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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, line 1 recites the limitation “An optical device for detecting concentration of nano-scale particle” is grammatically incorrect. The limitation should read “An optical device for detecting a concentration of nano-scale particles”. Claims 2-5 are objected to for their dependence on claim 1.
Claim 1, line 16 recites the limitation “the motor” which lacks antecedent basis. For this examination, the limitation will be read as “a motor”. Claims 2-5 are objected to for their dependence on claim 1.
Claim 1, lines 12-13 recites the limitation “ten number of neutral density filters” is grammatically incorrect and should read “ten neutral density filters”. Claims 2-5 are objected to for their dependence on claim 1.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 control unit” in claim 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 § 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.
Claim 1 is 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.
Claim 1, line 10 recites the limitation “a lens” where the lens is arranged to converge the light beam onto the sample. However, claim 1, line 5 also recites “a lens” and it is unclear whether the lens referenced on line 5 and line 10 refer to the same optical element. For this examination, the limitation will be interpreted as referencing the same optical element and read as “the lens”. Claims 2-5 are rejected for their dependence on claim 1.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shi et al. (US 2020/0158615 A1) in view of Moon et al. (US 2009/0051900 A1) further in view of Goebel et al. (US 2020/0383558 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Shi discloses an optical device (Fig. 2A-B) for detecting a concentration of nano-scale particles, characterized in that: said optical device combines an extinction method and a dynamic light scattering method to detect the concentration of nanoparticles ([0127]),
said optical device comprises a sample pool (201), an APD detector (207), an PD detector (206), a laser device (202), a lens (203), a data acquisition card (102, 103) (Fig. 1B, 2A-B; [0071]; [0098], lines 1-9 and last 12 lines; [0099]; [0124]);
an incident light beam of said laser device is irradiated onto a sample in said sample pool through the lens where the lens is arranged to converge the light beam ([0100]);
a scattered light signal of the sample is received by said APD detector connected to said optical fiber at 90° or backward (Fig. 2A-B; [0103]-[0104]; [0171]);
said PD detector is placed in a 0° direction of laser incidence to detect an intensity of the transmitted laser (Fig. 2A-B; [0103]-[0104]; [0171]).
Shi does not disclose a rotating wheel;
a control unit and a microprocessor having a signal input terminal receiving instructions from said control unit, and an output terminal outputting control signals connected to a motor control loop;
an incident light beam of said laser device is irradiated onto a sample in said sample pool through a neutral density filter and a lens, said neutral density filter is arranged to adjust an intensity of the incident light beam, and the lens is arranged to converge the light beam;
in a light path, neutral density filters are installed in said rotating wheel, ten neutral density filters with different attenuation rates and one light-transmitting hole without filter installed are installed on the rotating wheel, said neutral density filters or said light-transmitting hole without filter installed thereon of said rotating wheel is arranged in the incident light path by rotating a motor.
However, Moon, in the same field of endeavor of particle measurement systems and methods, discloses a rotating wheel (see Fig. 2 showing the wheel with neutral density filter 21 on its surface and its central axis connected to motor 22) (Fig. 2; [0039]; [0050]);
a control unit (10 – control unit) and a microprocessor (2 – output control unit, 23 - controller) having a signal input terminal receiving instructions from said control unit, and an output terminal outputting control signals connected to a motor control loop (Fig. 1-2; [0039]; [0050]; [0053]);
an incident light beam of said laser device is irradiated onto a sample in said sample pool through a neutral density filter and a lens, said neutral density filter is arranged to adjust an intensity of the incident light beam, and the lens is arranged to converge the light beam ([0050]-[0053]);
in a light path, a neutral density filter (21) is installed on the rotating wheel and arranged in the incident light path and is rotated by a motor (22) (Fig. 1-2; [0039]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Shi with a rotating neutral density filter in the path of the incident light, and a control unit to control adjustments to the intensity of the light beam during the measurement process where the motivation would be to keep the output of the light beam at a constant level, improving the accuracy of the measurements made by limiting the influence of variations in laser beam strength or external light conditions (Moon: [0050]; [0053]).
Shi in view of Moon does not explicitly disclose that in a light path, neutral density filters are installed in said rotating wheel, ten neutral density filters with different attenuation rates and one light-transmitting hole without filter installed are installed on the rotating wheel, said neutral density filters or said light-transmitting hole without filter installed thereon of said rotating wheel is arranged in the incident light path by rotating a motor.
However, Goebel, in the same field of endeavor of particle measurement systems and methods, discloses a system where, in a light path, neutral density filters (54) are installed on a rotating wheel (58), ten neutral density filters with different attenuation rates and one light-transmitting hole (though Goebel does not explicitly disclose a light transmitting hole in the rotating wheel, Fig. 2 shows that the neutral density filter 54 can be removed from the light path; it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in art that positioning the neutral density filter outside of the light path is equivalent to allowing the laser beam to pass through a hole in the filter where both features would still require some mechanism for controlling the position of the hole/wheel and yield a reference measurement for light scattered by the sample without a neutral density filter adjustment) without filter installed are installed on the rotating wheel, said neutral density filters or said light-transmitting hole without filter installed thereon of said rotating wheel is arranged in the incident light path by rotating a motor ([0016]-[0017]; [0067], last 2 lines; [0072]; [0074], last 5 lines).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Shi in view of Moon’s with a plurality of neutral density filters on a rotating wheel, where the motivation would be to allow for flexibility in controlling the strength of light reduction where changes in external light conditions or laser strength may have a negative impact on measurement results while also providing predictability compared to continuous variable neutral density filter wheels.
Regarding claim 2, Shi in view of Moon and Goebel discloses the optical device for detecting a concentration of nano-scale particles according to claim 1, as outlined above, and further discloses an optical system characterized in that: said sample pool (201) has a square or rectangular cross section, wherein opposite sides are parallel (See Fig. 2A-B; [0099]).
Regarding claim 3, Shi in view of Moon and Goebel discloses the optical device for detecting a concentration of nano-scale particles according to claim 1, as outlined above, and further discloses an optical system characterized in that: said ten neutral density filters with different attenuation rates and said one light-transmitting hole without filter installed thereon can adjust a light transmission from 100% to one millionth of the light transmission (Goebel: [0016]; [0070]; [0074], lines 5-9).
Regarding claim 4, Shi in view of Moon and Goebel discloses the optical device for detecting a concentration of nano-scale particles according to claim 1, as outlined above, and further discloses an optical system characterized in that: in a process of detecting I0 and detecting the original scattered light signal, said rotating wheel is automatically adjusted by the motor to select an appropriate neutral density filter to adjust an intensity of the incident laser beam, so that the transmitted light I0 is within a linear response range of said PD detector, and the original scattered light signal is within a linear response range of said APD (Goebel: [0025], last 6 lines; [0026]; [0070] – where calibrating the light intensity so “that the background illumination does not outshine the fluorescence in the image camera” is interpreted as implying adjustments to ensure that the measured electrical output is directly proportional to the amount of light entering each detector, i.e. the light signals are within the linear response range of their respective detectors).
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shi et al. (US 2020/0158615 A1) in view of Moon et al. (US 2009/0051900 A1) in view of Goebel et al. (US 2020/0383558 A1) in view of Lerche et al. (US 2022/0334047 A1) further in view of Sevick-Muraca et al. (US 7187441 B1).
Regarding claim 5, Shi in view of Moon and Goebel discloses a detection method applied by said optical device for detecting concentration of nano-scale particle according to claim 1 (Shi: [0127]), as outlined above, but does not explicitly disclose a method characterized in that:
Step 1: collecting the original scattered light signal by said APD detector, processing calculation of correlation function, and performing multi-exponential fitting on the correlation function to obtain a particle size light intensity distribution of the particles in the sample, and by combining a wavelength of the laser, a known refractive index of the particles and a refractive index of a dispersant with Mie theory, converting the light intensity distribution into volume distribution, surface area distribution and number distribution, and the corresponding distribution intensities are all relative values;
Step 2: calculating an average surface area diameter D3,2 of the sample through the surface area distribution; and calculating an average particle size Di of each particle size peak through the volume distribution;
Step 3: collecting light intensity I0 in the transmission direction of the laser beam through a blank dispersant and light intensity IT in the transmission direction after passing through the sample by said PD detector, calculating an extinction coefficient Qe through combining the laser wavelength, the known refractive index of the particles, the refractive index of the dispersant and D3,2 with Mie theory, and calculating a volume fraction Φ of the sample by Qe and D3,2 through the extinction method;
Step 4: calculating a volume fraction Φi of each particle size peak by combining the area content of each particle size peak calculated from the volume distribution and the sample volume fraction;
Step 5: calculating a number concentration of each particle size peak by combining the average particle size within each particle size peak and volume fraction of each peak.
However, Lerche, in the same field of endeavor of particle measurement systems and methods, discloses a method (Fig. 6; [0161]) characterized in that:
Step 1: collecting original scattered light signal by an APD detector, processing calculation of correlation function, and performing multi-exponential fitting on the correlation function to obtain a particle size light intensity distribution of particles in a sample, and by combining a wavelength of a laser, a known refractive index of the particles and a refractive index of a dispersant with Mie theory, converting the light intensity distribution into volume distribution, surface area distribution and number distribution, and the corresponding distribution intensities are all relative values (Fig. 1a, 6 – steps 1, 3; Abstract; [0076]; [0080]; [0090]; [0138]; [0140]-[0142]; [0161] – although Lerche does not explicitly disclose performing multi-exponential fitting on a correlation function, the method discloses determining and/or correcting for deviations in particle size using known quantitative methods e.g., deconvolution, and comparing to experiment in order to obtain number-based distributions of features in the measured total population; therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use alternative known mathematical methods to extract desired properties from measured data and desired distributions).
Step 2: calculating an average surface area diameter D3,2 of the sample through the surface area distribution; and calculating an average particle size Di of each particle size peak through the volume distribution (Fig. 6 – steps 9, 11 and 13; Abstract; [0025]; [0027]; [0032]; [0037] – where calculations of sample/particle properties from derived distributions is interpreted as being obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art);
Step 3: collecting light intensity I0 in a transmission direction of the laser beam through a blank dispersant and light intensity IT in the transmission direction after passing through the sample by a PD detector, calculating an extinction coefficient Qe through combining the laser wavelength, the known refractive index of the particles, the refractive index of the dispersant and D3,2 with Mie theory, and calculating a volume fraction Φ of the sample by Qe and D3,2 through the extinction method (Fig. 6 – steps 9, 11 and 13; [0037]; [0040]-[0041]; [0045]; [0133]; [0169] – though volume fractions are not explicitly disclosed, the method appears to indicate a means for classifying particle fractions according to features including size, shape, refractive index and number of particles requiring a stable laser beam cross-section and utilizing a comparison with reference particles interpreted as the blank dispersant).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Shi in view of Moon and Goebel with a method which is able to determine characteristics of dispersed particles in a sample where the motivation would be to increase the size range that can be measure by the system without the need to change or adapt the geometry of the sample measurement chamber (Lerche: Abstract).
Shi in view of Moon, Goebel and Lerche does not explicitly disclose
Step 4: calculating a volume fraction Φi of each particle size peak by combining the area content of each particle size peak calculated from the volume distribution and the sample volume fraction;
Step 5: calculating a number concentration of each particle size peak by combining the average particle size within each particle size peak and volume fraction of each peak.
However, Sevick-Muraca, in the same field of endeavor of particle measurement systems and methods, discloses a method which calculates a volume fraction Φi of each particle size peak by combining area content of each particle size peak calculated from a volume distribution (interpreted as particle size distribution – see Table 10) and a sample volume fraction (Fig. 2 – steps 520, 530, 543; Abstract; ); calculating a number concentration of each particle size peak by combining the average particle size within each particle size peak and volume fraction of each peak (where the determination of a number concentration from a derived average particle size and volume fraction would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to be a routine mathematical calculation).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Shi in view of Moon, Goebel and Lerche with a method which can iteratively update the particle size distribution and volume fraction, improving the accuracy of size distribution estimates and volume fraction at high concentrations and ascertaining information about the behavior of colloidal suspensions and emulsions (Sevick-Muraca: Col. 20, lines 19-41).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MAHER YAZBACK whose telephone number is (703)756-1456. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 am - 5:30 pm.
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.
/MAHER YAZBACK/Examiner, Art Unit 2877
/MICHELLE M IACOLETTI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2877
