Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Objections
Claim 13 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 13, the limitation “The non-transitory storage medium according claim 9” should be “The non-transitory storage medium according to claim 9”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
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.
Claims 1, 3-4, 7-9, 11-12 and 15-16 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ansari (US5973779A) in view of Hongyan (CN106872440B), further in view of Freudenthal (US20140213487A1).
Regarding claim 1, Ansari teaches an optical measurement system configured to perform measurement according to a light scattering method, the optical measurement system comprising: a sample holder (210) configured to hold a sample (202) (fig. 2, col. 8, lines 1-5); a light source (212) configured to generate light to irradiate the sample (col. 8, lines 10-12); a detector (214) configured to detect scattered light caused by the sample (fig. 2, col. 8, lines 10-12); a fiber probe that comprises a probe (10) and arranged adjacent to the sample, and an optical fiber (24 and 26) which optically connects the probe to the light source and the detector (fig. 2, col. 8, lines 1-15); and a processing device (220) configured to analyze a detection result from the detector and output a measurement result (col. 8, lines 15-18), but fails to disclose a probe which is connected to the sample holder, the sample holder being arbitrarily selected from a plurality of types of sample holders prepared in advance, and the processing device outputting a user interface screen tailored to the sample holder.
However, Hongyan (CN106872440B) which related to optical spectroscopy, thus from the same field of endeavor as Ansari, teaches a probe which is connected to the sample holder (line 44: the Raman probe 8 is mounted on the sample holder 9).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ansari by incorporating a probe which is connected to the sample holder in order to provide a compact, integrated probe-sample holder assembly improving system stability.
Ansar, when modified by Hongyan, fails to disclose the sample holder being arbitrarily selected from a plurality of types of sample holders prepared in advance, and the processing device outputting a user interface screen tailored to the sample holder.
However, Freudenthal, which relates to optical/spectroscopic instrumentation, thus from analogous art as Ansari, teaches the sample holder being arbitrarily selected from a plurality of types of sample holders prepared in advance ([0006], [0083], [0133]), and the processing device outputting a user interface screen tailored to the sample holder ([0011], [0014], [0094]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ansari by incorporating the sample holder being arbitrarily selected from a plurality of types of sample holders prepared in advance, and the processing device outputting a user interface screen tailored to the sample holder in order to provide flexibility to accommodate different sample types and to improve usability and reducing errors.
Regarding claim 3, Ansari, when modified by Hongyan and Freudenthal, teaches the optical measurement system according to claim 1, wherein the processing device is configured to obtain configuration information indicating a type of the sample holder included in the optical measurement system (Freudenthal: [0009]).
Regarding claim 4, Ansari, when modified by Hongyan and Freudenthal, teaches the optical measurement system according to claim 3, wherein the processing device is configured to obtain the configuration information from at least one of a setting unit operated by a user, an operation performed on the user interface screen by a user, or a reader configured to read information of a tag attached to the sample holder (Freudenthal: [0009], [0086]).
Regarding claim 7, Ansari, when modified by Hongyan and Freudenthal, teaches the optical measurement system according to claim 1, wherein the plurality of types of sample holders include a third sample holder configured to hold the sample in an internal space (through hole) and maintain a positional relationship between the internal space and the probe (Freudenthal:[0141], [0008]-[0009])
Regarding claim 8, Ansari, when modified by Hongyan and Freudenthal, teaches the optical measurement system according to claim 1, wherein the processing device is configured to output the user interface screen that is tailored to the sample holder and includes a measurement result (Freudental: [0011], [0014], [0094]).
Regarding claim 9, claim 9 incorporates all the limitations of claim 1 with minor variations in the claimed language, in computer program product form, rather than apparatus form. The reasons for the rejection of claim 1 apply to claim 9. Therefore, claim 9 is rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding claim 11, claim 11 incorporates all the limitations of claim 3 with minor variations in the claimed language, in computer program product form, rather than apparatus form. The reasons for the rejection of claim 3 apply to claim 11. Therefore, claim 11 is rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding claim 12, claim 12 incorporates all the limitations of claim 4 with minor variations in the claimed language, in computer program product form, rather than apparatus form. The reasons for the rejection of claim 4 apply to claim 12. Therefore, claim 12 is rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding claim 15, claim 15 incorporates all the limitations of claim 7 with minor variations in the claimed language, in computer program product form, rather than apparatus form. The reasons for the rejection of claim 7 apply to claim 15. Therefore, claim 14 is rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding claim 16, claim 16 incorporates all the limitations of claim 8 with minor variations in the claimed language, in computer program product form, rather than apparatus form. The reasons for the rejection of claim 8 apply to claim 16. Therefore, claim 16 is rejected under the same rationale
Claims 2 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ansari (US5973779A) in view of Hongyan (CN106872440B), further in view of Freudenthal (US20140213487A1), and further in view of Huang (US 20170138860 A1)
Regarding claim 2, Ansari, when modified by Hongyan and Freudenthal, teaches the optical measurement system according to claim 1, but fails to disclose wherein the fiber probe is arbitrarily selected from a plurality of types of fiber probes prepared in advance, and the user interface screen output by the processing device is tailored to the fiber probe.
However, Huang which relates to optical measurement system and is thus from the same field of endeavor as Ansari teaches the fiber probe is arbitrarily selected from a plurality of types of fiber probes prepared in advance ([0287]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ansari by incorporating wherein the fiber probe is arbitrarily selected from a plurality of types of fiber probes prepared in advance (as taught by Huang), and the user interface screen output by the processing device is tailored to the fiber probe (by extending Freudenthal’s holder-tailoring user interface logic to fiber probe) to improve measurement accuracy.
Regarding claim 10, claim 10 incorporates all the limitations of claim 2 with minor variations in the claimed language, in computer program product form, rather than apparatus form. The reasons for the rejection of claim 2 apply to claim 10. Therefore, claim 10 is rejected under the same rationale
Claims 5 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ansari (US5973779A) in view of Hongyan (CN106872440B), further in view of Freudenthal (US20140213487A1), and further in view of Rudolph (EP0573950A2)
Regarding claim 5, Ansari, when modified by Hongyan and Freudenthal, teaches the optical measurement system according to claim 1, but fails to disclose wherein the plurality of types of sample holders includes a first sample holder configured to hold a cell containing the sample at an angle relative to the probe.
However, setting a sample at an angle relative to the probe is a well known technique in the art as disclosed by Rudolph (EP0573950A2) ([0001], [0010]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ansari by incorporating wherein the plurality of types of sample holders includes a first sample holder configured to hold a cell containing the sample at an angle relative to the probe to improve measurement information content.
Regarding claim 13, claim 13 incorporates all the limitations of claim 5 with minor variations in the claimed language, in computer program product form, rather than apparatus form. The reasons for the rejection of claim 5 apply to claim 13. Therefore, claim 13 is rejected under the same rationale.
Claims 6 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ansari (US5973779A) in view of Hongyan (CN106872440B), further in view of Freudenthal (US20140213487A1), and further in view of Davidson (US5442437A)
Regarding claim 6, Ansari, when modified by Hongyan and Freudenthal, teaches the optical measurement system according to claim 1, but fails to declose wherein the plurality of types of sample holders includes a second sample holder configured to maintain a positional relationship between the probe and a tube through which the sample flows.
However, Davidson (US5442437A), which relates to optical measurement system, thus from analogous art as Ansari, teaches to maintain a positional relationship between the probe and a tube through which the sample flows (col. 2, lines 1-6, lines 42-44).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ansari by incorporating wherein the plurality of types of sample holders includes a second sample holder configured to maintain a positional relationship between the probe and a tube through which the sample flows in order to allow real-time light scattering measurement on flowing samples .
Regarding claim 14, claim 14 incorporates all the limitations of claim 6 with minor variations in the claimed language, in computer program product form, rather than apparatus form. The reasons for the rejection of claim 6 apply to claim 14. Therefore, claim 14 is rejected under the same rationale.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMED DOUMBIA whose telephone number is (571)272-8266. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5:00 PM 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, Michelle Iacoletti can be reached at 571-272-3995. 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.
/MOHAMED DOUMBIA/ Examiner, Art Unit 2877
/MICHELLE M IACOLETTI/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2877
Prosecution Insights