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 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 9, 12, 13, and 26 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.
Regarding claim 9, a broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 9 recites the broad recitation 700nm to about 1mm, and the claim also recites 900 nm to about 5000 nm and 1000 nm to about 1500 nm which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. For the sake of examination, the claim will be interpreted as being limited by the broadest recitation.
Regarding claims 12 and 26, a broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 12 recites the broad recitation an average diameter of about 1 to about 800 nm, and the claim also recites about 100 to about 700 nm, preferably about 200 to about 600 nm, or preferably about 300 to about 550 nm which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. For the sake of examination, the claim will be interpreted as being limited by the broadest recitation.
Regarding claim 13, a broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 12 recites the broad recitation an average diameter of about 0.1 to about 20 wt.%, and the claim also recites about 0.1 to about 15 wt.%, or preferably about 0.1 to about 10 wt.% which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. For the sake of examination, the claim will be interpreted as being limited by the broadest recitation.
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 1-4, 9, 19, and 22-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by Marshall (US 20150276588 A1; cited by Applicant).
Regarding claim 1¸Marshall teaches a method for calibrating an infrared reflectance device using a liquid composition, the method comprising:
- providing a composition (102; 100; 104) comprising a plurality of particles and a liquid carrier (paragraph 69);
- emitting an infrared light (QCL; paragraphs 13 and 44) at the composition using a light source (QCL) to produce a reflected light (paragraph 69); and
- sensing the reflected light from the composition using a sensor (108).
PNG
media_image1.png
712
474
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2¸Marshall teaches providing the composition comprises flowing the composition through a channel (figure 8).
Regarding claim 3¸Marshall teaches the composition makes intimate contact with the sensor when flowing through the channel (interpreted in light of Applicant’s specification, where the sensor includes not just the photodetector but the optical elements in between the sample and the photodetector; in Marshall this corresponds to the window of the flow cell which is in intimate contact with the composition flowing through the channel and is the window through which the detector array detects; for example, see paragraphs 62 and 67 and figure 8).
Regarding claim 4¸Marshall teaches composition is separated from the sensor only by air when flowing through the channel (since claim 4 does not depend on claim 3, the sensor is considered to be the photodetector array, 108, and figure 8 illustrates no optical elements between the channel and 108).
Regarding claim 9¸Marshall teaches the infrared light has a wavelength of from about 700 nm to about 1 mm (mid-IR in paragraph 44).
Regarding claim 19¸Marshall teaches a system comprising:
a light source (QCL) configured to emit an infrared light (paragraphs 13 and 44);
a composition (102; 100; 104) comprising a plurality of particles and a liquid carrier (paragraph 69), wherein at least a portion of the plurality of particles is adapted to reflect infrared light (paragraph 69);
a sensor (108) configured to sense the reflected infrared light; and
an apparatus defining an inlet port, an exit port, and a channel extending therebetween, wherein the inlet port is configured to receive the composition and the outlet port is in fluid communication with the inlet port via the channel (figure 8).
Regarding claim 22¸Marshall teaches the sensor is positioned to be in intimate contact with the composition when the composition flows through the channel (interpreted in light of Applicant’s specification, where the sensor includes not just the photodetector but the optical elements in between the sample and the photodetector; in Marshall this corresponds to the window of the flow cell which is in intimate contact with the composition flowing through the channel and is the window through which the detector array detects; for example, see paragraphs 62 and 67 and figure 8).
Regarding claim 23¸Marshall teaches the composition is separated from the sensor only by air when flowing through the channel (since claim 4 does not depend on claim 3, the sensor is considered to be the photodetector array, 108, and figure 8 illustrates no optical elements between the channel and 108).
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 5-8, 18, 20-21, and 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marshall as applied to claims 2 and 19 above.
Regarding claims 5-6, Fig. 8 of Marshall doesn’t explicitly teach positioning a light source substantially perpendicular relative to the channel (claim 5); the light source is positioned perpendicular to the channel (claim 6).
However, Marshall teaches other embodiments where the light source is positioned perpendicular to the channel (e.g. figure 1).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the above combination such that the light source is positioned perpendicular to the channel in order to measure reflections at a variety of angles, including perpendicularly to ensure the sensor is calibrated to work at a variety of angles.
Regarding claim 7, Marshall suggests but doesn’t explicitly teach the infrared light is emitted at an angle of incidence of about 20 to about 70 (suggested by figure 8, which illustrates the angle as being in this range). Additionaly, Official Notice is taken that it is well known in the art of optical measuring and testing to have the angle of incidence of about 20 to about 70. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the above combination such that the infrared light is emitted at an angle of incidence of about 20 to about 70 in order to optimize the angle of illumination such that it reflects primarily off the composition instead of the other elements such as the channel.
Regarding claim 8, in the above combination the infrared light is emitted at an angle of about 90 relative to the flow of the composition through the channel (in the combination of claim 6 above and figure 8 of Marshall).
Regarding claims 18 and 32, Fig. 8 of Marshall doesn’t explicitly teach the liquid carrier comprises water.
However, Marshall teaches the liquid carrier comprises water (paragraphs 84, 111, and 14). Additionally, Marshall teaches this provides a variety of benefits such as mimicking samples that are in water and the IR light source having sensitivity in samples in water (paragraphs 84, 111, and 14)
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the embodiment of figure 8 such that the liquid carrier comprises water in order to either mimic samples that are in water and/or have high sensitivity by having using the IR sensor taught by Marshall to investigate samples in water.
Regarding claim 20, in the above combination the light source is positioned relative to the apparatus such that the infrared light is emitted at emitted at an angle of about 800 to about 1000 relative to the composition when flowing through the channel (in the combination of claim 6 above and figure 8 of Marshall).
Regarding claim 21, in the above combination the light source is positioned relative to the apparatus such that the infraredlight is emitted at an angle of about 900 relative to the composition when flowing through the channel (in the combination of claim 6 above and figure 8 of Marshall).
Claims 10 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marshall as applied to claims 1 and 19 above, and further in view of Kittelson (US 20160341649 A1).
Regarding claim 10¸ Marshall doesn’t explicitly teach the plurality of particles comprises an aluminum oxide, a magnesium oxide, a titanium oxide, a zinc oxide, a cerium oxide, or a combination of two or more thereof.
Like Marshall (and like the instant application), Kittelson is directed to a calibration of an infrared reflectance device and method and teaches the plurality of particles comprises an aluminum oxide, a magnesium oxide, a titanium oxide, a zinc oxide, a cerium oxide, or a combination of two or more thereof (magnesium oxide or zinc oxide in paragraph 48). Additionally, Kittelson teaches this provides the benefit of being adapted for mineral product ingredients (paragraph 48).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the above combination such that the plurality of particles comprises an aluminum oxide, a magnesium oxide, a titanium oxide, a zinc oxide, a cerium oxide, or a combination of two or more thereof – in order to calibrate the device for the type of measurements one wishes to make, such as using magnesium oxide or zinc oxide to calibrate for measuring mineral product ingredients).
Regarding claim 24¸ in the above combination the plurality of particles comprises metal oxides selected from aluminum oxides, magnesium oxides, titanium oxides, zinc oxides, cerium oxides, and a combination of two or more thereof (magnesium oxide or zinc oxide in paragraph 48 of Kittelson).
Claims 11-12, 14-17, and 25-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marshall as applied to claims 1 and 19 above, and further in view of Walsh (US 20180275052 A1; cited by Applicant).
Regarding claims 11-12 and 26, Marshall doesn’t explicitly teach the plurality of particles comprises nanoparticles (claim 11); the plurality of particles have an average diameter of about 1 to about 800 nm, preferably about 100 to about 700 nm, preferably about 200 to about 600 nm, or preferably about 300 to about 550 nm (claims 12 and 26).
Like Marshall (and like the instant application), Walsh is directed to a method and device for calibrating an optical sensor and teaches the plurality of particles comprises nanoparticles; the plurality of particles have an average diameter of about 1 to about 800 nm (paragraphs 23-24).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the above combination such that the plurality of particles comprises nanoparticles; the plurality of particles have an average diameter of about 1 to about 800 nm – in order to calibrate using nanoparticles that can mimic nanoparticle samples.
Regarding claims 14 and 28, Marshall doesn’t explicitly teach the composition further comprises an acid.
Like Marshall (and like the instant application), Walsh is directed to a method and device for calibrating an optical sensor and teaches the composition further comprises an acid provides the benefit of preventing bacterial growth (paragraph 35).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the above combination such that the composition further comprises an acid in order to prevent bacterial growth.
Regarding claims 15 and 29, in the above combination the acid is at least one of: hydrochloric acid, hydrobromic acid, hydroiodic acid, nitric acid, perchloric acid, sulfuricacid, 1-glutamic acid, lactic acid, malic acid, succinic acid, acetic acid, formic acid, hydrogen sulfide, trichloracetic acid, fumaric acid, tartaric acid, citric acid, 1-glutamic hydrochloride, and maleic acid (Walsh: paragraph 35).
Regarding claims 16 and 30, in the above combination the acid is at least one of: I- glutamic acid, lactic acid, hydrochloric acid, malic acid, succinic acid, acetic acid, formic, hydrogen sulfide, trichloracetic acid, fumaric acid, tartaric acid, citric acid, 1-glutamic hydrochloride, and maleic acid (Walsh: paragraph 35).
Regarding claims 17 and 31, in the above combination the acid is present in an amount from about 0.05 to about 15 wt.% (paragraph 35).
Regarding claim 25¸ in the above combination the plurality of particles comprises titanium dioxide, alumina, or a combination thereof (Walsh: paragraph 23).
Regarding claim 27¸ in the above combination the composition has a pH of about 1 to about 5, about 1 to about 4, about 1 to about 3, or about 1.5 to about 3 (Walsh: paragraphs 35 and 69).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marshall as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Harris (US 20010046048 A1).
Regarding claim 13, Marshall doesn’t explicitly teach diluting the composition to obtain a concentration for the plurality of particles of about 0.1 to about 20 wt.%, preferably about 0.1 to about 15 wt.%, or preferably about 0.1 to about 10 wt.%, based on the total weight of the composition.
Like Marshall (and like the instant application), Harris is directed to optical measurements of compositions in liquid carriers and teaches diluting the composition to obtain a concentration for the plurality of particles of about 0.1 to about 20 wt.% provides the benefit of optimizing the light scattering characteristics of the sample (paragraphs 19-20).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the above combination such that it comprises diluting the composition to obtain a concentration for the plurality of particles of about 0.1 to about 20 wt.%, in order to optimize the light scattering characteristics of the sample.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RUFUS L PHILLIPS whose telephone number is (571)270-7021. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th, 2 -10 pm.
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.
/RUFUS L PHILLIPS/ Examiner, Art Unit 2877
Prosecution Insights