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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on January 20, 2026 has been entered.
This Office action is responsive to an amendment filed January 20, 2026. Claims 1-8, 10-18 & 20 are pending. Claims 1 & 11 have been amended. Claims 9 & 19 have been canceled.
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 11-18 & 20 is/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.
The claim requires “an input device configured to receive an input command from the user relating to the result relating to the fluorescent metabolite. However, the claim pertains to a method claim and as such, it is unclear whether or not the claim requires a positive step of using the input device to receive an input command from the user relating to the result relating to the fluorescent metabolite.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1-7, 10-17 & 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wilson et al. (US 2015/0148629) (“Wilson” hereinafter) in view of Tearney et al. (US 2005/0004453) (“Tearney” hereinafter), Scott et al. (US 2009/0270678) (“Scott” hereinafter) further in view of Mark (US 2014/0088526).
In regards to claim 1, Wilson discloses a device for intraoperative cancer detection, the device comprising:
an excitation fiber optic (415, 425; 655, 665; 700) configured to excite a biological sample as a function of an intrinsic excitation wavelength (see at least fig. 4A and par 0008, 0072, 0095-0096 & 0102-0104);
an emission fiber optic (420, 660, 700) configured to detect an intrinsic emission of the biological sample (see at least fig. 4A and par 0008, 0072, 0095-0096 & 0102-0104);
a tissue scanner 505 configured to discern a signal representing the intrinsic emission of the biological sample (see at least par 0098, 0114 & 0140) and the presence of a fluorescent metabolite (i.e., protoporphyrin IX (PpIX) or an ALA derivative-induced PpIX) of a fluorophore in the biological sample (see par 0035, 0071 & 0099);
a tissue scanner module (i.e., spectroscopy system and/or components thereof) mounted in a vacuum-line tip (i.e., spectroscopy probe 650 is mounted within a vacuum-tip line of inner cannula 610, see at least par 0115 & fig. 5C) including a display window configured to visualize the intrinsic emission of the biological sample (see at least par 0099 & 0141), wherein visualizing further comprises:
receiving the signal from the tissue scanner 505; and
relaying a visual feed comprising a real-time stream (see at least par 0074, 0086-0088, 0113-0114 & 0145) as a function of the signal to the display window (see at least par 0106-0112); and
the display window is configured to capture and relay back to the user a result relating to the presence of the fluorescent metabolite (i.e., protoporphyrin IX (PpIX) or an ALA derivative-induced PpIX) in the biological sample (see at least par 0099, 0106, 0114 & 0147); and,
a vacuum-line tip (i.e., inner cannula tip) configured to remove a portion of the biological sample including a cell (i.e., tumor cells, glioma cells, see par 0071, 0073, 0084, 0099 & 0109) as a function of the visualized intrinsic emission of the biological sample (see at least par 0076, 0081 & 0115) and a feedback controller;
wherein the vacuum-line tip comprises a suction lumen with a vacuum-powered force which (inherently) has a reduced pressure relative to an ambient pressure (see at least par 0126-0127 & 0145);
an input device (i.e., user interface) configured to receive an input command from the user relating to the result relating to the fluorescent metabolite (i.e., the processor may provide a user interface to control one or more settings of the data acquisition and/or to provide raw or processed data to the user) (see at least fig. 4 and par 0099 & 0106).
Wilson discloses the device, as described above, that fails to explicitly teach a device wherein the emission fiber optic comprises a transparent fiber.
However, the Office takes Official notice that it is known that a fiber optic is a flexible, transparent fiber that may be made of high quality extruded glass (silica) or plastic to transmit light from one end of the fiber to the other (see at least par 0051 of US 2014/0177237, par 0021 of US 2014/0178000, par 0004 of US 2014/0064654 and par 0028 of US 2017/0112384); therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time Applicant’s invention was filed to provide the device Wilson wherein the emission fiber optic comprises a transparent fiber as claimed in order to transmit light from one end of the fiber to the other.
Wilson discloses the device, as described and modified above, that fails to explicitly teach a device comprising a haptic feedback controller.
However, Tearney teaches that it is known to provide a device comprising a haptic feedback controller 210 (see at least abstract, figs. 2 & 15 and par 0064-0070).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time Applicant’s invention was filed to provide the device of Wilson as modified above further comprising a haptic feedback controller as taught by Tearney since such a modification would amount to a simple substitution of one known element (i.e., the feedback device as taught by Wilson) for another (i.e., the feedback device as taught by Tearney) to obtain predictable results such as providing feedback to the operator about the tissue in the vicinity of the biopsy window (see at least par 0145 of Wilson)--See KSR, 550 U.S. at___, 82 USPQ2d at 1396 (See MPEP § 214 3 for a discussion of the rationale(s) listed above. See also MPEP § 2144 - §2144.09 for additional guidance regarding support for obviousness determinations).
Wilson as modified above and by Tearney discloses the device, as described above, that fails to explicitly teach a device wherein the display window visualizing the intrinsic emission of the biological sample comprises a stereoscopic display configured to simulate three-dimensional space.
However, Scott teaches that it is known to provide a device wherein the display window visualizing the intrinsic emission of the biological sample comprises a stereoscopic display configured to simulate three-dimensional space (see at least abstract, fig. 1 and par 0013-0018, 0023-0027, 0037 & 0105, 0107, 0153 & 0168).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time Applicant’s invention was filed to provide the device of Wilson as modified by Tearney wherein the display window visualizing the intrinsic emission of the biological sample comprises a stereoscopic display configured to simulate three-dimensional space as taught by Scott since such a modification would amount to applying a known technique (i.e., as taught by Scott) to a known device (i.e., as taught by Wilson) ready for improvement to achieve a predictable result such as highlighting regions of interest in tissue including diseased portions of tissue and/or other tissue of interest, such as a nerve or organ (see at least par 0168 of Scott)--See KSR, 550 U.S. at___, 82 USPQ2d at 1396 (See MPEP § 214 3 for a discussion of the rationale(s) listed above. See also MPEP § 2144 - §2144.09 for additional guidance regarding support for obviousness determinations).
Wilson as modified above and by Tearney and Wilson discloses the device, as described above, that fails to explicitly teach a device comprising a haptic feedback controller comprising a coverable hole configured to supply varying degrees of suction through the vacuum-line tip; wherein the vacuum-powered force is selected as a function of an environmental parameter which comprises at least an angle of vacuum and a length of vacuum.
However, Mark teaches that it is known to provide a device comprising a haptic feedback controller comprising a coverable hole 100 configured to supply varying degrees of suction through the vacuum-line tip; wherein the vacuum-powered force is selected as a function of an environmental parameter which comprises at least an angle of vacuum (i.e., due to rotation of the outer cannula 22 with respect to the handpiece 12, see at least fig. 9 and par 0018) and a length of vacuum (see at least abstract, figs. 5-6, 7A-D, 8A-C & 9-10 and par 0025-0034, 0036, 0038 & 0041-0042).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time Applicant’s invention was filed to provide the device of Wilson as modified by Tearney and Scott comprising a haptic feedback controller comprising a coverable hole configured to supply varying degrees of suction through the vacuum-line tip; wherein the vacuum-powered force is selected as a function of an environmental parameter which comprises at least an angle of vacuum and a length of vacuum as taught by Mark since such a modification would amount to applying a known technique (i.e., as taught by Mark) to a known device (i.e., as taught by Wilson) ready for improvement to achieve a predictable result such as adjusting the level of vacuum to achieve a desired level of traction in the tissue surrounding the tissue severed as well as the amount of unsevered tissue that is drawn into the tissue receiving opening (see at least par 0038 of Mark)--See KSR, 550 U.S. at___, 82 USPQ2d at 1396 (See MPEP § 214 3 for a discussion of the rationale(s) listed above. See also MPEP § 2144 - §2144.09 for additional guidance regarding support for obviousness determinations).
In regards to claim 2, Wilson discloses the device of claim 1, wherein exciting the biological sample further comprises utilizing an intrinsic fluorescence probe (400, 650) excited by an excitation wavelength (see at least abstract and par 0007 & 0021-0022).
In regards to claim 3, Wilson discloses the device of claim 1, wherein exciting the biological sample further comprises administering an intrinsic fluorescence spectroscopy fluorophore to the biological sample (see at least par 0032 & 0034).
In regards to claim 4, Wilson discloses the device of claim 3, wherein the intrinsic fluorescence spectroscopy fluorophore is 5- aminolevulinic acid (see at least par 0035).
In regards to claim 5, Wilson discloses the device of claim 1, wherein detecting the intrinsic emission of the biological sample further comprises:
exciting the biological sample with a first wavelength (see at least par 0014-0016 & 0109-0110); and
detecting the intrinsic emission of the biological sample as a function of a second wavelength, wherein the first wavelength and the second wavelength are distinct (see at least par 0017 & 0109 & 0111).
In regards to claim 6, Wilson discloses the device of claim 1, wherein the intrinsic emission of the biological sample includes a vibrational mode of the biological sample (i.e., motion of the abundant optical scatterers in tissue such as cells organelles and the extracellular matrix) (see at least par 0109).
In regards to claim 7, Wilson discloses the device of claim 1, wherein visualizing the intrinsic emission of the biological sample further comprises mounting the tissue scanner 505 within the vacuum-line tip (i.e., inner cannula tip) (see at least figs. 4D and par 0098-0099).
In regards to claim 10, although Wilson discloses the device of claim 1, wherein the haptic feedback controller connected to a suction device (see at least figs. 4A-D and par 0076, 0081 & 0115, 0126-0127 & 0145), Wilson discloses a device that fails to explicitly teach a device comprising a haptic feedback controller. However, Tearney teaches that it is known to provide a device comprising a haptic feedback controller 210 (see at least abstract, figs. 2 & 15 and par 0064-0070). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time Applicant’s invention was filed to provide the device of Wilson as modified by Scott comprising a haptic feedback controller as taught by Tearney since such a modification would amount to a simple substitution of one known element (i.e., the feedback device as taught by Wilson) for another (i.e., the feedback device as taught by Tearney) to obtain predictable results such as providing feedback to the operator about the tissue in the vicinity of the biopsy window (see at least par 0145 of Wilson)--See KSR, 550 U.S. at___, 82 USPQ2d at 1396 (See MPEP § 214 3 for a discussion of the rationale(s) listed above. See also MPEP § 2144 - §2144.09 for additional guidance regarding support for obviousness determinations).
In regards to claim 11, Wilson discloses a hand-held fluorescence spectroscopy method for intraoperative cancer detection, the method comprising:
exciting, as a function of an excitation fiber optic (415, 425; 655, 665; 700), a biological sample as a function of an intrinsic excitation wavelength (see at least fig. 4A and par 0008, 0072, 0095-0096 & 0102-0104);
detecting, as a function of an emission fiber optic (420, 660, 700), an intrinsic emission of the biological sample (see at least fig. 4A and par 0008, 0072, 0095-0096 & 0102-0104);
discerning, as a function of a tissue scanner 505, a signal representing the intrinsic emission of the biological sample (see at least par 0098, 0114 & 0140) and the presence of a fluorescent metabolite (i.e., protoporphyrin IX (PpIX) or an ALA derivative-induced PpIX) of a fluorophore in the biological sample (see par 0035, 0071 & 0099);
visualizing, as a function of a tissue scanner module (i.e., spectroscopy system and/or components thereof) mounted in a vacuum-line tip (i.e., spectroscopy probe 650 is mounted within a vacuum-tip line of inner cannula 610, see at least par 0115 & fig. 5C) including a display window, the intrinsic emission of the biological sample (see at least par 0099 & 0141), wherein visualizing further comprises:
receiving the signal from the tissue scanner 505; and
relaying a visual feed comprising a real-time stream (see at least par 0074, 0086-0088, 0113-0114 & 0145) as a function of the signal to the display window (see at least par 0106-0112); and
the display window is configured to capture and relay back to the user a result relating to the presence of the fluorescent metabolite (i.e., protoporphyrin IX (PpIX) or an ALA derivative-induced PpIX) in the biological sample (see at least par 0099, 0106, 0114 & 0147); and,
removing, as a function of a vacuum-line tip, a portion of the biological sample including a cell (i.e., tumor cells, glioma cells, see par 0071, 0073, 0084, 0099 & 0109) as a function of the visualized intrinsic emission of the biological sample (see at least par 0076, 0081 & 0115) and a feedback controller;
wherein the vacuum-line tip comprises a suction lumen with a vacuum-powered force which (inherently) has a reduced pressure relative to an ambient pressure (see at least par 0126-0127, 0145);
an input device (i.e., user interface) configured to receive an input command from the user relating to the result relating to the fluorescent metabolite (i.e., the processor may provide a user interface to control one or more settings of the data acquisition and/or to provide raw or processed data to the user) (see at least fig. 4 and par 0099 & 0106).
Wilson discloses the method, as described above, that fails to explicitly teach a device wherein the emission fiber optic comprises a transparent fiber.
However, the Office takes Official notice that it is known that a fiber optic is a flexible, transparent fiber that may be made of high quality extruded glass (silica) or plastic to transmit light from one end of the fiber to the other (see at least par 0051 of US 2014/0177237, par 0021 of US 2014/0178000, par 0004 of US 2014/0064654 and par 0028 of US 2017/0112384); therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time Applicant’s invention was filed to provide the method Wilson wherein the emission fiber optic comprises a transparent fiber as claimed in order to transmit light from one end of the fiber to the other.
Wilson discloses the method, as described and modified above, that fails to explicitly teach a method comprising a haptic feedback controller.
However, Tearney teaches that it is known to provide a method comprising a haptic feedback controller 210 (see at least abstract, figs. 2 & 15 and par 0064-0070).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time Applicant’s invention was filed to provide the method of Wilson comprising a haptic feedback controller as taught by Tearney since such a modification would amount to a simple substitution of one known element (i.e., the feedback device as taught by Wilson) for another (i.e., the feedback device as taught by Tearney) to obtain predictable results such as providing feedback to the operator about the tissue in the vicinity of the biopsy window (see at least par 0145 of Wilson)--See KSR, 550 U.S. at___, 82 USPQ2d at 1396 (See MPEP § 214 3 for a discussion of the rationale(s) listed above. See also MPEP § 2144 - §2144.09 for additional guidance regarding support for obviousness determinations).
Wilson as modified above and by Tearney discloses the method, as described above, that fails to explicitly teach a method wherein the display window visualizing the intrinsic emission of the biological sample comprises a stereoscopic display configured to simulate three-dimensional space.
However, Scott teaches that it is known to provide a method wherein the display window visualizing the intrinsic emission of the biological sample comprises a stereoscopic display configured to simulate three-dimensional space (see at least abstract, fig. 1 and par 0013-0018, 0023-0027, 0037 & 0105, 0107, 0153 & 0168).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time Applicant’s invention was filed to provide the method of Wilson as modified by Tearney wherein the display window visualizing the intrinsic emission of the biological sample comprises a stereoscopic display configured to simulate three-dimensional space as taught by Scott since such a modification would amount to applying a known technique (i.e., as taught by Scott) to a known device (i.e., as taught by Wilson) ready for improvement to achieve a predictable result such as highlighting regions of interest in tissue including diseased portions of tissue and/or other tissue of interest, such as a nerve or organ (see at least par 0168 of Scott)--See KSR, 550 U.S. at___, 82 USPQ2d at 1396 (See MPEP § 214 3 for a discussion of the rationale(s) listed above. See also MPEP § 2144 - §2144.09 for additional guidance regarding support for obviousness determinations).
Wilson as modified above and by Tearney and Wilson discloses the method, as described above, that fails to explicitly teach a device comprising a haptic feedback controller comprising a coverable hole configured to supply varyingdegrees of suction through the vacuum line tip; wherein the vacuum-powered force is selected as a function of an environmental parameter which comprises at least an angle of vacuum and a length of vacuum.
However, Mark teaches that it is known to provide a method comprising a haptic feedback controller comprising a coverable hole configured to supply varying degrees of suction through the vacuum line tip; wherein the vacuum-powered force is selected as a function of an environmental parameter which comprises at least an angle of vacuum (i.e., due to rotation of the outer cannula 22 with respect to the handpiece 12, see at least fig. 9 and par 0018) and a length of vacuum (see at least abstract, figs. 5-6, 7A-D, 8A-C & 9-10 and par 0025-0034, 0036, 0038 & 0041-0042).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time Applicant’s invention was filed to provide the method of Wilson as modified by Tearney and Scott comprising a haptic feedback controller comprising a coverable hole configured to supply varying degrees of suction through the vacuum line tip; wherein the vacuum-powered force is selected as a function of an environmental parameter which comprises at least an angle of vacuum and a length of vacuum as taught by Mark since such a modification would amount to applying a known technique (i.e., as taught by Mark) to a known device (i.e., as taught by Wilson) ready for improvement to achieve a predictable result such as adjusting the level of vacuum to achieve a desired level of traction in the tissue surrounding the tissue severed as well as the amount of unsevered tissue that is drawn into the tissue receiving opening (see at least par 0038 of Mark)--See KSR, 550 U.S. at___, 82 USPQ2d at 1396 (See MPEP § 214 3 for a discussion of the rationale(s) listed above. See also MPEP § 2144 - §2144.09 for additional guidance regarding support for obviousness determinations).
In regards to claim 12, Wilson discloses the method of claim 11, wherein exciting the biological sample further comprises utilizing an intrinsic fluorescence probe (400, 650) excited by an excitation wavelength (see at least abstract and par 0007 & 0021-0022).
In regards to claim 13, Wilson discloses the method of claim 11, wherein exciting the biological sample further comprises administering an intrinsic fluorescence spectroscopy fluorophore to the biological sample (see at least par 0032 & 0034).
In regards to claim 14, Wilson discloses the method of claim 13, wherein the intrinsic fluorescence spectroscopy fluorophore is 5- aminolevulinic acid (see at least par 0035).
In regards to claim 15, Wilson discloses the method of claim 11, wherein detecting the intrinsic emission of the biological sample further comprises:
exciting the biological sample with a first wavelength (see at least par 0014-0016 & 0109-0110); and
detecting the intrinsic emission of the biological sample as a function of a second wavelength, wherein the first wavelength and the second wavelength are distinct (see at least par 0017 & 0109 & 0111).
In regards to claim 16, Wilson discloses the method of claim 11, wherein detecting the intrinsic emission of the biological sample further comprises identifying an intrinsic infrared emission of the biological sample (i.e., motion of the abundant optical scatterers in tissue such as cells organelles and the extracellular matrix) (see at least par 0109).
In regards to claim 17, Wilson discloses the method of claim 11, wherein visualizing the intrinsic emission of the biological sample further comprises mounting the tissue scanner 505 within the vacuum-line tip (i.e., inner cannula tip) (see at least figs. 4D and par 0098-0099).
In regards to claim 20, although Wilson discloses the method of claim 11, wherein the feedback controller connected to a suction device (see at least figs. 4A-D and par 0076, 0081 & 0115, 0126-0127 & 0145), Wilson discloses a method that fails to explicitly teach a method comprising a haptic feedback controller. However, Tearney teaches that it is known to provide a method comprising a haptic feedback controller 210 (see at least abstract, figs. 2 & 15 and par 0064-0070). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time Applicant’s invention was filed to provide the method of Wilson as modified by Scott comprising a haptic feedback controller as taught by Tearney since such a modification would amount to a simple substitution of one known element (i.e., the feedback device as taught by Wilson) for another (i.e., the feedback device as taught by Tearney) to obtain predictable results such as providing feedback to the operator about the tissue in the vicinity of the biopsy window (see at least par 0145 of Wilson)--See KSR, 550 U.S. at___, 82 USPQ2d at 1396 (See MPEP § 214 3 for a discussion of the rationale(s) listed above. See also MPEP § 2144 - §2144.09 for additional guidance regarding support for obviousness determinations).
Claim(s) 8 & 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wilson (‘629) in view of Tearney (‘453), Scott (‘678), Mark (‘526) further in view of Banko (US 3,996,935).
In regards to claim 8, Wilson as modified by Tearney, Scott and Mark discloses the device of claim 1, that fails to explicitly teach a device wherein removing the portion of the biological sample further comprises selecting a vacuum-powered force. However, Banko teaches that it is known to provide a device wherein removing the portion of the biological sample further comprises selecting a vacuum-powered force (i.e., via dial 91 shown at fig. 1) (see at least abstract, fig. 1 and col. 8, lines 54-63, col. 9, lines 43-68 & col. 10, lines 1-8). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time Applicant’s invention was filed to provide the device of Wilson as modified by Tearney, Scott and Mark wherein removing the portion of the biological sample further comprises selecting a vacuum-powered force as taught by Banco since such a modification would amount to applying a known technique (i.e., as taught by Banco) to a known device (i.e., as taught by Wilson) ready for improvement to achieve a predictable result such as providing an adjustable suction force that is selected based on the viscosity and type of material from which the tissue sample is made so that the tissue sample contained in the passageway is continuously moved along without clogging--See KSR, 550 U.S. at___, 82 USPQ2d at 1396 (See MPEP § 214 3 for a discussion of the rationale(s) listed above. See also MPEP § 2144 - §2144.09 for additional guidance regarding support for obviousness determinations).
In regards to claim 18, Wilson as modified by Tearney, Scott and Mark discloses the method of claim 11, that fails to explicitly teach a method wherein removing the portion of the biological sample further comprises selecting a vacuum-powered force. However, Banko teaches that it is known to provide a method wherein removing the portion of the biological sample further comprises selecting a vacuum-powered force (i.e., via dial 91 shown at fig. 1) (see at least abstract, fig. 1 and col. 8, lines 54-63, col. 9, lines 43-68 & col. 10, lines 1-8). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time Applicant’s invention was filed to provide the method of Wilson as modified by Tearney, Scott and Mark wherein removing the portion of the biological sample further comprises selecting a vacuum-powered force as taught by Banco since such a modification would amount to applying a known technique (i.e., as taught by Banco) to a known device (i.e., as taught by Wilson) ready for improvement to achieve a predictable result such as providing an adjustable suction force that is selected based on the viscosity and type of material from which the tissue sample is made so that the tissue sample contained in the passageway is continuously moved along without clogging--See KSR, 550 U.S. at___, 82 USPQ2d at 1396 (See MPEP § 214 3 for a discussion of the rationale(s) listed above. See also MPEP § 2144 - §2144.09 for additional guidance regarding support for obviousness determinations).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed January 20, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant contends that Wilson as modified above and by Tearney, Wilson and Mark fails to teach a device comprising a tissue scanner configured to discern a signal representing the emission of the biological sample and the presence of a fluorescent metabolite of a fluorophore in the biological sample; and, the display window is capable of capturing and relay back to the user a result relating to the presence of the fluorescent metabolite in the biological sample. The Office respectfully traverses. For example, Wilson clearly teaches those features as explained in the rejections supra.
In view of the foregoing, the rejections over at least Wilson, Tearney, Wilson and Mark are maintained.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RENE T TOWA whose telephone number is (313)446-6655. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 9:00 AM-5:00 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jason M. Sims can be reached on 571-272-7540. 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.
/RENE T TOWA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791