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 .
Summary
This action is responsive to the application filed on 05/27/2025. Applicant has submitted Claims 1-10 for examination.
Examiner finds the following: 1) Claims 1-10 are rejected; 2) no claims objected to; and 3) no claims allowable.
Foreign Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy of Application No. JP2024-089216, filed on 05/31/2024, has been filed in this matter.
Claim Interpretation
Generally: 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.
Means-Plus-Function: 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 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) 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):
(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). The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) 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). The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) 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) 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) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
The claims contains language that invoke the three-prong test as explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I.
Regarding Claim 1, Claim 1 recites, in part:
… a branching unit that branches the light from the light source into a signal light and a reference light;
a scanning mechanism that scans an irradiation position of a light spot of the signal light;
an irradiation unit that focuses the signal light by an objective lens and irradiates the sample with the signal light;
a detection unit that detects an interference signal obtained by causing reflected light from the particle to interfere with the reference light;
a processing unit that measures a size of the particle by using the interference signal; …
The underlined language invokes the three-prong test as described in MPEP § 2181, subsection I. Prong 1: each of the above recites a generic placeholder, a “branching,” “scanning,” “irradiation,” “detection,’ or “processing.” Prong 2: each of the above recites “unit” or “mechanism” after the generic placeholder, followed by functional language. Prong 3: each of the above is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Because each of the limitation satisfies the three-prong test, the as-filed specification is referenced for further information.
The as-filed specification discusses the branching limitation throughout as polarizing beam splitter 104. Accordingly, this limitation is interpreted under 35 USC 112(f) as corresponding to a polarizing beam splitter and equivalents thereof.
The as-filed specification discusses the scanning limitation throughout as composite deflection element 107. Accordingly, this limitation is interpreted under 35 USC 112(f) as corresponding to a composite deflection element and equivalents thereof.
The as-filed specification discusses the irradiation limitation throughout as objective lens 108. Accordingly, this limitation is interpreted under 35 USC 112(f) as corresponding to an objective lens and equivalents thereof.
The as-filed specification discusses the detection limitation throughout as detection optical system 112. Accordingly, this limitation is interpreted under 35 USC 112(f) as corresponding to a detection optical system and equivalents thereof.
The as-filed specification discusses the processing limitation throughout as signal processing unit 124. Accordingly, this limitation is interpreted under 35 USC 112(f) as corresponding to a processor and equivalents thereof.
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 (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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 7-8, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Minemura (US 20240402064 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Minemura discloses:
A particle measurement apparatus which measures a particle in a liquid sample (Minemura, FIG. 4, [0058], sample 204), comprising:
a light source that emits light (Minemura, FIG. 4, [0058], laser light 300);
a branching unit (Minumura, FIG. 19, [0106], polarized beam splitter 104) that branches the light from the light source into a signal light and a reference light (Minemura, FIG. 19, [0107], “then the laser light is separated into signal light and reference light by a polarized beam splitter 104”);
a scanning mechanism that scans an irradiation position of a light spot of the signal light (Minemura, FIG. 19, [0107], “A drive mechanism 109 that moves the sample in a Z axis direction has a function of scanning a focal position of the signal light along a Z axis direction (an optical axis direction)”);
an irradiation unit that focuses the signal light by an objective lens and irradiates the sample with the signal light (Minemura, FIG. 19, [0107], objective lens 108);
a detection unit (Minemura, FIG. 19, [0108], detection optical system 112) that detects an interference signal obtained by causing reflected light from the particle to interfere with the reference light (Minemura, FIG. 2, [0053], “η is a constant indicating interference efficiency of reflected light and reference light and efficiency of high electric power conversion of an optical detector”); and
a processing unit that measures a size of the particle by using the interference signal (Minemura, FIG. 19, [0111], “The signal processing unit 124 calculates a refractive index of a solvent, a refractive index of a particle, a particle size, and the like”),
wherein the scanning mechanism is configured to scan the irradiation position in a first direction and a second direction which are perpendicular to each other in a plane perpendicular to an optical axis of the light, and to scan the irradiation position in a third direction parallel to the optical axis (Minemura, FIG 17A, [0112], “Using the present device to perform a continuous automatic measurement on an array of a plurality of sample containers shown in FIG. 17A can be more easily implemented by adding a sample moving function not only in the Z direction but also in the X and Y directions as a function of the drive mechanism 109”), and
the processing unit corrects the size of the particle (Minemura, FIG. 6, [0064], “in the conversion for obtaining the particle size from the maximum value of the detection signal, the relationship in FIG. 2 corrected according to the refractive index n.sub.m of the solvent is used”) using a correction function having at least one of the irradiation position in the first direction, the irradiation position in the second direction, and the irradiation position in the third direction as an input value (Minemura, FIG 17A, [0112], “Using the present device to perform a continuous automatic measurement on an array of a plurality of sample containers shown in FIG. 17A can be more easily implemented by adding a sample moving function not only in the Z direction but also in the X and Y directions as a function of the drive mechanism 109”).
Regarding Claim 2, Minemura discloses Claim 1, and Minemura further discloses:
… wherein the correction function is configured by a polynomial having as terms, at least one of the irradiation position in the first direction, the irradiation position in the second direction, and the irradiation position in the third direction (Minemura, FIG 17A, [0112], “Using the present device to perform a continuous automatic measurement on an array of a plurality of sample containers shown in FIG. 17A can be more easily implemented by adding a sample moving function not only in the Z direction but also in the X and Y directions as a function of the drive mechanism 109”).
Regarding Claim 3, Minemura discloses Claim 2, and Minemura further discloses:
… wherein the correction function is configured by linearly adding
a first or higher order-term of the irradiation position in the first direction (Minemura, FIG 17A, [0112], “Using the present device to perform a continuous automatic measurement on an array of a plurality of sample containers shown in FIG. 17A can be more easily implemented by adding a sample moving function not only in the Z direction but also in the X and Y directions as a function of the drive mechanism 109”).,
a first or higher order-term of the irradiation position in the second direction (Minemura, FIG 17A, [0112], “Using the present device to perform a continuous automatic measurement on an array of a plurality of sample containers shown in FIG. 17A can be more easily implemented by adding a sample moving function not only in the Z direction but also in the X and Y directions as a function of the drive mechanism 109”)., and
a first or higher order-term of the irradiation position in the third direction (Minemura, FIG 17A, [0112], “Using the present device to perform a continuous automatic measurement on an array of a plurality of sample containers shown in FIG. 17A can be more easily implemented by adding a sample moving function not only in the Z direction but also in the X and Y directions as a function of the drive mechanism 109”).
Regarding Claim 7, Minemura discloses Claim 1, and Minemura further discloses:
… wherein the correction function includes power of the light or a coherence length of the light as an input value (Minemura, [0078], “Considering an influence of the coherence length of the semiconductor laser serving as the light source on Formula 1, the magnitude |E.sub.sig| of the detection signal from the particle at the focus of the laser light is proportional to a magnitude of an electric field E.sub.s of the reflected light and a magnitude of an electric field E.sub.r of the reference light, and is expressed as follows, where L is a coherence length and ΔL is a difference between the optical path lengths for the signal light and the reference light”).
Regarding Claim 8, Minemura discloses Claim 7, and Minemura further discloses:
… wherein the correction function is configured by a first or higher order-term of the irradiation position in the third direction (Minemura, [0076], “By using Formula 5 and Formula 7, a focus position with respect to the movement amount of the sample and the movement amount of the reference light mirror can be uniquely determined without exhaustive scanning of the reference light mirror position as described above, an increase in measurement time can be prevented, and securing of measurement accuracy and improvement of user convenience can be simultaneously implemented”), and
the first or higher order-term of the irradiation position in the third direction has a functions with the power or the coherence length as input values, as coefficients (Minemura, [0078], “Considering an influence of the coherence length of the semiconductor laser serving as the light source on Formula 1, the magnitude |E.sub.sig| of the detection signal from the particle at the focus of the laser light is proportional to a magnitude of an electric field E.sub.s of the reflected light and a magnitude of an electric field E.sub.r of the reference light, and is expressed as follows, where L is a coherence length and ΔL is a difference between the optical path lengths for the signal light and the reference light”).
Regarding Claim 10, Minemura discloses Claim 1, and Minemura further discloses:
… a storage unit that stores data describing the correction function (Minemura, FIG. 19, [0111], “The signal processing unit 124 calculates a refractive index of a solvent, a refractive index of a particle, a particle size, and the like.” Examiner notes that for the signal processing unit 124 to calculate based on the function disclosed by Minemura, said functions would inherently need to be stored somewhere for the signal processing unit 124 to pull from and use),
wherein the processing unit corrects the size of the particles using the correction function read from the data (Minemura, FIG. 19, [0111], “The signal processing unit 124 calculates a refractive index of a solvent, a refractive index of a particle, a particle size, and the like”).
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:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or non-obviousness.
Claims 4-6 and 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Minemura (US 20240402064 A1) in further view of Osawa (US 20170160185 A1).
Regarding Claim 4, Minemura discloses Claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose:
… wherein
the correction function is configured to correct the size of the particle by inverse of a normal distribution of at least one of the irradiation position in the first direction, the irradiation position in the second direction, and the irradiation position in the third direction.
However, Osawa, in a similar field of endeavor (OPTICAL MEASUREMENT METHOD AND APPARATUS), discloses:
… the correction function is configured to correct the size of the particle by inverse of a normal distribution of at least one of the irradiation position in the first direction, the irradiation position in the second direction, and the irradiation position in the third direction (Osawa, FIG. 16(b), [0098], “the acquired signal has a maximum value depending on the cell size and its characteristic has Gaussian distribution which half width is approximately same as the spot size.” Examiner notes that inverse normal distributions are inherent to Gaussian distributions).
It would have been obvious to PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Minemura and Osawa with Gaussian distributions. PHOSITA would have known about the uses of Gaussian distributions and how to use them to modify the combination of Minemura and Osawa. PHOSITA would have been motivated to do this as a use of known technique to improve similar devices in the same way (See MPEP § 2143 (I)(C)), specifically the use of common and known statistical mathematics when analyzing and manipulating datum.
Regarding Claim 5, the combination of Minemura and Osawa discloses Claim 4, and Osawa further discloses:
… wherein the correction function is configured by
a mean and a standard deviation of the irradiation position in the first direction on the normal distribution (Osawa, FIG. 16(b), [0098], “the acquired signal has a maximum value depending on the cell size and its characteristic has Gaussian distribution which half width is approximately same as the spot size.” Examiner notes that means and standard deviations are inherent to Gaussian distributions)),
a mean and a standard deviation of the irradiation position in the second direction on the normal distribution (Osawa, FIG. 16(b), [0098], “the acquired signal has a maximum value depending on the cell size and its characteristic has Gaussian distribution which half width is approximately same as the spot size.” Examiner notes that means and standard deviations are inherent to Gaussian distributions)), and
a mean and a standard deviation of the irradiation position in the third direction on the normal distribution (Osawa, FIG. 16(b), [0098], “the acquired signal has a maximum value depending on the cell size and its characteristic has Gaussian distribution which half width is approximately same as the spot size.” Examiner notes that means and standard deviations are inherent to Gaussian distributions)).
Regarding Claim 6, the combination of Minemura and Osawa discloses Claim 4, and Osawa further discloses:
… wherein the correction function further includes a direct current value that offsets the normal distribution, and a sensitivity correction amount that multiplies the normal distribution by a constant (Osawa, FIG. 16(b), [0098], “the acquired signal has a maximum value depending on the cell size and its characteristic has Gaussian distribution which half width is approximately same as the spot size.” Examiner notes that offset values and use of constants are inherent to Gaussian distributions)).
Regarding Claim 9, Minemura discloses Claim 7, and Minemura further discloses:
… wherein the correction function is configured by
a first or higher order-term of the irradiation position in the first direction (Minemura, FIG 17A, [0112], “Using the present device to perform a continuous automatic measurement on an array of a plurality of sample containers shown in FIG. 17A can be more easily implemented by adding a sample moving function not only in the Z direction but also in the X and Y directions as a function of the drive mechanism 109”).,
a first or higher order-term of the irradiation position in the second direction (Minemura, FIG 17A, [0112], “Using the present device to perform a continuous automatic measurement on an array of a plurality of sample containers shown in FIG. 17A can be more easily implemented by adding a sample moving function not only in the Z direction but also in the X and Y directions as a function of the drive mechanism 109”)., and …
… the standard deviation is configured by a function having the power or the coherence length as an input value (Minemura, [0078], “Considering an influence of the coherence length of the semiconductor laser serving as the light source on Formula 1, the magnitude |E.sub.sig| of the detection signal from the particle at the focus of the laser light is proportional to a magnitude of an electric field E.sub.s of the reflected light and a magnitude of an electric field E.sub.r of the reference light, and is expressed as follows, where L is a coherence length and ΔL is a difference between the optical path lengths for the signal light and the reference light”).
Minemura discloses the above but does not explicitly disclose:
… a Gaussian distribution formula that corrects the size of the particle in the third direction by inverse of a normal distribution of the irradiation position in the third direction,
… the Gaussian distribution formula includes a mean and a standard deviation on the normal distribution,
the mean is configured by a function having the power or the coherence length as an input value, and …
However, Osawa, in a similar field of endeavor (OPTICAL MEASUREMENT METHOD AND APPARATUS), discloses:
… a Gaussian distribution formula that corrects the size of the particle in the third direction by inverse of a normal distribution of the irradiation position in the third direction (Osawa, FIG. 16(b), [0098], “the acquired signal has a maximum value depending on the cell size and its characteristic has Gaussian distribution which half width is approximately same as the spot size”),
… the Gaussian distribution formula includes a mean and a standard deviation on the normal distribution (Examiner notes that means and standard deviations are inherent to Gaussian distributions),
the mean is configured by a function having the power or the coherence length as an input value (Examiner notes that means and standard deviations are inherent to Gaussian distributions), and …
It would have been obvious to PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Minemura and Osawa with Gaussian distributions. PHOSITA would have known about the uses of Gaussian distributions and how to use them to modify the combination of Minemura and Osawa. PHOSITA would have been motivated to do this as a use of known technique to improve similar devices in the same way (See MPEP § 2143 (I)(C)), specifically the use of common and known statistical mathematics when analyzing and manipulating datum.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHAD A REVERMAN whose telephone number is (571)270-0079. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9-5 EST.
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, Kara Geisel can be reached at (571) 272-2416. 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.
/CHAD ANDREW REVERMAN/Examiner, Art Unit 2877
/Kara E. Geisel/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2877
Prosecution Insights