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 .
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
In Para. [0008], the Examiner assumes that “side of the sample than the single first irradiation area” should instead be --side of the sample relative to that single first irradiation area--.
In Para. [0020], the Examiner assumes that “side of the sample than the single first irradiation area” should instead be --side of the sample relative to that single first irradiation area--.
In Para. [0040], the Examiner assumes that “side of the sample than the single first irradiation area” should instead be --side of the sample relative to that single first irradiation area--.
In Para. [0074], the Examiner assumes that “side of the sample than the single first irradiation area” should instead be --side of the sample relative to that single first irradiation area--.
In Para. [0139], the Examiner assumes that “side of the sample than the single first irradiation area” should instead be --side of the sample relative to that single first irradiation area--.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 11 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1- On Line 5, the Examiner assumes that “side of the sample than the single first irradiation area” should instead be --side of the sample relative to that single first irradiation area--.
Claim 11- On Line 5, the Examiner assumes that “side of the sample than the single first irradiation area” should instead be --side of the sample relative to that single first irradiation area--.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-2, 5-7, and 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Gregor et al. (“Laser-raster spectrometer for time-resolved recording of transient absorption”, Appl. Opt. 38 (36), 1999, pp. 7468-7474, disclosed in IDS 06 April 2026), hereinafter Gregor.
Claims 1,11: Gregor discloses an optical measurement apparatus (Fig. 1) comprising:
a first irradiator (el) configured to irradiate, with excitation light, a single first irradiation area on a movement path of a moving sample (S) (“in the plane of the flowing sample”, P. 7469, R. col, 2nd ¶; evident from Fig. 2);
a second irradiator (pl) configured to irradiate, with probe light, a second irradiation area that is located on a movement direction side of the sample (S) relative to the single first irradiation area on the movement path (evident from Fig. 2: movement path is downwards in the X-direction, and the probe beam is incident further in the X-direction relative to the point of incidence of the excitation beam);
a detection unit (pd) configured to detect the probe light with which the second irradiator (pl) has irradiated the sample (S) (P. 7470, L. col, 5th ¶); and
a controller (“computer system”, P. 7471, L. col, 5th ¶) configured to
calculate an optical parameter at a plurality of time points (Fig. 6; P. 7473, R. col, 8th ¶), based on detection intensity of the probe light (pl) that has been transmitted through the sample (S) at each of the plurality of time points different from each other (P. 7471, R. col, 5th ¶) in a transient response of the optical parameter of the sample (S) due to excitation by the excitation light (el) (“The excitation causes a distinct population of transient states in the sample”, P. 7469, R. col, 2nd ¶) and has been detected by the detection unit (pd) at different timings, and
calculate a physical property parameter (“lifetime”, P. 7474, L. col, 1st ¶) of the sample (S) based on the calculated optical parameter.
Claim 2: Gregor further discloses wherein
the second irradiation area includes a single area (evident from Fig. 2),
the detection unit (pd) includes a single detector (P. 7470, L. col, 4th ¶), and
when a movement speed (vjet) of the sample (S) varies, the controller is configured to calculate the optical parameter for each of a plurality of movement speeds (vjet) different from each other (P. 7473, R. col, 3rd ¶).
Claim 5: Gregor further discloses a memory (inherent part of a “computer system”, P. 7471, L. col, 5th ¶) configured to store detection information from the detection unit (pd) and information regarding a movement speed of the sample (S).
Claim 6: Gregor discloses:
the optical measurement apparatus according to claim 1 (see claim 1 rejection); and
a flow-type distribution cell in which the sample (S) flows inside a channel in one direction (evident from Fig. 2).
Claim 7: Gregor further discloses:
a control apparatus (“computer system”, P. 7471, L. col, 5th ¶) configured to control the optical measurement apparatus (P. 7469, R. col, 2nd ¶); and
a pump (implicit cause of “a fast-flowing jet stream”, Abstract) configured to vary a flow rate of the sample (S) under control of the control apparatus (P. 7473, R. col, 3rd ¶).
Claim 9: Gregor further discloses:
the optical measurement apparatus according to claim 1 (see claim 1 rejection); and
a rotating body (“rotary dye cell”, P. 7469, L. col, 6th ¶) in which the sample (S) is deposited on a substrate, the rotating body configured to rotate in one direction (inherent to “rotary”).
Claim 10: Gregor further discloses:
a control apparatus (“computer system”, P. 7471, L. col, 5th ¶) configured to control the optical measurement apparatus (P. 7469, R. col, 2nd ¶); and
a motor (implicit in “rotary dye cell” since it cannot move on its own) configured to vary a rotational speed (vjet) of the rotating body under control of the control apparatus (P. 7473, R. col, 3rd ¶).
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 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gregor as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Martin et al. (US 2004/0159798), hereinafter Martin.
Claim 3: Gregor further discloses wherein
the second irradiation area includes a single area (evident from Fig. 2).
Gregor does not explicitly disclose the detection unit including a plurality of detectors.
However, the Examiner takes Official notice that it is well known to use an array of detectors in place of a single detector (Martin et al. [0052]).
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 Gregor’s optical measurement apparatus with a plurality of detectors arranged in an array along the movement path for the purpose of performing temporal detection.
In Gregor’s modified apparatus, the controller is configured to calculate the optical parameter at the plurality of time points (Fig. 6; P. 7473, R. col, 8th ¶), based on the detection intensity detected by the plurality of detectors different from each other (evident since the same calculation is done multiple times).
Claim 4: Gregor further discloses wherein the second irradiation area includes a plurality of areas (under broadest reasonable interpretation, the diameter ϕ of the probe beam may be wide enough to irradiate a plurality of (adjacent) areas (evident from Fig. 2)).
Gregor does not explicitly disclose the detection unit including a detector corresponding to each of the plurality of areas.
However, the Examiner takes Official notice that it is well known to use an array of detectors in place of a single detector (Martin et al. [0052]).
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 Gregor’s optical measurement apparatus with a plurality of detectors arranged in an array along the movement path for the purpose of performing temporal detection.
In Gregor’s modified apparatus, the controller is configured to calculate the optical parameter at the plurality of time points (Fig. 6; P. 7473, R. col, 8th ¶), based on the detection intensity detected by the plurality of detectors different from each other (evident since the same calculation is done multiple times).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gregor as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Sebok et al. (US 6,104,483), hereinafter Sebok.
Claim 8: Gregor is silent with respect to a mask configured to limit the single first irradiation area and the second irradiation area on the distribution cell.
Sebok, however, in the same field of endeavor of optical flow cells, discloses an optical measurement system (Fig. 3) comprising a mask (78) configured to limit an irradiation area on a distribution cell (16) (Col. 5, Lines 45-58).
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 Gregor’s optical measurement system with a mask for the purpose of “enhance[ing] the viewing and imaging of any particles flowing through the gap” (Sebok, Col. 5, Lines 48-53).
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
Prosecution Insights