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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “housing” “illumination source” “imaging device” “TLC plate” “extractant”, “mobile phase”, “thin layer chromatographic plates”, “reference standards and micro glass capillaries” and “mobile device comprising camera”; must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claim 15 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Where a claim sets forth a plurality of elements or steps, each element or step of the claim should be separated by a line indentation. There may be plural indentations to further segregate subcombinations or related steps. See 37 CFR 1.75 and MPEP 608.01(i)-(p). Appropriate correction is required.
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.
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: “imaging device” “processing unit” in claims 1, 6, 8, 13, & 14.
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.
Applicant teaches the imaging device comprises a camera (0071, lines 5-6).
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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 1-12 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. Regarding claims 1-6, 8, & 9, the phrases "optionally" & “preferably” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
In regards to claim 8, the claimed subject matter “processing unit” is rendered indefinite. Examiner notes the specification does not provide the structure for the “processing unit” to perform the claimed functions. Applicant teaches transferring one or more image(s) obtained in step g. to a remote processing unit (0078). Based upon the specification there is no way to determine the metes and bounds of this limitation, since there are no limits imposed by structure, material or acts, and can therefore be performed by any means capable of performing the function, both known and unknown. Clarification is required.
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) 13 & 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schulz WO 2016096078 in view of The Thought Emporium, “Building a Nanodrop Style UV/Vis Spectrometer”, Jan 18, 2019 hereafter Thought Emporioum.
With respect to claim 13, Schulz teaches a portable apparatus for determination and quantification of an agrochemically active ingredient extracted from the surface of a seed or from a composition used or intended to be used to treat seed(s), comprising:
x) a housing comprising a first housing portion (fig 1, 10) that prevents a thin layer chromatographic plate (fig 1, 2) from moving in the housing portion;
y) an illumination source (fig 1, 13 & 14) positioned in the first housing; and
z) a second housing portion (fig 1, 4) for fitting with the first housing portion and for
engaging with an imaging device (fig 1, 12) such that the device permits capture of an image
under illumination “visible luminescence…recorded” (pg. 13, ¶ 12);
wherein the apparatus is configured to permit optimal image acquisition condition and by having a defined geometry for both illumination and image acquisition of a developed TLC plate “image of TLC plate” TLC plate (pg. 4, ¶ 19).
Schulz does not specifically teach excluding incandescent light.
Thought Emporium, in the field of endeavor of spectrometer housings, implicitly teaches indoor lighting i.e. incandescent light is excluded by the spectrometer’s housing via the housing’s opaque material (fig 1). At the time prior to effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to try to construct Schulz housing from opaque material to prevent background noise from outside light.
PNG
media_image1.png
281
418
media_image1.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 14, Schulz teaches a portable apparatus for determination and quantification of an agrochemically active ingredient extracted from an element, comprising:
xl) a housing (fig 1, 4) preventing a thin layer chromatographic plate (fig 1, 2) from moving in said
housing;
yl) an illumination source (fig 1, 13 & 14) (pg. 13, ¶ 10) positioned in said housing; and
zl) an imaging device (fig 1, 12) engaged with said housing such that the device permits capture of an image “visible luminescence…recorded” (pg. 13, ¶ 12) under illumination;
wherein the apparatus is configured to permit optimal image acquisition conditions and having a defined geometry for both illumination and image acquisition of a developed “image of TLC plate” TLC plate (pg. 4, ¶ 19).
Schulz does not specifically teach excluding incandescent light.
Thought Emporium, in the field of endeavor of spectrometer housings, implicitly teaches indoor lighting i.e. incandescent light is excluded by the spectrometer’s housing via the housing’s opaque material (fig 1). At the time prior to effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to try to construct Schulz housing from opaque material to prevent background noise from outside light.
PNG
media_image2.png
840
1248
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schulz WO 2016096078 in view of The Thought Emporium, “Building a Nanodrop Style UV/Vis Spectrometer”, Jan 18, 2019 hereafter Thought Emporium in further view of Stitzlein US 20200018734 of paper of J Premarathane, “DEVELOPMENT AND VALIDATION OF THIN LAYER CHROMATOGRAPHIC METHOD FOR SCREENING OF SULFONAMIDES IN CHICKEN MEAT”, 2016 hereafter Premarathane in further view of Sandra WO 2018232469.
With respect to claim 15 according to claim 13, the combination teaches a kit of parts comprising thin layer chromatographic plates (pg. 8, line 22 Schulz).
The combination does not teach reference standards.
Stitzlein, in the same field of endeavor of Schulz of Thin Layer Chromatography, teaches reference standards are measured to verify samples (0088, lines 5-7). At the time prior to the effective filing date of the invention it would have obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine multiple reference standards with the combination’s imaging device to verify detection of different types of substances.
The combination does not teach a volume of a mobile phase.
Stitzlein, in the same field of endeavor of Schulz of Thin Layer Chromotagrahy, teaches a volume of mobile phase is combined with a Thin Layer Chromatography plate to provide chromatographic separation (0100, lines 1-10). At the time prior to the effective filing date of the invention it would have obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine a mobile phase with the combination’s TLC plate to activate chromatographic separation to classify samples.
The combination does not teach a volume of an extractant.
Stitzlein, in the same field of endeavor of Schulz of Thin Layer Chromatography, teaches plant tissue samples may be extracted with solvents such as ethanol & methanol (0095, lines 7-8). At the time prior to the effective filing date of the invention it would have obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine an extractant with a plant sample to enable examination of the sample via the combination’s imaging device.
The combination does not teach micro glass capillaries.
Premarathane , in the same field of endeavor of Schulz of Thin Layer Chromatography, teaches micro capillaries configured to transfer samples onto a Thin Layer Chromatography plate (pg. 211, ¶ 2). Examiner takes official notice with regards micro glass capillaries since it is well known for capillaries to be made out of glass. At the time prior to the effective filing date of the invention it would been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine micro glass capillaries with the combination’s TLC plate to transfer multiple samples onto the surface of the combination’s plate.
The combination does not teach a mobile device comprising a camera and installed thereon a software application.
Sandra, in the same field of endeavor of Schulz of Thin Layer Chromatography, teaches a mobile device such as a smartphone comprising a camera and software application may be used to capture an image of a Thin Layer Chromatography plate (pg. 12, ¶ 6, lines 3-8). At the time prior to the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to combine a mobile phone with the combination’s TLC plate to capture and send an image to someone at a remote location.
Allowable Subject Matter
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
As to claim 1, the prior art of record, taken alone or in combination, fails to disclose or render obvious “contacting the thin layer chromatographic plate with a mobile solvent phase at the lower edge of the stationary phase in an elution chamber, and allowing the sample to elute for a predetermined period of time…taking at least one image of the illuminated thin layer chromatographic plate to detect the one or more signal(s) generated by the one or more active ingredient(s) and/or reference compound(s); h. matching a retention factor (Rf) of each detected signal to an expected Rf of a known active ingredient(s), and/or to a Rf of the reference compound(s); and i. quantifying the intensity of each signal to estimate the amount of the one or more specific active ingredient(s)”, in combination with the rest of the limitations of claim 1.
As to claim 12, the prior art of record, taken alone or in combination, fails to disclose or render obvious “eluted TLC plate from a raw image obtained from the method according to claim 1g) integrating peak Y-intensities between peak start- and end-point…h) calculating active ingredient concentration by correlating the integrated peak areas of
samples with the integrated peak areas of one or more reference compound(s)”, in combination with the rest of the limitations of claim 12.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MAURICE C SMITH whose telephone number is (571)272-2526. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-5pm EST.
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, Kara Geisel can be reached at (571) 272-2416. 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.
/MAURICE C SMITH/Examiner, Art Unit 2877