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
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application Nos.2022-057535, filed on 3/30/2022; 2023-039114, filed on 3/13/2023.
The Information Disclosure Statements
The prior art cited in the information disclosure statements filed on 12/25/2024, 7/31/2025 has been considered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1, 17-19, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (1)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Ausserre et al. (US 2017/0173577 A1) [hereinafter Ausserre].
As to claims 1, 19, Ausserre, teaches a flow cell comprising: a main body (CF, EL, Fig. 2A) that includes a flow passage P1,P2 through which fluid containing a substance from which physical property data is to be measured flows; and an optical system (OBJ HI, Fig. 2A) which is disposed on a part of a wall surface (PT, CMM, Fig.2A; paragraph 0070) forming the flow passage and condenses (paragraph 0075) measurement light for the physical property data and of which an emission surface (HI surface in contact with PT) for the measurement light in contact with the fluid is a flat surface (note said surface is flat and transmits light to the fluid; paragraph 0070).
As to claim 16 Ausserre, teaches all as applied to claim 1, and in addition teaches wherein the wall surface is a smooth surface (PT, fig. 2A; paragraph 0070).
As to claim 17 Ausserre, teaches all as applied to claim 1, and in addition the limitation ‘wherein a turbidity of the fluid is 250 NTU or more and 1000 NTU or less,’ is intended use. recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
As to claim 18, Ausserre teaches all as applied to claim 1, and in addition the limitation ‘wherein the physical property data is Raman spectral data,’ is intended use. recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 2-5, 13-15, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ausserre.
As to claims 2, 13, Ausserre, teaches all as applied to claim 1, and in addition teaches, wherein the optical system includes a lens (OBJ), and an optical element (HI) of which an emission surface for the measurement light in contact with the fluid is a flat surface. Ausserre is silent said lens has a positive optical power. However, examiner takes Official Notice that use of a lens having a positive optical power is known in the art.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate said lens in Ausserre apparatus in order to create real images, magnify objects, and correct vision; shape/condition light as desired.
As to claims 3-4, 14-15, Ausserre, teaches all as applied to claim 2, except wherein the lens is any one of a ball lens, a hemispherical lens, or a cylindrical lens. However, examiner takes Official Notice that use either said lens is known in the art.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate either of said lens in Ausserre apparatus in order to shape/condition light as desired.
As to claim 5, Ausserre, teaches all as applied to claim 2, and in addition teaches wherein the optical element is a transparent plate of which an emission surface (HI, Fig,2A) for the measurement light in contact with the fluid and an incident surface (PT, Fig.2A) for the measurement light opposite to the emission surface for the measurement light in contact with the fluid are parallel to each other.
Claim(s) 20-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ausserre in view of Dowaki et al. (US 2014/0333723 A1)[hereinafter Dowaki].
As to claims 20-21, Ausserre teaches all as applied to claim 19, except wherein the fluid is a cell culture solution. However, Dowaki, in the same field of endeavor, teaches observation system comprising observation sample that can be a cell culture solution (paragraphs 0056, 0026).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use Ausserre apparatus for observing optical properties of said solution.
As to claim 22, Ausserre in view of Dowaki, teaches all as applied to claim 20. Ausserre is silent to wherein the cell culture solution is obtained from a culture vessel in which culture is being performed. However, Dowarki, teaches wherein the wherein the cell culture solution is obtained from a culture vessel in which culture is being performed (paragraphs 0024-0026).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to Obtain cell culture solution directly from an active vessel in order to ensure maximum sample freshness, viability, and homogeneity, as cells have not undergone stress from storage or transport.
As to claim 23, Ausserre in view of Dowaki, teaches all as applied to claim 20, except wherein the cell culture solution is a solution from which cells have been removed. However, examiner takes Official Notice that using a cell culture solution from which cells have been removed is known in the art.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use a cell culture solution from which cells have been removed (conditioned medium or supernatant) in order to enables accurate analysis of proteins, enzymes, and metabolites produced by the cells without contamination from intracellular contents.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-9, 10-11, 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.
As to claim 6, the prior art of record, taken alone or in combination, fails to disclose or render obvious a flow cell wherein a thickness of the optical element in a direction of an optical axis is equal to or smaller than a distance between a point at which an emission surface of the lens and the optical
axis intersect with each other and a condensing position of the measurement light, in combination with the rest of the limitations of the claim. Claims 7-9 depend on claim 6.
As to claim 10, the prior art of record, taken alone or in combination, fails to disclose or render obvious a flow cell, wherein a curvature of an emission surface of the lens and a curvature of an incident
surface of the optical element are equal to each other, in combination with the rest of the limitations of the claim. Claim 11 depend on claim 10.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
Ikehata et al. (US 2019/0331581 A1) teaches a cell culture apparatus includes a flow passage in which cell suspension containing at least one of cells or cell masses as granular bodies is to flow, and an imaging unit that is provided in a middle of the flow passage and continuously images the plurality of granular bodies contained in the cell suspension to acquire a plurality of images while the cell suspension flows in the flow passage (abstract).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ABDULLAHI NUR whose telephone number is (571)270-1298. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F, 9am to 6pm.
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 on 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 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.
/ABDULLAHI NUR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2886