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 informality: In Para. [0007], the Examiner assumes that “DNA is extremely importance” should actually be --DNA is extremely important.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-3, 6-8, and 18-20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1: In Line 8, the Examiner assumes that “sensing laser light;” should actually be --sensing laser light; and--.
Claim 1: In Line 17, the Examiner assumes that “the processor further configured” should actually be --the processor is further configured--.
Claim 2: In Line 1, the Examiner assumes that “the processor further configured” should actually be --the processor is further configured--.
Claim 3: In Line 1, the Examiner assumes that “the processor further configured” should actually be --the processor is further configured--.
Claim 6: In Line 2, the Examiner assumes that “processor further configured” should actually be --processor is further configured--.
Claim 7: In Line 2, the Examiner assumes that “processor further configured” should actually be --processor is further configured--.
Claim 8: In Line 1, the Examiner assumes that “processor further configured” should actually be --processor is further configured--.
Claim 18: In Line 1, the Examiner assumes that “wherein, at the processor” should actually be --further comprising, at the processor--.
Claim 19: In Line 1, the Examiner assumes that “storing chemical analysis data” should actually be --storing the chemical analysis data--.
Claim 20: In Line 6, the Examiner assumes that “sensing laser light;” should actually be --sensing laser light; and--.
Claim 20: In Line 14, the Examiner assumes that “the computer platform further configured” should actually be --the computer platform is further configured--.
Appropriate correction is required.
Applicant is advised that should claim 2 be found allowable, claim 8 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Applicant is advised that should claim 12 be found allowable, claim 18 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Applicant is advised that should claim 15 be found allowable, claim 19 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Applicant is advised that should claim 16 be found allowable, claim 17 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
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 1-9, 16-17, and 19 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.
In claim 1, Lines 13 and 15 recite “the spectrometer”. It is unclear if each of these recitations is referring to the “Raman spectrometer of Line 3 or to the “spectrometer” of Line 7. Therefore, for purposes of examination, the Examiner assumes that “the spectrometer” of Lines 13 and 15 refers to the “spectrometer” of Line 3. For clarity, the Examiner suggests amending “a Raman spectrometer” to --a Raman spectrometry device-- and further ensuring that all recitations to “spectrometer” (such as in claim 5) in the dependent claims refer to the correct element.
Claims 16-17 each recite the limitation "the producing chemical analysis data" in Line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims. Therefore, for purposes of examination, the Examiner assumes that these claims should instead each depend on claim 12.
Claim 19 recites the limitation "the data store" in Line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Therefore, for purposes of examination, the Examiner assumes that “”the data store” should instead be --[[the]] a data store--.
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 1-2, 5-12, and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McLaughlin et al. (“Circumventing substrate interference in the Raman spectroscopic identification of blood stains”, For. Sci. Intl. 231 (2013), pp. 157-166), hereinafter McLaughlin, in view of Creasey et al. (US 2024/0353336), hereinafter Creasey.
Claim 1: McLaughlin discloses a system to perform spectroscopic analysis on a fluid sample on an interfering substrate (Abstract), comprising:
a Raman spectrometry device (“Renishaw inVia Raman microscope”, Page 158, L col, 4th ¶), and
a processor (“GRAMS/AI 7.01 software”, Page 158, L col, 4th ¶),
wherein the spectrometer (“Renishaw inVia Raman microscope”) selectively probes a remote fluid sample on a substrate (“dilute blood stains on cotton”) that produces interfering light scatter thereby obtaining spectroscopic data therefrom that contains the interfering light scatter (“Spectra were collected under normal confocality settings”… GRAMS/AI 7.01 software was used for spectral subtraction and comparison”), and the spectrometer further relays the spectroscopic data to the processor for analysis (Page 158, L col, 4th ¶), and
wherein the processor further configured to isolate the interfering light scatter (“eliminate interfering contributions”) from the spectroscopic data to thereby produce chemical analysis data for the fluid sample (P. 157, R col, 3rd ¶ - P. 158, L col, 1st ¶).
McLaughlin is silent with respect to the particular configuration of the Raman spectrometry device.
Creasey, however, in the same field of endeavor of Raman spectroscopy, discloses a system to perform spectroscopic analysis on a fluid sample, comprising:
a Raman spectrometry device (100b, Figs. 1A-1C), including:
a body (probe housing: “As shown in FIG. 1A, the portable Raman probe with spectrometer 100a is a small, hand-held device that directs emitted light 110 towards container 104” [0030]), including:
a computer platform (140) in selective communication with other computer devices (“the spectra refinement machine-learning model 140 is given a noisy spectrum and generates a clean, clear, and usable Raman spectrum, which can be used for substance identification” [0062]);
a spectrometer (150) selectively receiving and recording a light scatter (“the spectrometer 150 is an optical emission spectrometer that shows light intensities as a function of wavelength and/or frequency” [0064]);
a laser (120) selectively projecting a sensing laser light (“the light source 120 is a collimated light source of one or more laser diodes (“lasers”) that emit a light path or a light beam” [0055]); and
a focusing optic (126) through which passes the sensing laser light (“the focusing element 126 directs light from the light source 120 from inside the probe toward a sample substance” [0058]) and the light scatter (“the focusing element 126 includes the collection lens 128” [0059]); and
a processor (101) in selective communication with the computer platform (140) of the body across a network (“FIG. 1B shows a wireless transmission of data from the portable Raman probe 100b to the computing device 101” [0045]).
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 McLaughlin’s system with Creasey’s Raman spectrometry device for the purpose of using a portable Raman probe that allows for data to be obtained remotely.
Claims 2,8: McLaughlin further discloses wherein the processor is further configured to produce chemical analysis data by including the interfering light scatter as a component with the chemical analysis data (Figs. 3-5,7-8).
Claim 5: McLaughlin does not explicitly disclose a data store.
Creasey, however, further discloses a data store in selective communication with the processor (101) and the computer platform (140) of the spectrometer (150) (“a trained version of the model is stored on a memory chip or device and/or executed by a microprocessor on a portable Raman probe” [0133]; “The computer system 1500 also includes memory 1503 in electronic communication with the processor 1501” [0200]).
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 McLaughlin’s system with a data store for the purpose of allowing the analysis and data processing to be performed, since a memory (RAM) is a standard part of a processing system.
Claim 6: McLaughlin further discloses wherein the fluid sample is human blood (Abstract) and the processor is further configured to produce chemical analysis data for human blood (all of Section 3, including Figs. 3-8).
Claim 7: McLaughlin further discloses wherein the fluid sample is human semen (P. 165, R col, 4th ¶) and the processor is further configured to produce chemical analysis data for human semen (see Table 2).
Claim 9: McLaughlin does not explicitly disclose locating the processor remotely from the spectrometer.
Creasey, however, further discloses wherein the processor (101) is located remotely from the spectrometer (150) (“FIG. 1B shows a wireless transmission of data from the portable Raman probe 100b to the computing device 101” [0045]; “The disclosure may also be practiced in distributed system environments where local and remote computer systems, which are linked (either by hardwired data links, wireless data links, or by a combination of hardwired and wireless data links) through a network (i.e., computer network), both perform tasks” [0205]).
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 McLaughlin’s system by locating the processor remotely from the spectrometer for the purpose of being able to efficiently perform sample analysis in the field.
Claim 10: McLaughlin discloses a method of utilizing Raman spectroscopy to detect and identify human body fluid traces (e.g. blood) in a fluid sample on a light scattering substrate (Abstract), comprising:
scanning a fluid sample with a Raman spectrometer having a body thereof (“Renishaw inVia Raman microscope”, Page 158, L col, 4th ¶);
collecting spectroscopic data from a fluid sample at the spectrometer (“Spectra were collected under normal confocality settings”), the fluid sample upon a light scattering substrate (“dilute blood stains on cotton”, Page 158, L col, 4th ¶);
analyzing received spectroscopic data at a processor (“GRAMS/AI 7.01 software was used for spectral subtraction and comparison”, Page 158, L col, 4th ¶); and
isolating, at the processor, an interfering light scatter (“eliminate interfering contributions”) from the spectroscopic data to thereby produce chemical analysis data for the fluid sample (P. 157, R col, 3rd ¶ - P. 158, L col, 1st ¶).
McLaughlin is silent with respect to the particular configuration of the Raman spectrometer.
Creasey, however, in the same field of endeavor of Raman spectroscopy, discloses a method of utilizing Raman spectroscopy (with apparatus 100b, Figs. 1A-1C) to detect and identify fluids within a fluid sample, comprising:
scanning a fluid sample with a portable Raman spectrometer (100b) having a body (probe housing: “As shown in FIG. 1A, the portable Raman probe with spectrometer 100a is a small, hand-held device that directs emitted light 110 towards container 104” [0030]) thereof including a computer platform (140) in selective communication with other computer devices across a network (“the spectra refinement machine-learning model 140 is given a noisy spectrum and generates a clean, clear, and usable Raman spectrum, which can be used for substance identification” [0062]), the Raman spectrometer (100b) selectively receiving and recording a light scatter (“the spectrometer 150 is an optical emission spectrometer that shows light intensities as a function of wavelength and/or frequency” [0064]) from a laser (120) selectively projecting a sensing laser (“the light source 120 is a collimated light source of one or more laser diodes (“lasers”) that emit a light path or a light beam” [0055]); and
transmitting the spectroscopic data from the computer platform (140) of the spectrometer (100b) to a processor (101) across a network, the processor (101) in selective communication with the computer platform (140) of the body across the network (“FIG. 1B shows a wireless transmission of data from the portable Raman probe 100b to the computing device 101” [0045]).
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 McLaughlin’s method with Creasey’s method for the purpose of using a portable Raman probe that allows for data to be obtained remotely.
Claim 11: McLaughlin does not explicitly disclose communicating chemical analysis data from the processor to the computer platform of the spectrometer.
Creasey, however, further discloses communicating chemical analysis data from the processor (101) to the computer platform (140) of the spectrometer (100b) (“FIG. 1B shows a wireless transmission of data from the portable Raman probe 100b to the computing device 101” [0045]).
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 McLaughlin’s method with two-way communication between the spectrometer and the processor for the purpose of enhancing the analysis of detected fluids.
Claims 12,18: McLaughlin further discloses, at the processor, producing chemical analysis data by including the interfering light scatter as a component with the chemical analysis data (Figs. 3-5,7-8).
Claims 15,19: McLaughlin does not explicitly disclose storing the chemical analysis data at a data store.
Creasey, however, further discloses storing data at a data store in selective communication with the processor (101) (“a trained version of the model is stored on a memory chip or device and/or executed by a microprocessor on a portable Raman probe” [0133]; “The computer system 1500 also includes memory 1503 in electronic communication with the processor 1501” [0200]).
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 McLaughlin’s method by storing data at a data store for the purpose of allowing the analysis and data processing to be performed, since a memory (RAM) is a standard part of a processing system. It is evident then, in McLaughlin’s modified method, that it is the chemical analysis data that are being stored at the data store.
Claims 16-17: McLaughlin further discloses wherein the fluid sample is human blood (Abstract) and producing chemical analysis data is producing chemical analysis data for human blood (all of Section 3, including Figs. 3-8).
Claim 20: McLaughlin discloses a device for detecting human body fluid traces (e.g. blood) in a fluid sample on an interfering substrate (Abstract), comprising:
a body including a spectrometer (“Renishaw inVia Raman microscope”, Page 158, L col, 4th ¶),
wherein the spectrometer (“Renishaw inVia Raman microscope”) projects sensing light to selectively probes a remote fluid sample on a substrate (“dilute blood stains on cotton”) that produces interfering light scatter, the spectrometer thereby obtaining spectroscopic data therefrom that contains the interfering light scatter (“Spectra were collected under normal confocality settings”… GRAMS/AI 7.01 software was used for spectral subtraction and comparison”), and the spectroscopic data is relayed to a computer platform (“GRAMS/AI 7.01 software”) for analysis (Page 158, L col, 4th ¶), and
wherein the processor further configured to isolate the interfering light scatter (“eliminate interfering contributions”) from the spectroscopic data to thereby produce chemical analysis data for the fluid sample (P. 157, R col, 3rd ¶ - P. 158, L col, 1st ¶).
McLaughlin is silent with respect to the particular configuration of the body.
Creasey, however, in the same field of endeavor of Raman spectroscopy, discloses a device (100b, Figs. 1A-1C) for detecting fluid traces in a fluid sample, comprising:
a body (probe housing: “As shown in FIG. 1A, the portable Raman probe with spectrometer 100a is a small, hand-held device that directs emitted light 110 towards container 104” [0030]), including:
a computer platform (140) in selective communication with a network (“the spectra refinement machine-learning model 140 is given a noisy spectrum and generates a clean, clear, and usable Raman spectrum, which can be used for substance identification” [0062]);
a spectrometer (150) selectively receiving and recording a light scatter (“the spectrometer 150 is an optical emission spectrometer that shows light intensities as a function of wavelength and/or frequency” [0064]);
a laser (120) selectively projecting a sensing laser light (“the light source 120 is a collimated light source of one or more laser diodes (“lasers”) that emit a light path or a light beam” [0055]); and
a focusing optic (126) through which passes the sensing laser light (“the focusing element 126 directs light from the light source 120 from inside the probe toward a sample substance” [0058]) and the light scatter (“the focusing element 126 includes the collection lens 128” [0059]).
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 McLaughlin’s device with Creasey’s body for the purpose of using a portable Raman probe that allows for data to be obtained remotely.
Claims 3 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McLaughlin, in view of Creasey as applied to claims 2 and 12 above, and further in view of Stark et al. (US 5,568,400), hereinafter Stark.
Claims 3,13: McLaughlin is silent with respect to the processor performing a multivariate curve resolution.
Stark, however, although not in the same field of endeavor, is nevertheless concerned with the same problem of “processing spectral data… to remove interfering information present in the data” (Abstract). Stark discloses a processor configured to perform a multivariate curve resolution on spectroscopic data based on a bilinear model of a complex mixture spectrum (Col. 2, Lines 23-34).
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 McLaughlin’s processor so that it is configured to perform multivariate curve resolution based on a bilinear model for the purpose of “remov[ing] interfering information present in the data” (Stark, Abstract).
Claims 4 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McLaughlin, in view of Creasey as applied to claims 2 and 12 above, and further in view of Liu et al. (US 2016/0132617), hereinafter Liu.
Claims 4,14: McLaughlin is silent with respect to determining a component concentration.
Liu, however, in the same field of endeavor of Raman spectroscopy, discloses a processor that determines a component concentration in spectroscopic data from a predetermined IR absorption spectrum of a complex gas mixture (“In-the-field identification of background components using Raman spectroscopy can be used in conjunction with systems that detect and/or quantify a concentration of one or more trace analytes in a gas mixture that includes a complex and/or varying background of other compounds whose spectral absorbance characteristics may or may not overlap with those of the trace analyte(s)” [0030]).
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 McLaughlin’s processor to determine a component concentration of a complex gas mixture for the purpose of “improv[ing] identification and/or quantification of the one or more analyte compounds in the gas mixture” (Liu [0030]).
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