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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 11/21/24 has been acknowledged and considered. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 “connection member” in claim 21 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 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:
a mount unit in claim 1 (2000 @ figure 1).
a resonance unit in claim 1 (3000 @ figure 1).
a resonance module in claim 1 (3700 @ figure 1 and paragraph [81]).
a fixing module in claim 5 (2100 @ figure 1).
a first fixing module in claim 5 (2100a @ figure 1).
a second fixing module in claim 5 (2100b @ figure 1).
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 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)(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 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Kim et al (US 2025/0237595) hereinafter “Kim”).
Regarding claim 1; Kim discloses a particle measuring device (100 @ figure 1) comprising:
a mount unit (300 @ figure 1) fixing a flow cell (200 @ figure 1); and
a resonance unit (400 @ figure 1) disposed behind the mount unit (300 @ figure 1), the resonance unit (400 @ figure 1) forming a resonance space (cavity 420 @ figures 1 and 8-9) that is open forward and rearward,
wherein the resonance unit (400 @ figures 1 and 8-9) includes:
a case (410 @ figures 1 and 8-9) disposed behind the mount unit (300 @ figure 1) and facing the resonance space (410 @ figures 1 and 8-9); and
a resonance module (430 @ figures 13-14) including a resonance plate (411, 412 @ figure 13-14) connected to the case (410 @ figures 1 and 8-9). See figures 1-14
Regarding claim 2; Kim discloses the case (410 @ figures 13-14) includes an accommodation opening (440 @ figures 13-14) accommodating the resonance plate (411, 412 @ figures 13-14), and wherein an end of the resonance plate (411, 412 @ figures 13-14) is fixed to the case (410 @ figures 13-14). See figures 1-14
PNG
media_image1.png
812
679
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
812
735
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 3; Kim discloses an end of the resonance plate (411, 412 @ figures 13-14) is coupled to the case (410 @ figures 13-14) to form a fixed end, and wherein another end of the resonance plate (411, 412 @ figures 13-14) forms a free end.
Regarding claim 4; Kim discloses the resonance plate (411, 412 @ figures 13-14) resonates by an acoustic wave of a specific frequency band (paragraph [0057]: e.g., A frequency of the acoustic signal corresponding to a size of nanoparticles to be measured may be referred to as a “natural frequency”. For example, the natural frequency may be included in the specific frequency band. For example, when the resonance frequency is close to the natural frequency, the resonance unit 400 can effectively amplify the acoustic signal resulting from the nanoparticles to be measure).
Regarding claim 21; Kim discloses further comprising a connection member (21 @ figure 13) connecting the resonance plate (411, 412, 420 @ figure 13) to the case (410 @ figure 13), wherein an end of the resonance plate (411, 412, 420 @ figure 13) is fixed to the connection member (21 @ figure 13) and forms a fixed end (430 @ figure 13).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-20 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 prior art of record, taken alone or in combination, fails discloses or render obvious a particle measuring device comprising all the specific elements with the specific combination including the mount unit includes a fixing module including a first fixing module and a second fixing module, wherein the first fixing module and the second fixing module are positioned in front of the resonance unit and are horizontally disposed with the flow cell interposed therebetween, and wherein the case includes: a first side case disposed behind the first fixing module; and a second side case disposed behind the second fixing module in set forth of claim 5.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
1) Buermann et al (US 2019/0055598) discloses an apparatus can include a vessel, a reference surface, a preload, a scan actuator, and a transmitter. The reference surface can form a structural loop with a detector.
2) Masuda (US 2018/0372612) discloses a flow cell including a flow channel through which a sample fluid and a sheath fluid flow, a sample flow channel that introduces the sample fluid into the flow channel, and at least one sheath flow channel that introduces the sheath fluid into the flow channel.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SANG H NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-2425. The examiner can normally be reached M-F.
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.
/SN/
June 18, 2026
/SANG H NGUYEN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2877
Prosecution Insights