disclosed with various ranges);
[claim 8] wherein the particles have an average particle size below 0.15 microns (par. 28, 31, 63-65, 115);
[claim 10] wherein an optical detector receives laser light that passes through the flow cell and detects a reduction in intensity of the laser light caused by a particle contained in a liquid dispersion passing through the laser light (Figure 5) (par. 10-12, 72, 96-97);
[claim 11] wherein the optical detector detects a reduction in intensity of the laser light caused by a particle having a size greater than 0.15 micron (par. 31, 63-65, 115);
[claim 12] wherein the optical isolator is effective to reduce mode-hopping by the laser compared to a comparable counter that does not include the optical isolator located between the laser and the flow cell (par. 8-9, 67, 77);
[claim 15] wherein the optical detector measures a reduction in intensity of the laser light when a particle contained in the liquid dispersion passes through the laser light (Figure 5) (par. 10-12, 72, 96-97);
[claim 16] wherein the laser experiences reduced mode hopping compared to a comparable optical particle counter that does not include the optical isolator between the laser and the flow cell (par. 8-9, 67, 77).
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) 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Knollenberg.
In regards to claim 5, Knollenberg discloses and shows a particle detection system that utilizes a common “cuvette and/or flow cell” (par. 75).
Knollenberg differs from the limitations in that it is silent to the system and method:
[claim 5] wherein the flow cell is a micro flow cell that includes a channel having a 0.4 mm x 2 mm depth and width;
However, a mere change in size or design choice of a component is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Knollenberg to include the dimensions and parameters discussed above for the advantage of obtaining an optimum or desired system configuration, with a reasonable expectation of success.
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 JONATHAN M HANSEN whose telephone number is (571)270-1736. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 8am to 4pm.
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.
JONATHAN M. HANSEN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2877
/JONATHAN M HANSEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2877
Prosecution Insights