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 § 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.
Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over (US 20030226756 A1) in view of Namba (US 4762413 A).
Regarding claim 1, Inaba (US 20030226756 A1) teaches an electrophoresis device (abstract) that irradiates a laser light (80) from both ends of a capillary array (82) composed of a plurality of capillaries lined up and detects light from the capillaries ([0016], [0129], fig. 11), but fails to disclose wherein an optical path from a light source of the laser light to the capillary array is provided with an optical isolator that shields not only reflected return light from the capillary array but also transmitted return light.
However, Namba (US 4762413 A) which relates to electrophoresis device to and is thus from the same field of endeavor as Inaba, teaches wherein an optical path from a light source of the laser light to the capillary array (cell 7) is provided with an optical isolator (31) that shields reflected return light from the capillary array (col. 17, lines 3-21).
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 Inaba by incorporating wherein an optical path from a light source of the laser light to the capillary array is provided with an optical isolator that shields not only reflected return light from the capillary array but also transmitted return light in order to reduce noise signal.
Regarding claim 2, Inaba, when modified by Namba teaches the electrophoresis device according to claim 1, wherein the laser light is irradiated from both ends of the capillary array along the same optical axis perpendicular to a capillary axis and parallel to a plane to place the capillary array (Inaba: [0130], fig. 11).
Regarding claim 3, Inaba, when modified by Namba teaches the electrophoresis device according to claim 1, comprising: a beam splitter (81) that splits the laser light emitted from the light source into two ([0129]); and a mirror (91) that guides the split laser light to one side and the other side of the capillary array, wherein the optical isolator is provided on an optical path from the light source to the beam splitter (Inaba: [0127], [0129], fig. 11)
Claims 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Inaba (US 20030226756 A1) in view of Namba (US 4762413 A), further in view of Watanabe (US 20190004343 A1).
Regarding claim 4, Inaba, when modified by Namba teaches the electrophoresis device according to claim 1, wherein the optical isolator is a polarization-dependent optical isolator including a first polarizer (71 a), a second polarizer (71b) (Namba: fig. 3, col. 17, lines 3-21), but fails to disclose a Faraday rotator placed between the first polarizer and the second polarizer.
However, Watanabe which relates to optical isolator and thus from analogous art as Inaba teaches a polarization-dependent optical isolator including a first polarizer (1), a second polarizer (2), a Faraday rotator (3) placed between the first polarizer and the second polarizer ([0050], fig. 1).
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 Inaba by incorporating wherein the optical isolator is a polarization-dependent optical isolator including a first polarizer, a second polarizer, and a Faraday rotator placed between the first polarizer and the second polarizer to reduce noise signal.
Regarding claim 5, Inaba, when modified by Namba teaches the electrophoresis device according to claim 1, but fails to disclose wherein the optical isolator is a polarization-independent optical isolator including a first doubly refracting crystal, a second doubly refracting crystal, a Faraday rotator placed between the first doubly refracting crystal and the second doubly refracting crystal, and a half-wave plate placed between the first doubly refracting crystal and the second doubly refracting crystal.
However, Watanabe (US 20190004343 A1) teaches wherein the optical isolator is a polarization-independent optical isolator ([0055]) including a first doubly refracting crystal (birefringence crystal 10), a second doubly refracting crystal (birefringence crystal 11), a Faraday rotator (3) placed between the first doubly refracting crystal and the second doubly refracting crystal, and a half-wave plate (4) placed between the first doubly refracting crystal and the second doubly refracting crystal ([0055], fig. 14). 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 Inaba by incorporating wherein the optical isolator is a polarization-independent optical isolator including a first doubly refracting crystal, a second doubly refracting crystal, a Faraday rotator placed between the first doubly refracting crystal and the second doubly refracting crystal, and a half-wave plate placed between the first doubly refracting crystal and the second doubly refracting crystal to reduce noise signal.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMED DOUMBIA whose telephone number is (571)272-8266. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5:00 PM ET.
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 571-272-3995. 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.
/MOHAMED DOUMBIA/Examiner, Art Unit 2877 /MICHELLE M IACOLETTI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2877
Prosecution Insights