DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
1- This office action is a response to an application filed on 4/24/2025, in which claims 1-10 are currently pending. The Application claims foreign priority to 10-2024-0055560, filed 04/25/2024, and claims foreign priority to 10-2025-0053762, filed 04/24/2025.
Specification
2- The specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which application may become aware in the specification.
Drawings
3- The drawings were received on 6/30/2025. These drawings are acceptable.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
4- 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.
5 Claims 1-10 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
As to claims 1 and 9, which read “a controller configured to calculate thickness information of a biofilm in the fluid receptacle using the detected(obtained) speckle and the detected intensity of the output light”, the underlined clauses appear to present indefiniteness issues, since it is not clear to the reader how are the detected(obtained) speckle and the detected intensity of the output light related to the thickness of the biofilm, and whether the emitted light toward the fluid receptacle interacts or not with the said biofilm.
Claims 2-8 and 10 are similarly rejected by virtue of their dependence on claims 1 and 9, and for those claims relating the biofilm to the illumination measurement properties.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 (MPEP 706.02(m)).
6- The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
In addition, the functional recitation in the claims (e.g. "configured to" or "adapted to" or the like) that does not limit a claim limitation to a particular structure does not limit the scope of the claim. It has been held that the recitation that an element is "adapted to", "configured to", "designed to", or "operable to" perform a function is not a positive limitation but only requires the ability to so perform and may not constitute a limitation in a patentable sense. In re Hutchinson, 69 USPQ 139. (See MPEP 2111.04); see also In In re Giannelli, 739 F.3d 1375, 1378, 109 USPQ2d 1333, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
Also, it should be noted that it has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed device is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed device from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations Ex-parte Masham 2 USPQ2d 1647 1987).
The claimed system in the instant application is capable of performing the claimed functionality, as is the prior art used in the present office action. The Examiner notes that where the patent office has reason to believe that a functional limitation asserted to be critical for establishing novelty in the claimed subject matter may, in fact, be an inherent characteristic of the prior art, it possesses the authority to require the applicant to prove that the subject matter shown to be in the prior art does not possess the characteristic relied on. In re Swinehart and sfiligoj, 169 USPQ 226 (C.C.P.A. 1971).
7- Claims 1, 9 are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nikoonahada et al. (US 6671051), hereinafter KLA.
As to claim 1, KLA teaches a biofilm thickness measuring device (Abstract, Col/ll. 6/65-67, 9/56-59, 10/40-44 for ex. and Figs. 2-5; apparatus for measuring thickness of films on fluid conduits. The film or biofilm is considered here as an article acted upon by the apparatus, not part thereof, and does not further limit the apparatus. See MPEP § 2115) comprising: a fluid receptacle configured to contain a target fluid (channel built between layers 201/202, 204, 206-207 for fluid 213, and its equivalents in the other embodiments); a light source (230 or equivalents such as 414, 512) configured to emit interfering input light toward the fluid receptacle (Figs. 2, 4-5); a first detector (nonspecular light detector 222 and equivalents) configured to detect a speckle of output light produced by multiple scattering of the emitted input light in the target fluid (Col/ll. 8/22-28); a second detector (224) configured to detect an intensity of the output light (Col/ll. 6/58-7/10); and a controller (226/228) configured to calculate thickness information of a biofilm in the fluid receptacle using the detected speckle and the detected intensity of the output light (Col/ll. 6/65-67, 9/56-59, 10/40-44 for ex).
As to claim 9, KLA teaches a biofilm thickness measuring device (Abstract, Col/ll. 6/65-67, 9/56-59, 10/40-44 for ex. and Figs. 2-5; apparatus for measuring thickness of films on fluid conduits. The film or biofilm is considered here as an article acted upon by the apparatus, not part thereof, and does not further limit the apparatus. See MPEP § 2115) comprising: a fluid receptacle configured to contain a target fluid (channel built between layers 201/202, 204, 206-207 for fluid 213, and its equivalents in the other embodiments); a light source (230 or equivalents such as 414, 512); a light source (230 or equivalents such as 414, 512) configured to emit interfering input light toward the fluid receptacle (Figs. 2, 4-5); a detector (array of detectors 232i/222/224) configured to obtain an image of output light produced by multiple scattering of the emitted input light in the target fluid (Fig. 2); and a controller (226/228) configured to obtain a speckle and an intensity of the output light using the obtained image of the output light (Col/ll. 6/58-7/10, 8/22-28), and calculate thickness information of a biofilm in the fluid receptacle using the obtained speckle and the obtained intensity of the output light (Col/ll. 6/65-67, 9/56-59, 10/40-44 for ex).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
8- 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 of this title, 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.
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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.
9- Claims 2-4, 10 are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KLA over Deng et al. (PGPUB 2023/0250191)
As to claims 2-4, 10, KLA teaches the biofilm thickness measuring device of claims 1 and 9.
KLA does not teach expressly wherein the controller is further configured to obtain the intensity and the speckle of the output light in a time series sequence, and calculate refractive index information of the biofilm using a temporal change in the intensity of the output light and a temporal change in the speckle of the output light; (claims 3/10) wherein the controller is further configured to calculate the refractive index information by comparing the intensity of the output light measured at a first time point before formation of the biofilm on an inner surface of the fluid receptacle and the intensity of the output light measured at a second time point after the formation of the biofilm on the inner surface of the fluid receptacle; wherein the detector obtains a plurality of images by measuring the output light in a time series sequence, and the controller is further configured to obtain an intensity of the output light by comparing an image measured at a first time point before formation of the biofilm on an inner surface of the fluid receptacle and an image measured at a second time point after the formation of the biofilm on the inner surface of the fluid receptacle among the plurality of images; (claim 4) wherein the controller is further configured to calculate a thickness of the biofilm using calculated refractive index information of the biofilm, even though KLA discloses the temporal measurements is conventional practice (Col/ll. 1/63-2/8).
However, in a similar field of endeavor, Deng teaches pharmaceutical engineered applications (Abstract and Figs. 1-7) wherein the thickness of biofilm layers is monitored temporally using optical spectral techniques and the refractive index changes are monitored in real time (¶ 72 for ex.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to use the apparatus of KLA in view of Deng’s suggestions so that the controller is further configured to obtain the intensity and the speckle of the output light in a time series sequence, and calculate refractive index information of the biofilm using a temporal change in the intensity of the output light and a temporal change in the speckle of the output light; wherein the controller is further configured to calculate the refractive index information by comparing the intensity of the output light measured at a first time point before formation of the biofilm on an inner surface of the fluid receptacle and the intensity of the output light measured at a second time point after the formation of the biofilm on the inner surface of the fluid receptacle; wherein the detector obtains a plurality of images by measuring the output light in a time series sequence, and the controller is further configured to obtain an intensity of the output light by comparing an image measured at a first time point before formation of the biofilm on an inner surface of the fluid receptacle and an image measured at a second time point after the formation of the biofilm on the inner surface of the fluid receptacle among the plurality of images; wherein the controller is further configured to calculate a thickness of the biofilm using calculated refractive index information of the biofilm, with the advantage of effectively optimizing the biofilm monitoring characteristics.
10- Claims 5-8 are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KLA over Xu et al. (PGPUB 2023/0296510 )
As to claims 5-7, KLA teaches the biofilm thickness measuring device of claim 1.
KLA does not teach expressly wherein the controller is further configured to obtain a temporal correlation of speckle using the detected speckle of the output light, and calculate a concentration of a target material in the target fluid based on the obtained temporal correlation; (Claim 6) wherein the temporal correlation comprises a difference between first image information of the speckle detected at a first time point and second image information of the speckle detected at a second time point different from the first time point; (Claim 7) wherein the first image information and the second image information comprise pattern information of the speckle; (Claim 8) wherein the controller is further configured to obtain a spatial correlation of the speckle using the detected speckle of the output light, and calculate a concentration of a target material in the target fluid based on a temporal change of the obtained spatial correlation.
However, in a similar field of endeavor, Xu teaches systems and method for surface scattering of optical components (Abstract and Figs. 1-10) wherein the thickness of coatings and films are considered where concentration is considered (¶ 45, 53-54, 160, 167 for ex.) and calculating temporal and spatial speckle/scattering correlations in relation with the film thickness calculations (Figs. 4-5; ¶ 45, 50-51, 91-99, 100-107, 132, 160,180, 185 for ex.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to use the apparatus of KLA in view of Xu’s suggestions so that the controller is further configured to obtain a temporal correlation of speckle using the detected speckle of the output light, and calculate a concentration of a target material in the target fluid based on the obtained temporal correlation; wherein the temporal correlation comprises a difference between first image information of the speckle detected at a first time point and second image information of the speckle detected at a second time point different from the first time point; wherein the first image information and the second image information comprise pattern information of the speckle; wherein the controller is further configured to obtain a spatial correlation of the speckle using the detected speckle of the output light, and calculate a concentration of a target material in the target fluid based on a temporal change of the obtained spatial correlation, with the advantage of effectively optimizing the biofilm speckle measurements.
Relevant Prior art
US 20040246476, US 20130330710 appear relevant to the use of scattering/speckle correlations for diverse metrological applications.
US 10627396, 20020094685, 20040251405 appear to teach most the elements of the claimed apparatus and its method of use but fail to teach the claimed invention as a whole
Conclusion
The examiner has pointed out particular references contained in the prior art of record in the body of this action for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. Applicant should consider the entire prior art as applicable as to the limitations of the claims. It is respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the response, to consider fully the entire references as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMED K AMARA whose telephone number is (571)272-7847. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday: 9:00-17:00
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.
/Mohamed K AMARA/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2877
Prosecution Insights