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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 6/2/2025 was considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Applicant is advised that should claim 18 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).
Claims 6, 10, and 18-19 are objected to because of the following informalities: Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claims 6 and 10, “the membrane” should read “the collection membrane”.
Regarding claims 14 and 16, “a holding structure to hold a collection membrane” should read “a holding structure to hold the collection membrane” since the term was already established in line 1.
Regarding claims 18 and 19, the claims recite “causes the device of claim 16 to carry out a third step and a fourth step and a fifth step of a method by a computer”, in line 2, however, the claim later recites “a third step”, “a fourth step”, and “a fifth step” in lines 11-15. These should instead read “the third step”, “the fourth step”, and “the fifth step” since the terms were already established in line 2.
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: “light emitting unit” in claims 14 and 16.
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.
Regarding claims 14 and 16, the claims recite “light emitting unit” which uses the generic placeholder “unit” 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. Accordingly, the limitation on “light emitting unit” is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) as corresponding to an structure capable of emitting light for example a laser, light source, lamp, or equivalent.
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 4-12 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.
Regarding claims 4 and 8, the claims recite “wherein the collection membrane has determined optical properties and wherein said at least one optical property of the particles is determined by collecting the optical property of the particles by a sensor unit which is arranged on the side of the second surface and an optical value is determined, wherein, in the third step, a correction factor is calculated based on the optical value”. It is unclear what is meant by “and an optical value is determined”. Is the optical value related to the optical property of the particles determined by the sensor unit? Is it based on both the determined optical properties and the optical property of the particles? Further, is the “correction factor” recited in the next line the same as the correction factor from claim 1? If so, then it appears the optical value is related to the at least one additional physical property. For the purposes of examination, the optical value is related to the at least one additional physical property and the correction factor is the same correction factor recited in claim 1. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 5 and 9, the claims recite “the measured optical value”, however, claims 4 and 8 recite that “an optical value is determined”. Is the measured optical value the same as the determined optical value? For the purposes of examination, “the measured value” is the same as the optical value in claims 4 and 8 which are related to the at least one additional physical property. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 6 and 10, the claims recite “the specific material” in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Is the “specific material” the same as “the pure material”? For the purposes of examination, “the specific material” is interpreted to be the same as “the pure material”. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 7 and 11, the claims recite “a comparison is made between the measured optical value and the optical value of the pure material”. Similar to claim 5, is the measured optical value the same as the determined optical value? Further, there is insufficient antecedent basis for in “the optical value of the pure material” in the claim. Is this the same as “the optical property of the pure material” recited in claims 6 and 10? For the purposes of examination, “the measured value” is the same as the optical value in claims 4 and 8 which are related to the at least one additional physical property and the optical value of the pure material is related to the optical property of the pure material. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 12, the claim recites the limitation " the second property" in the last line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It appears that second property is the same as the additional physical property and the claim will be interpreted as such for the purposes of examination. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US20230304935A1 by Matousek et al. (hereinafter "Matousek") in view of US20180073985A1 by Bieri et al. (hereinafter "Bieri") and Moles quantification in liquid samples by Raman spectroscopy by Sato-Berrú et al (hereinafter "Sato-Berrú").
Regarding claim 1, Matousek teaches a method (at least Fig. 1-3, and 7) to quantify a property of the particles in a sample ([0020]; [0009]; [0049] properties may typically include a relative concentration of a component of interest within the sample),
wherein, in a first step, the particles are scanned with a Raman spectrometer and a preliminary Raman signal is collected ([0079] target feature detector 58 which is arranged to measure a plurality of target Raman spectral features T in the spectrum S which are to be used to quantify a property P of the sample),
wherein, in a second step, at least one additional physical property of the particles is determined ([0079] determined spectral distortion; [0008] spectral distortion due to absorption and diffuse scattering),
wherein, in a third step, a correction factor is calculated based on the at least one additional physical property ([0007]-[0008] correct for this distortion in the quantification of properties of the sample; [0076]; [0011] The spectra distortion present in Raman spectral data for a particular sample can be compensated for with reference to corresponding measurements on one or more calibration samples),
wherein, in a fourth step, a final Raman signal is calculated based on the correction factor and the preliminary Raman signal ([0012] using the target Raman spectral features in combination with the determined spectral distortion, such that the quantified property is compensated for the spectral distortion), and
wherein, in a fifth step, the property of the particles is determined based on the final Raman signal ([0012]; [0069] the quantified property).
Although Matousek teaches the sample having a first surface and a second surface ([0055] a first surface 14 and a second surface 18 of the sample 12) and the delivery and collection regions may be on the same surface of the sample rather than on opposing surfaces ([0059]), Matousek is silent particles collected on a collection membrane having a first surface and a second surface, whereby the particles to be analysed are deposited on the first surface and the particles of the first surface are scanned.
However, Bieri does address this limitation. Bieri and Matousek are analogous to the present invention as they are in the same field of Raman spectroscopy.
Bieri teaches particles collected on a collection membrane (collection element 7; [0094]) having a first surface (collection surface 8; [0094]) and a second surface (bottom surface of collection element 7; [0094]);, whereby the particles to be analysed are deposited on the first surface and the particles of the first surface are scanned ([0111] the collection surface 8 with the nano particles N can be scanned such the amount of collected nano particles can be analysed; [0113] Raman spectroscopy).
It would have been well known to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a collection membrane for Raman spectroscopy. Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify Matousek to apply the method to articles collected on a collection membrane having a first surface and a second surface, whereby the particles to be analysed are deposited on the first surface and the particles of the first surface are scanned as suggested by Bieri in order to use surface enhanced Raman scattering to improve the measurement ([0010]-[0011]; [0018]).
Further, although Matousek teaches the determined properties may include measurements of concentrations or quantities, of one or more active ingredients or other components ([[049]), Matousek is silent as to a method to determine an actual mass of particles wherein, in a fifth step, the actual mass of the particles is determined based on the final Raman signal.
However, Sato-Berrú does address this limitation. Sato-Berrú and Matousek are considered to be analogous to the present invention as they are in the same field of Raman spectroscopy.
Sato-Berrú teaches that the actual mass of the particles can be determined based on the final Raman signal based on a mathematical relationship (Abstract; page 56 col 2, par. 3 a mathematical expression can be adjusted to monitor the amount of sample mass that is transferred to a smaller volume; page 57 col 1 par. 2 sample mass can be determined; page 56 col 1, par 1 a calibration procedure can be used to determine the relationship between peak intensity and sample concentration which can be correlated to mass).
It would have been well known to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to perform a quantitative determination using Raman signals. Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify Matousek to include a method to determine an actual mass of particles wherein, in a fifth step, the actual mass of the particles is determined based on the final Raman signal as suggested by Sato-Berrú in order to provide a simple method for determining the actual mass of any sample (Sato-Berrú col 1 par 3 simple mathematical relationship to get a quantitative value, as a first approximation for any sample studied).
Regarding claim 2, Matousek modified by Bieri and Sato-Berrú teach the method according to claim 1, and Matousek further teaches wherein the at least one additional physical property is an optical property of the particles or at least one optical property of the particles ([0013] the spectral distortion may arise from one or both of light absorption and diffuse scattering of the probe light).
Regarding claim 3, Matousek modified by Bieri and Sato-Berrú teach the method according to claim 2, and Matousek further teaches wherein the at least one additional physical property is an optical property of the particles or at least one optical property of the particles ([0013] the spectral distortion may arise from one or both of light absorption and diffuse scattering of the probe light).
Regarding claim 4, Matousek modified by Bieri and Sato-Berrú teach the method according to claim 1, and Matousek further teaches wherein the at least one additional physical property is an optical property of the particles or at least one optical property of the particles ([0013] the spectral distortion may arise from one or both of light absorption and diffuse scattering of the probe light),
wherein said at least one optical property of the particles is determined by collecting the optical property of the particles by a sensor unit which is arranged on the side of the second surface and an optical value is determined ([0070] distortion detector 50; [0055] a collection region 17 on a second surface 18 of the sample by collection optics 20),
wherein, in the third step, a correction factor is calculated based on the optical value ([0007]-[0008] correct for this distortion in the quantification of properties of the sample; [0076]; [0011] The spectra distortion present in Raman spectral data for a particular sample can be compensated for with reference to corresponding measurements on one or more calibration samples), and
wherein, in the fourth step, the final Raman signal is calculated based on the correction factor and the preliminary Raman signal in order to determine the actual mass in the fifth step ([0012]).
Matousek is silent as to wherein the collection membrane has determined optical properties.
However, Bieri does address this limitation.
Bieri teaches wherein the collection membrane has determined optical properties ([0094] collection element 7 comprises a collection surface 8 and an enhancement structure 9; [0006] the collection membrane has determined optical properties for enhancement).
It would have been well known to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the collection membrane would have optical properties. Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify Matousek to include wherein the collection membrane has determined optical properties as suggested by Bieri in order to provide more data to improve the measurement.
Regarding claim 5, Matousek modified by Bieri and Sato-Berrú teach the method according to claim 4, and Matousek further teaches wherein the correction factor is obtained by comparing the measured optical value with a calibrated optical value ([0011] spectral distortion observed in a sample under test can effectively be fitted to an interpolation between such calibration measurements).
Regarding claim 6, Matousek modified by Bieri and Sato-Berrú teach the method according to claim 5, and Matousek further teaches wherein the calibrated optical value is determined by a calibration step, whereby the calibration step comprises the steps of:
arranging a calibration sample for detection ([0022] distortion model may be trained using one or more, and typically a plurality of sets of measured calibration spectral features measured by testing one or more calibration samples);
collecting a Raman signal of the calibration sample ([0022] Raman scattering);
determining a mathematical function that correlates an intensity of the collected Raman signal to the quantified optical property for the calibration sample ([0022] distortion model; [0019] a quantification model which then provides the property of the sample), and
measuring the optical property of the pure material to obtain said calibrated optical value ([0019]; [0023] interpolate between the sets of calibration spectral features).
Matousek is silent as to depositing a determined mass of a pure material on the first surface of the membrane; collecting a Raman signal of said determined mass of the pure material.
However, Bieri does address this limitation.
Bieri teaches the collection element comprises a reference section on which a determined reference or calibration information is placed and this information can be used when determining the amount of nano-particles ([0035]).
It would have been well known to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a calibration sample such as determined mass of a pure material. Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify Matousek to include depositing a determined mass of a pure material on the first surface of the membrane and collecting a Raman signal of said determined mass of the pure material as suggested by Bieri in order to provide calibration to improve the measurement.
Further, Matousek is silent as to determining a mathematical function that correlates an intensity of the collected Raman signal to the mass for the specific material, and measuring the optical property of the pure material to obtain said calibrated optical value.
However, Sato-Berrú does address this limitation.
Sato-Berrú teaches determining a mathematical function that correlates an intensity of the collected Raman signal to the mass for the specific material, and measuring the optical property of the pure material to obtain said calibrated optical value (Abstract; page 56 col 2, par. 3 a mathematical expression can be adjusted to monitor the amount of sample mass that is transferred to a smaller volume; page 57 col 1 par. 2 sample mass can be determined; page 56 col 1, par 1 a calibration procedure can be used to determine the relationship between peak intensity and sample concentration which can be correlated to mass).
It would have been well known to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a mathematical function to correlate Raman signals for quantitative determinations. Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify Matousek to include determining a mathematical function that correlates an intensity of the collected Raman signal to the mass for the specific material, and measuring the optical property of the pure material to obtain said calibrated optical value as suggested by Sato-Berrú in order to provide a simple method for determining the actual mass of any sample (Sato-Berrú col 1 par 3 simple mathematical relationship to get a quantitative value, as a first approximation for any sample studied).
Regarding claim 7, Matousek modified by Bieri and Sato-Berrú teach the method according to claim 6, and Matousek further teaches wherein, before the third step, a comparison is made between the measured optical value and the optical value of the pure material ([0011]; [0023] distortion model),
wherein, if the measured optical value is within a range expected for the optical value of the pure material, the correction factor is set to a value of 1 ([0011]; [0023], if the measured optical value is the same as the calibration value, there is no need to interpolate and it will align with the model); and
wherein, if the measured optical value is not within the expected range of the optical value of the pure material, the correction factor is calculated as a ratio between the measured optical value and the optical value of the pure material ([0011]; [0023] the distortion model can interpolate between the sets of calibration spectral features to match a particular set of reference spectral features and determine the spectral distortion represented by those reference spectral features; [0074]).
Regarding claim 8, Matousek modified by Bieri and Sato-Berrú teach the method according to claim 1, and Matousek further teaches wherein the additional physical property is an optical property of the particles or at least one optical property of the particles (([0013]),
wherein said optical property is an absorption property and/or a transmission property and/or any other property related to an interaction of the particles with light as provided by the Raman spectrometer ([0013] the spectral distortion may arise from one or both of light absorption and diffuse scattering of the probe light),
wherein said at least one optical property of the particles is determined by collecting the optical property of the particles by a sensor unit which is arranged on the side of the second surface and an optical value is determined ([0070] distortion detector 50; [0055] a collection region 17 on a second surface 18 of the sample by collection optics 20),
wherein, in the third step, a correction factor is calculated based on the optical value ([0007]-[0008] correct for this distortion in the quantification of properties of the sample; [0076]; [0011] The spectra distortion present in Raman spectral data for a particular sample can be compensated for with reference to corresponding measurements on one or more calibration samples), and
wherein, in the fourth step, the final Raman signal is calculated based on the correction factor and the preliminary Raman signal in order to determine the actual mass in the fifth step ([0012]).
Matousek is silent as to wherein the collection membrane has determined optical properties.
However, Bieri does address this limitation.
Bieri teaches wherein the collection membrane has determined optical properties ([0094] collection element 7 comprises a collection surface 8 and an enhancement structure 9; [0006] the collection membrane has determined optical properties for enhancement).
It would have been well known to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the collection membrane would have optical properties. Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify Matousek to include wherein the collection membrane has determined optical properties as suggested by Bieri in order to provide more data to improve the measurement.
Regarding claim 9, Matousek modified by Bieri and Sato-Berrú teach the method according to claim 8, and Matousek further teaches wherein the correction factor is obtained by comparing the measured optical value with a calibrated optical value ([0011] spectral distortion observed in a sample under test can effectively be fitted to an interpolation between such calibration measurements).
Regarding claim 10, Matousek modified by Bieri and Sato-Berrú teach the method according to claim 9, and Matousek further teaches wherein the calibrated optical value is determined by a calibration step, whereby the calibration step comprises the steps of:
arranging a calibration sample for detection ([0022] distortion model may be trained using one or more, and typically a plurality of sets of measured calibration spectral features measured by testing one or more calibration samples);
collecting a Raman signal of the calibration sample ([0022] Raman scattering);
determining a mathematical function that correlates an intensity of the collected Raman signal to the quantified optical property for the calibration sample ([0022] distortion model; [0019] a quantification model which then provides the property of the sample), and
measuring the optical property of the pure material to obtain said calibrated optical value ([0019]; [0023] interpolate between the sets of calibration spectral features).
Matousek is silent as to depositing a determined mass of a pure material on the first surface of the membrane; collecting a Raman signal of said determined mass of the pure material.
However, Bieri does address this limitation.
Bieri teaches the collection element comprises a reference section on which a determined reference or calibration information is placed, and this information can be used when determining the amount of nano-particles ([0035]).
It would have been well known to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a calibration sample such as determined mass of a pure material. Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify Matousek to include depositing a determined mass of a pure material on the first surface of the membrane and collecting a Raman signal of said determined mass of the pure material as suggested by Bieri in order to provide calibration to improve the measurement.
Further, Matousek is silent as to determining a mathematical function that correlates an intensity of the collected Raman signal to the mass for the specific material, and measuring the optical property of the pure material to obtain said calibrated optical value.
However, Sato-Berrú does address this limitation.
Sato-Berrú teaches determining a mathematical function that correlates an intensity of the collected Raman signal to the mass for the specific material, and measuring the optical property of the pure material to obtain said calibrated optical value (Abstract; page 56 col 2, par. 3 a mathematical expression can be adjusted to monitor the amount of sample mass that is transferred to a smaller volume; page 57 col 1 par. 2 sample mass can be determined; page 56 col 1, par 1 a calibration procedure can be used to determine the relationship between peak intensity and sample concentration which can be correlated to mass).
It would have been well known to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a mathematical function to correlate Raman signals for quantitative determinations. Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify Matousek to include determining a mathematical function that correlates an intensity of the collected Raman signal to the mass for the specific material, and measuring the optical property of the pure material to obtain said calibrated optical value as suggested by Sato-Berrú in order to provide a simple method for determining the actual mass of any sample (Sato-Berrú col 1 par 3 simple mathematical relationship to get a quantitative value, as a first approximation for any sample studied).
Regarding claim 11, Matousek modified by Bieri and Sato-Berrú teach the method according to claim 10, and Matousek further teaches wherein, before the third step, a comparison is made between the measured optical value and the optical value of the pure material ([0011]; [0023] distortion model),
wherein, if the measured optical value is within a range expected for the optical value of the pure material, the correction factor is set to a value of 1 ([0011]; [0023], if the measured optical value is the same as the calibration value, there is no need to interpolate and it will align with the model); and
wherein, if the measured optical value is not within the expected range of the optical value of the pure material, the correction factor is calculated as a ratio between the measured optical value and the optical value of the pure material ([0011]; [0023] the distortion model can interpolate between the sets of calibration spectral features to match a particular set of reference spectral features and determine the spectral distortion represented by those reference spectral features; [0074]).
Regarding claim 12, Matousek modified by Bieri and Sato-Berrú teach the method according to claim 1, but Matousek is silent as to wherein a complete surface of the collection membrane is scanned in the first step and wherein the complete surface of the collection membrane is taken into account to determine the additional physical property; or wherein an acquisition area or a plurality of acquisition points on the complete surface of the collection membrane is scanned in the first step and wherein the acquisition area or the plurality of acquisition points on the complete surface of the collection membrane is taken into account to determine the second property.
However, Bieri does address this limitation.
Bieri teaches wherein a complete surface of the collection membrane is scanned in the first step and wherein the complete surface of the collection membrane is taken into account to determine the additional physical property; or wherein an acquisition area or a plurality of acquisition points on the complete surface of the collection membrane is scanned in the first step and wherein the acquisition area or the plurality of acquisition points on the complete surface of the collection membrane is taken into account to determine the second property ([0111] the collection surface 8 with the nano particles N can be scanned such the amount of collected nano particles can be analysed; [0113])
It would have been well known to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to scan an acquisition area to gather data. Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify Matousek to include wherein a complete surface of the collection membrane is scanned in the first step and wherein the complete surface of the collection membrane is taken into account to determine the additional physical property; or wherein an acquisition area or a plurality of acquisition points on the complete surface of the collection membrane is scanned in the first step and wherein the acquisition area or the plurality of acquisition points on the complete surface of the collection membrane is taken into account to determine the second property as suggested by Bieri in order to provide a more complete measurement of the sample.
Regarding claim 13, Matousek modified by Bieri and Sato-Berrú teach the method according to claim 1, and Matousek further teaches wherein the third step and the fourth step and the fifth step are carried out by a computer (Fig. 2; [0064] analyzer 30).
Regarding claim 14, Matousek modified by Bieri and Sato-Berrú teach the method according to claim 1, and Matousek further teaches a device to quantify a property of particles in a sample ([0020]; [0009]; [0049] properties may typically include a relative concentration of a component of interest within the sample) according to a method as claimed in claim 1, the device comprising (at least Fig. 1-3, and 7):
a Raman spectrometer ([0079] target feature detector 58) with a light emitting unit ([0060] laser light source 22) configured to scan the particles and to collect a preliminary Raman signal ([0079] target feature detector 58 which is arranged to measure a plurality of target Raman spectral features T in the spectrum S which are to be used to quantify a property P of the sample),
a sensor unit ([0070] distortion detector 50) configured to determine at least one additional physical property of the particles ([0079] determined spectral distortion; [0008] spectral distortion due to absorption and diffuse scattering), and
a computer (Fig. 2; [0064] analyzer 30) configured to calculate a correction factor based on the additional physical property ([0007]-[0008] correct for this distortion in the quantification of properties of the sample; [0076]; [0011] The spectra distortion present in Raman spectral data for a particular sample can be compensated for with reference to corresponding measurements on one or more calibration samples), and to calculate a final Raman signal based on the correction factor and the preliminary Raman signal in order to determine the quantified property of the particles ([0012] using the target Raman spectral features in combination with the determined spectral distortion, such that the quantified property is compensated for the spectral distortion).
Although Matousek teaches the sample having a first surface and a second surface ([0055] a first surface 14 and a second surface 18 of the sample 12) and the delivery and collection regions may be on the same surface of the sample rather than on opposing surfaces ([0059]), Matousek is silent as to particles collected on a collection membrane, a holding structure to hold a collection membrane having a first surface and a second surface, whereby the particles to be analysed are deposited on the first surface and to scan the particles of the first surface.
However, Bieri does address this limitation.
Bieri teaches particles collected on a collection membrane (collection element 7; [0094]), holding structure ([0049] support plate) to hold a collection membrane having a first surface (collection surface 8; [0094]) and a second surface (bottom surface of collection element 7; [0094]); whereby the particles to be analysed are deposited on the first surface and the particles of the first surface are scanned ([0111] the collection surface 8 with the nano particles N can be scanned such the amount of collected nano particles can be analysed; [0113] Raman spectroscopy).
It would have been well known to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a collection membrane for Raman spectroscopy. Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify Matousek to particles collected on a collection membrane, a holding structure to hold a collection membrane having a first surface and a second surface, and to scan the particles of the first surface as suggested by Bieri in order to use surface enhanced Raman scattering to improve the measurement ([0010]-[0011]; [0018]).
Although, Matousek teaches the determined properties may include measurements of concentrations or quantities, of one or more active ingredients or other components ([[049]), Matousek is silent as to a device to determine an actual mass of particles which includes a computer configured to calculate a final Raman signal based on the correction factor and the preliminary Raman signal in order to determine the actual mass of the particles.
However, Sato-Berrú does address this limitation.
Sato-Berrú teaches that the actual mass of the particles can be determined based on the final Raman signal based on a mathematical relationship (Abstract; page 56 col 2, par. 3 a mathematical expression can be adjusted to monitor the amount of sample mass that is transferred to a smaller volume; page 57 col 1 par. 2 sample mass can be determined; page 56 col 1, par 1 a calibration procedure can be used to determine the relationship between peak intensity and sample concentration which can be correlated to mass).
It would have been well known to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to perform a quantitative determination using Raman signals. Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify Matousek to include a device to determine an actual mass of particles which includes a computer configured to calculate a final Raman signal based on the correction factor and the preliminary Raman signal in order to determine the actual mass of the particles as suggested by Sato-Berrú in order to provide a simple method for determining the actual mass of any sample (Sato-Berrú col 1 par 3 simple mathematical relationship to get a quantitative value, as a first approximation for any sample studied).
Regarding claim 15, Matousek modified by Bieri and Sato-Berrú teach the device according to claim 14, and Matousek further teaches wherein the sensor unit is an optical sensor unit configured to determine at least one optical property of the particles ([0070] distortion detector 50), wherein the optical sensor is arranged on a side of the second surface of the collection membrane ([0070] distortion detector 50; [0055] a collection region 17 on a second surface 18 of the sample by collection optics 20).
Regarding claim 16, Matousek teaches a device to quantify a property of particles in a sample ([0020]; [0009]; [0049] properties may typically include a relative concentration of a component of interest within the sample) according to a method as claimed in claim 1, the device comprising (at least Fig. 1-3, and 7):
a Raman spectrometer ([0079] target feature detector 58) with a light emitting unit ([0060] laser light source 22) configured to scan the particles and to collect a preliminary Raman signal ([0079] target feature detector 58 which is arranged to measure a plurality of target Raman spectral features T in the spectrum S which are to be used to quantify a property P of the sample),
a sensor unit ([0070] distortion detector 50) configured to determine at least one additional physical property of the particles ([0079] determined spectral distortion; [0008] spectral distortion due to absorption and diffuse scattering), and
a computer (Fig. 2; [0064] analyzer 30) configured to calculate a correction factor based on the additional physical property ([0007]-[0008] correct for this distortion in the quantification of properties of the sample; [0076]; [0011] The spectra distortion present in Raman spectral data for a particular sample can be compensated for with reference to corresponding measurements on one or more calibration samples), and to calculate a final Raman signal based on the correction factor and the preliminary Raman signal in order to determine the quantified property of the particles ([0012] using the target Raman spectral features in combination with the determined spectral distortion, such that the quantified property is compensated for the spectral distortion).
Although Matousek teaches the sample having a first surface and a second surface ([0055] a first surface 14 and a second surface 18 of the sample 12) and the delivery and collection regions may be on the same surface of the sample rather than on opposing surfaces ([0059]), Matousek is silent as to particles collected on a collection membrane, a holding structure to hold a collection membrane having a first surface and a second surface, whereby the particles to be analysed are deposited on the first surface and to scan the particles of the first surface.
However, Bieri does address this limitation. Bieri and Matousek are considered to be analogous to the present invention as they are in the same field of Raman spectroscopy.
Bieri teaches particles collected on a collection membrane (collection element 7; [0094]), holding structure ([0049] support plate) to hold a collection membrane having a first surface (collection surface 8; [0094]) and a second surface (bottom surface of collection element 7; [0094]); whereby the particles to be analysed are deposited on the first surface and the particles of the first surface are scanned ([0111] the collection surface 8 with the nano particles N can be scanned such the amount of collected nano particles can be analysed; [0113] Raman spectroscopy).
It would have been well known to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a collection membrane for Raman spectroscopy. Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify Matousek to particles collected on a collection membrane, a holding structure to hold a collection membrane having a first surface and a second surface, and to scan the particles of the first surface as suggested by Bieri in order to use surface enhanced Raman scattering to improve the measurement ([0010]-[0011]; [0018]).
Although, Matousek teaches the determined properties may include measurements of concentrations or quantities, of one or more active ingredients or other components ([[049]), Matousek is silent as to a device to determine an actual mass of particles which includes a computer configured to calculate a final Raman signal based on the correction factor and the preliminary Raman signal in order to determine the actual mass of the particles.
However, Sato-Berrú does address this limitation. Sato-Berrú and Matousek are considered to be analogous to the present invention as they are in the same field of Raman spectroscopy.
Sato-Berrú teaches that the actual mass of the particles can be determined based on the final Raman signal based on a mathematical relationship (Abstract; page 56 col 2, par. 3 a mathematical expression can be adjusted to monitor the amount of sample mass that is transferred to a smaller volume; page 57 col 1 par. 2 sample mass can be determined; page 56 col 1, par 1 a calibration procedure can be used to determine the relationship between peak intensity and sample concentration which can be correlated to mass).
It would have been well known to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to perform a quantitative determination using Raman signals. Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify Matousek to include a device to determine an actual mass of particles which includes a computer configured to calculate a final Raman signal based on the correction factor and the preliminary Raman signal in order to determine the actual mass of the particles as suggested by Sato-Berrú in order to provide a simple method for determining the actual mass of any sample (Sato-Berrú col 1 par 3 simple mathematical relationship to get a quantitative value, as a first approximation for any sample studied).
Regarding claim 17, Matousek modified by Bieri and Sato-Berrú teach the device according to claim 16, and Matousek further teaches wherein the sensor unit is an optical sensor unit configured to determine at least one optical property of the particles ([0070] distortion detector 50), wherein the optical sensor is arranged on a side of the second surface of the collection membrane ([0070] distortion detector 50; [0055] a collection region 17 on a second surface 18 of the sample by collection optics 20).
Regarding claims 18 and 19 (the examiner notes that the claims are identical), Matousek modified by Bieri and Sato-Berrú teach the device according to claim 16, and Matousek further teaches Matousek teaches a computer program product comprising instructions which ([0034] computer software programs arranged to execute on suitable provided computer systems which included one or more microprocessors), when the program is executed by a computer, causes the device of claim 16 to carry out a third step and a fourth step and a fifth step of a method by a computer (Fig. 2; [0064] analyzer 30),
wherein the method (at least Fig. 1-3, and 7) is provided to quantify a property of the particles in a sample ([0020]; [0009]; [0049] properties may typically include a relative concentration of a component of interest within the sample),
wherein, in a first step, the particles are scanned with a Raman spectrometer and a preliminary Raman signal is collected ([0079] target feature detector 58 which is arranged to measure a plurality of target Raman spectral features T in the spectrum S which are to be used to quantify a property P of the sample),
wherein, in a second step, at least one additional physical property of the particles is determined ([0079] determined spectral distortion; [0008] spectral distortion due to absorption and diffuse scattering),
wherein, in a third step, a correction factor is calculated based on the at least one additional physical property ([0007]-[0008] correct for this distortion in the quantification of properties of the sample; [0076]; [0011] The spectra distortion present in Raman spectral data for a particular sample can be compensated for with reference to corresponding measurements on one or more calibration samples),
wherein, in a fourth step, a final Raman signal is calculated based on the correction factor and the preliminary Raman signal ([0012] using the target Raman spectral features in combination with the determined spectral distortion, such that the quantified property is compensated for the spectral distortion), and
wherein, in a fifth step, the property of the particles is determined based on the final Raman signal ([0012]; [0069] the quantified property).
Although Matousek teaches the sample having a first surface and a second surface ([0055] a first surface 14 and a second surface 18 of the sample 12) and the delivery and collection regions may be on the same surface of the sample rather than on opposing surfaces ([0059]), Matousek is silent as to particles collected on a collection membrane having a first surface and a second surface, whereby the particles to be analysed are deposited on the first surface and the particles of the first surface are scanned.
However, Bieri does address this limitation.
Bieri teaches particles collected on a collection membrane (collection element 7; [0094]) having a first surface (collection surface 8; [0094]) and a second surface (bottom surface of collection element 7; [0094]);, whereby the particles to be analysed are deposited on the first surface and the particles of the first surface are scanned ([0111] the collection surface 8 with the nano particles N can be scanned such the amount of collected nano particles can be analysed; [0113] Raman spectroscopy).
It would have been well known to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a collection membrane for Raman spectroscopy. Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify Matousek to apply the method to articles collected on a collection membrane having a first surface and a second surface, whereby the particles to be analysed are deposited on the first surface and the particles of the first surface are scanned as suggested by Bieri in order to use surface enhanced Raman scattering to improve the measurement ([0010]-[0011]; [0018]).
Although, Matousek teaches the determined properties may include measurements of concentrations or quantities, of one or more active ingredients or other components ([[049]), Matousek is silent as to the method is provided to determine an actual mass of particles wherein, in a fifth step, the actual mass of the particles is determined based on the final Raman signal.
However, Sato-Berrú does address this limitation.
Sato-Berrú teaches that the actual mass of the particles can be determined based on the final Raman signal based on a mathematical relationship (Abstract; page 56 col 2, par. 3 a mathematical expression can be adjusted to monitor the amount of sample mass that is transferred to a smaller volume; page 57 col 1 par. 2 sample mass can be determined; page 56 col 1, par 1 a calibration procedure can be used to determine the relationship between peak intensity and sample concentration which can be correlated to mass).
It would have been well known to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to perform a quantitative determination using Raman signals. Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify Matousek to include a method to determine an actual mass of particles wherein, in a fifth step, the actual mass of the particles is determined based on the final Raman signal as suggested by Sato-Berrú in order to provide a simple method for determining the actual mass of any sample (Sato-Berrú col 1 par 3 simple mathematical relationship to get a quantitative value, as a first approximation for any sample studied).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20050228594 A1 by Pryce-Lewis teaches Quantitative Measurements Of Concentration And Solubility Using Raman Spectroscopy. See Fig. 1E for example of calibration curve with 1:1 ratio.
US 20050266583 A1 by Farquharson teaches Method For Quantitative Surface-enhanced Raman Spectroscopy Using A Chemical Reference
US 20200256812 A1 by Metzger teaches Methods for analyzing an accumulation of particles on a filter membrane involve analyzing comprise the particle accumulation in an optical analysis system.
US 20090244533 A1 by Matousek teaches Raman analysis and Fig. 3 and 6 show an example where both a scattering and transmission measurement is performed. Fig. 11 shows an example of a method using a membrane.
US 5850623 A by Carman teaches a method for providing an accurate and precise quantitative analysis of the chemical composition and/or physical properties of an unknown sample uses the standard Raman spectra of a plurality of known samples to construct a normalized calibration, which is applied to a standard Raman spectrum of the unknown sample to produce an accurate and precise quantitative analysis thereof, using any similar Raman spectrometry apparatus (Abstract).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KAITLYN E KIDWELL whose telephone number is (703)756-1719. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8 a.m. - 5 p.m. 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, Tarifur Chowdhury can be reached at 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 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.
/KAITLYN E KIDWELL/Examiner, Art Unit 2877
/TARIFUR R CHOWDHURY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2877
Prosecution Insights