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 .
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 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.
Information Disclosure Statement
Acknowledgment is made of Applicant’s Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) form PTO 1449.These IDS has been considered.
Examiner’s Note
The Examiner has pointed out particular references contained in the prior art of record within the body of this action for the convenience of the Applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages, paragraph and figures may apply. Applicant, in preparing the response, should consider fully the entire reference as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner.
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: “drive mechanism; cleaning mechanism” in claim 1;
“reinforcing member” in claim 4; “wiper fixing portion” in claim 11; “communication device” in claim 19.
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 Objections
Claims 13 and 19 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 13, "The contact" in line 5, should be changed to –“the contact--.
In claim 19, "communication device capable of communicating" in line 2, should be changed to –“communication device is communicating--.
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 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 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1, 7, 10 and 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EBARA et al. (JP 2010-60364 A) (herein after EBARA) in view of Komachi et al. (JP 7709460 B2) (herein after Komachi).
As to claim(s) 1 and 10, EBARA discloses a measurement instrument comprising:
a cylindrical cell [61] that stores a measurement fluid [FIG. 3 in particular, is measured via a cylindrical measurement cell 61 that accommodates a liquid sample…page 4];
a first light source [62] that is arranged outside the cell and irradiates the measurement fluid with first inspection light (L1) [page 4];
a detector [63] that is arranged outside the cell and detects transmitted light of the first inspection light transmitted through the measurement fluid and scattered light of the second inspection light scattered by the measurement fluid [page 4]; and
a cleaning mechanism [661a-661d] (Did you mean 661? 66 is a light shading plate not a cleaning mechanism… Also, I think page 4 do not disclose 661 per se. It is page 5) that is arranged inside the cell and comes into contact with and clean an inner peripheral surface of the cell [FIGS. 4 and 5, the cleaning body 661 has a substantially four-leaf shape in a plan view having sliding pieces 661 a to 661 d provided corresponding to the respective light transmitting windows M <b> 1 to M <b> 3. . The cleaning body 661 of this embodiment is integrally formed of an elastic member such as rubber. The four sliding pieces 661a to 661d are accommodated in the first space, the second space, the third space, and the fourth space formed by the measurement cell 61 and the light shielding plate 65, respectively. From the viewpoint of cleaning…page 8].
The measurement instrument according to claim 1, wherein the cleaning mechanism [661a-661d] is arranged outside optical paths of the first inspection light, the transmitted light, and the scattered light [page 8] (i.e. the cleaning body(661a-661d) is not blocking the optical path of inspection light, the transmitted light, and the scattered light ).
[Note: while each unit configured to perform as claimed may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function, because apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does].
EBARA discloses all the features of the claimed invention except the limitation such as: “a drive mechanism that rotates the cell about a central axis;
a second light source that is arranged outside the cell and at a position different from the first light source in a rotation direction of the cell, and irradiates the measurement fluid with second inspection light”.
However, Komachi from the same field of endeavor discloses a drive mechanism [22A] that rotates a cell about a central axis [@fig.1: The visual inspection device 100 further includes a line light source 22 constituting a linear light source, and a line light source drive mechanism 22A that moves the line light source 22 in directions X and Z and rotates it about an axis Ax2 extending in direction Y. The line light source 22 and the line light source drive mechanism 22A are disposed on the other side of the base 11 in direction Z…page 7];
a second light source [22] that is arranged outside the cell and at a position different from a first light source [21] in a rotation direction of the cell, and irradiates the measurement fluid with second inspection light [the flat light source 21, the line light source 22, and the spot light source 23 is controlled to a state in which it irradiates light…page 8]
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to modify the device/method/system of EBARA such that the drive mechanism that rotates the cell about the central axis; the second light source that is arranged outside the cell and at the position different from the first light source in the rotation direction of the cell, and irradiates the measurement fluid with second inspection light, as taught by Komachi, for the advantages such as: evaluation of optically transparent specimens is performed with high accuracy.
As of claim 7, EBARA discloses the measurement instrument according to claim 1, wherein the cleaning mechanism [66] includes a cleaning body [661] in contact with the inner peripheral surface of the cell [page 6].
As of claims 18-19, EBARA discloses the measurement instrument a main body to which the measurement instrument is attached and detached [The measurement cell 61, the light source 62, the transmitted light detector 63, and the scattered light detector 64 are fixed in a sensor housing portion 67 provided on the attachment surface 21A of the attachment block body 21…page 7]; a communication device [computing unit] capable of communicating with the measurement device [Detection signals from any of the detectors are output to a computing unit (not shown) housed in the computing device housing 22…page 7].
As to claim(s) 20, EBARA discloses a measurement method using a measurement instrument, the measurement instrument including:
a cylindrical cell [61] that stores a measurement fluid [FIG. 3 in particular, is measured via a cylindrical measurement cell 61 that accommodates a liquid sample…page 4];
a first light source [62] that is arranged outside the cell and irradiates the measurement fluid with first inspection light [page 4];
a detector [63] that is arranged outside the cell and detects transmitted light of the first inspection light transmitted through the measurement fluid and scattered light of the second inspection light scattered by the measurement fluid [page 4]; and
a cleaning mechanism [66] that is arranged inside the cell and comes into contact with and clean an inner peripheral surface of the cell [page 4].
[Note: while each unit configured to perform as claimed may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function, because apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does].
EBARA discloses all the features of the claimed invention except the limitation such as: “a drive mechanism that rotates the cell about a central axis;
a second light source that is arranged outside the cell and at a position different from the first light source in a rotation direction of the cell, and irradiates the measurement fluid with second inspection light”.
However, Komachi from the same field of endeavor discloses a drive mechanism [22A] that rotates a cell about a central axis [@fig.1: The visual inspection device 100 further includes a line light source 22 constituting a linear light source, and a line light source drive mechanism 22A that moves the line light source 22 in directions X and Z and rotates it about an axis Ax2 extending in direction Y. The line light source 22 and the line light source drive mechanism 22A are disposed on the other side of the base 11 in direction Z…page 7];
a second light source [22] that is arranged outside the cell and at a position different from a first light source [21] in a rotation direction of the cell, and irradiates the measurement fluid with second inspection light [the flat light source 21, the line light source 22, and the spot light source 23 is controlled to a state in which it irradiates light…page 8]
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to modify the device/method/system of EBARA such that the drive mechanism that rotates the cell about the central axis; the second light source that is arranged outside the cell and at the position different from the first light source in the rotation direction of the cell, and irradiates the measurement fluid with second inspection light, as taught by Komachi, for the advantages such as: evaluation of optically transparent specimens is performed with high accuracy.
Claim(s) 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EBARA et al. in view of Komachi et al. and further in view of INOUE et al. (KR 10-1768557 B1) (herein after INOUE).
As of claims 8-9, EBARA when modified by Komachi discloses all the features of the claimed invention except the limitation such as: “The measurement instrument according to claim 1, wherein the first light source and the second light source are arranged at positions shifted by 90° in the rotation direction of the cell.
The measurement instrument according to claim 1, wherein the detector is arranged to face the first light source across the central axis of the cell, and the detector is arranged at a position shifted from the second light source by 90° in the rotation direction of the cell.”.
However, INOUE from the same field of endeavor discloses a first light source and a second light source are arranged at positions shifted by 90° in the rotation direction of the cell [a first illuminating device 2 for emitting a fluorescent light Y (yellow light), a second illuminating device 2 for emitting fluorescent light Y (yellow light) from the first illuminating device 2…page 8][ The array light source 21 is formed by arranging a plurality of semiconductor lasers 21a. Specifically, a plurality of semiconductor lasers 21a are arrayed in a plane orthogonal to the optical axis ax1…PAGE 9];
wherein a detector [51] is arranged to face the first light source across the central axis of the cell, and the detector is arranged at a position shifted from the second light source by 90° in the rotation direction of the cell [page 4, 12].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to modify the device/method/system of EBARA when modified by Komachi such that the first light source and the second light source are arranged at positions shifted by 90° in the rotation direction of the cell; the detector is arranged to face the first light source across the central axis of the cell, and the detector is arranged at a position shifted from the second light source by 90° in the rotation direction of the cell, as taught by INOUE, for the advantages such as: in order to conduct the measurement with high accuracy.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EBARA et al. in view of Komachi et al. and further in view of INOUE et al. (US 20210237693 A1) (herein after INOUE).
As of claim 11, EBARA when modified by Komachi discloses all the features of the claimed invention except the limitation such as: “The measurement instrument according to claim 1, wherein the cleaning mechanism includes a wiper that wipes dirt on the inner peripheral surface of the cell and a wiper fixing portion that fixes the wiper, and the wiper fixing portion extends in the axial direction of the cell.”.
However, YAMAUCHI from the same field of endeavor discloses a cleaning mechanism includes a wiper [w1] that wipes dirt on the inner peripheral surface of the cell and a wiper fixing portion that fixes the wiper, and the wiper fixing portion extends in the axial direction of the cell [¶0030].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to modify the device/method/system of EBARA when modified by Komachi such that the cleaning mechanism includes a wiper that wipes dirt on the inner peripheral surface of the cell and a wiper fixing portion that fixes the wiper, and the wiper fixing portion extends in the axial direction of the cell, as taught by YAMAUCHI, for the advantages such as: in order to obtain an optimum measurement.
Claim(s) 15-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EBARA et al. in view of Komachi et al. and further in view of MORI et al. (JP 7221298 B2) (herein after MORI).
As of claims 15-17, EBARA when modified by Komachi discloses all the features of the claimed invention except the limitation such as: “The measurement instrument according to claim 1, further comprising an introduction port through which a measurement fluid is introduced into the cell, and a discharge port through which the measurement fluid is discharged from the cell.
16. The measurement instrument according to claim 15, wherein the discharge port is located above the introduction port.
17. The measurement instrument according to claim 15, wherein the introduction port is arranged on lower side with respect to the optical paths of the first inspection light, the second inspection light, the transmitted light and the scattered light, and the discharge port is arranged on upper side with respect to the optical paths of the first inspection light, the second inspection light, the transmitted light and the scattered light.”.
However, MORI from the same field of endeavor discloses an introduction port [22c] through which a measurement fluid is introduced into the cell, and a discharge port [22d] through which the measurement fluid is discharged from the cell [@fig.7: The temperature control fluid storage chamber 22b is provided with an introduction port 22c for introducing the temperature control fluid and an output port 22d for outputting the temperature control fluid. It is configured to flow through the chamber 22b… The temperature-controlled fluid in the temperature-controlled fluid storage chamber 22b is discharged to the outside from the discharge port 22d through the discharge passage 22f extending upward from the upper end of the inner peripheral surface…page 7]; wherein the discharge port is located above the introduction port [fig.7]; wherein the introduction port is arranged on lower side with respect to the optical paths of the first inspection light, the second inspection light, the transmitted light and the scattered light, and the discharge port is arranged on upper side with respect to the optical paths of the first inspection light, the second inspection light, the transmitted light and the scattered light [the temperature control fluid is introduced from the lower end portion of the inner peripheral surface of the temperature control fluid storage chamber 22b via the introduction port 22c and the introduction channel 22e extending upward… The lead-out port 22d is an opening provided at the upper end portion of the side peripheral surface of the light-transmitting plate 22 in the posture during measurement…page 7].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to modify the device/method/system of EBARA when modified by Komachi such that the introduction port through which the measurement fluid is introduced into the cell, and the discharge port through which the measurement fluid is discharged from the cell; the discharge port is located above the introduction port; the introduction port is arranged on lower side with respect to the optical paths of the first inspection light, the second inspection light, the transmitted light and the scattered light, and the discharge port is arranged on upper side with respect to the optical paths of the first inspection light, the second inspection light, the transmitted light and the scattered light., as taught by MORI, for the advantages such as: improving the reproducibility and accuracy of measurement.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-6 and 12-14 is/are 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:
As to claim 2, the prior arts alone or in combination fails to disclose the claimed limitations such as “an optical axis of the first inspection light is orthogonal to the central axis of the cell, and the cleaning mechanism includes a first cleaning mechanism arranged between the second light source and the detector in the rotation direction of the cell, and a second cleaning mechanism arranged on an opposite side of the first cleaning mechanism across the optical axis of the first inspection light” along with all other limitations of the claim.
As to claim 12, the prior arts alone or in combination fails to disclose the claimed limitations such as “the wiper has a contact portion in contact with the inner peripheral surface of the cell over a predetermined range in the axial direction of the cell, and the contact portion is arranged at a position overlapping at least the first light source, the second light source and the detector when viewed in a rotation direction of the cell” along with all other limitations of the claim.
As to claim 13, the prior arts alone or in combination fails to disclose the claimed limitations such as “wherein an outer peripheral surface of the wiper fixing portion having an arc-shaped cross section has a slight gap with the inner peripheral surface of the cell, and the contact portion protrudes outward from the outer peripheral surface of the wiper fixing portion” along with all other limitations of the claim.
As to claim 14, the prior arts alone or in combination fails to disclose the claimed limitations such as “the wiper fixing portion has a surface parallel to the optical axis of the first inspection light and the central axis of the cell and a surface parallel to the optical axis of the second inspection light and the central axis of the cell” along with all other limitations of the claim.
Claims 3-6 are allowable due to their dependencies.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MD M RAHMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-9175. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thur.
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 at 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 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.
MD M. RAHMAN
Primary Patent Examiner
Art Unit 2886
/MD M RAHMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2877