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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 2/20/2026 has been entered.
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, 5,9, and 12-15are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hanashi et al. (US 2021/0156784) as applied to claims above.
Regarding claim 1 Hanashi discloses a multi-well plate reader comprising: See Hanashi Fig. 1 and Abstract)
a reading platform configured to receive a multi-well plate; (See Hanashi Fig. 1 wherien a stage 17a receives a multi-well plate 9)
at least one objective disposed at the platform; (See Hanashi Fig. 1 wherein there is an objective lens 8 disposed at the platform.)
and an optical subsystem comprising: one or more light sources operable to transmit stimulation light at a plurality of different stimulation wavelengths through the objective to a well of the multi-well plate,(See Hanashi Fig. 1 [0002] and [0043] wherein an optical subsystem comprises a plurality of light sources 2 to transmit stimulation light thorugh the objective to a well 10 of the multi-well plate 9.)
and one or more optical filters or dichroic mirrors operable to pass emission light of a number of emission wavelengths from the well along a first optical path through the objective to a first light detector and emission light of a second or third wavelength from the well along a second path to a second or third light detector. (See Hanashi Fig. 1 and [0043] wherien dichroic mirror 5 and beam splitter, i.e. filter, passes light along respective first and second optical paths to first and second detectors via the well and objective lens 8.)
Hanashi discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above as well as the device wherein a plurality of light sources and a plurality of detectors each for detecting a different wavelength but does not specifically disclose 3 such detectors and stimulation wavelengths. It is noted such a modification would have required a mere duplication of parts, i.e. light sources, detectors and associated optical components, which would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to follow the suggestion of the prior art to provide a plurality of detectors and to detect any number of light wavelengths and because mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. In re Harza, 124 USPQ 378, 380 (CCPA 1960). Further, it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
In regards to the number of different emissions wavelengths being one fewer than a number of stimulation wavelengths it is noted that Hanashi in Fig. 1 appears to disclose 3 light sources in light system 2 and two detectors 16. Furthermore the number of emission wavelengths is based entirely upon materials worked on which produce such emission wavelengths and as such said emissions wavelengths produced and the number thereof is directed to an intended use and materials worked on by the cited prior art. The cited prior art is capable of being provided with any number of fluorescent species producing any number of emission wavelength. Such limitations do not define structural elements which differentiate the claimed invention from the cited prior art as the cited prior art is fully capable of being provided with such materials and used in such a manner. See MPEP 2114 and 2115.
Regarding claim 5 Hanashi discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above as well as the device wherein the optical subsystem transmits stimulation light of at least a first and a second wavelength through the objective to a well of the multi-well plate. (See Hanashi Fig. 1 and [0043] wherein there are a plurality of light wavelengths from light sources 2 which transmit through the objective 8 to wells in plate 10.)
In regards to a third wavelength Hanashi discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above as well as the device wherein a plurality of light sources and a plurality of detectors each for detecting a different wavelength but does not specifically disclose 3 such detectors and stimulation wavelengths. It is noted such a modification would have required a mere duplication of parts, i.e. light sources, detectors and associated optical components, which would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to follow the suggestion of the prior art to provide a plurality of detectors and to detect any number of light wavelengths and because mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. In re Harza, 124 USPQ 378, 380 (CCPA 1960). Further, it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
Regarding claim 9 Hanashi discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above as well as the device wherein emission light from a well is passed through an objective that transmits stimulation light to the well. (See Hanashi Fig. 1 wherein emission light from light sources 2 passes through objective lens 8 to the well 10.)
Regarding claim 12 Hanashi discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above but does not specifically disclose the number of wells in the multi-well plate.
It is noted that such a modification, i.e. making the plate a 48-, 96-, 384-, or 1536-wells would have required a mere duplication of parts, i.e. wells, which would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to analyze more samples and because Mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. In re Harza, 124 USPQ 378, 380 (CCPA 1960). Further, it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
Regarding claim 13 Hanashi discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above as well as the device wherein the objective and light subsystem are coupled to a processing system operable to model activity of a cell in a well using emission light from the well. (See Hanashi Fig. 1 and [0034] wherien the objective and light subsystem are coupled to a computer, i.e. processing system, which is operable to analyse the data and thus model activity of a cell using the emission light.)
Regarding claims 14-15 Hanashi discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above as well as the device wherein the activity is a biological signal wherein the biological signal wherein the biological signal is selected from an action potential, a synaptic signal, a change in membrane potential, a change in intracellular ion concentration and a change in concentration of intracellular mediators. (See Hanashi Fig. 1 and [0002] wherein the activity is from a cell.)
Furthermore it is noted that the particular signal and cell are considered materials worked on and intended uses of the device which do not define structural elements which differentiate the claimed invention from the cited prior art as the cited prior art is fully capable and configured to measure and model such signals from cells. See MPEP 2114 and 2115.)
Claim(s) 7-8, 10-11, 16, and 23-27, and 29-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hanashi (US 2021/0156784) as applied to claims above, and further in view of Buermann et al. (US 2017/0246635)
Regarding claims 7-8 Hanashi discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above a but does not specifically disclose a plurality of objective lenses.
Buermann et al. discloses a device for optically analyzing biological samples wherein a multiple lanes, i.e. wells, having different biological samples are anlayzed simultaneously by providing detection devices comprising a plurality of objective lenses with each lens transmitting stimulation light to a different lane, i.e. well, of the device.
It would have been obvious to provide a plurality of detection devices with a plurality of objective lenses each transmitting light to a different well in the device of Hanashi as described by Buermann because doing so increases allows simultaneous analysis of different samples increasing throughput and reducing analysis time as would be desirable in the device of Hanashi.
Regarding claim 10 Hanashi discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above as well as the device wherein the platform further comprises a mechanism to displace the plate with respect to the plurality of objectives.(See Hanashi Fig. 1 and [0041] wherein a plate pusher, i.e stage 17a, displaces the plate with respect to the objective lens.)
Regarding claim 11 Hanashi discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above as well as the device wherein the mechanism is a motor. (See Hanashi Fig. 1 and [0041] wherein the mechanism is controlled by a computer and thus requires a motor of some form to perform said movement.)
Furthermore even assuming arguendo with respect to using a motor it is noted that providing a motor to perform movement would have required merely making the movement automatic to reduce operator intervention and since it has been held that broadly providing a mechanical or automatic means to replace manual activity which has accomplished the same result involves only routine skill in the art. In re Venner, 120 USPQ 192 (CCPA 1958); In re Rundell, 9 USPQ 220 (CCPA 1931).
Regarding claim 16 Hanashi discloses a multi-well plate reader comprising: See Hanashi Fig. 1 and Abstract)
a reading platform configured to receive a multi-well plate; (See Hanashi Fig. 1 wherien a stage 17a receives a multi-well plate 9)
an read head assembly comprising at least one objective disposed at the platform; (See Hanashi Fig. 1 wherein there is an objective lens 8 disposed at the platform.)
and an optical subsystem comprising: one or more light sources operable to transmit stimulation light at a plurality of different stimulation wavelengths through the objective to a well of the multi-well plate,(See Hanashi Fig. 1 [0002] and [0043] wherein an optical subsystem comprises a plurality of light sources 2 to transmit stimulation light through the objective to a well 10 of the multi-well plate 9.) The optical subsystem configured to simultaneously detect different emission wavelengths from the well through the objective lens. (See Hanashi Fig. 1 wherein detectors 16 detect emission wavelengths passed through objective lens 8.)
and a plate pusher that displaces the multi-well plate with respect to the read assembly to align each of a plurality of wells of the multi-well plate with the objective lens(See Hanashi Fig. 1 and [0041] wherein a plate pusher, i.e stage 17a, displaces the plate with respect to the objective lens.)
Hanshi does not specifically disclose multiple objective lenses.
Buermann et al. discloses a device for optically analyzing biological samples wherein multiple lanes, i.e. wells, having different biological samples are analyzed simultaneously by providing detection devices comprising a plurality of objective lenses with each lens aligned for transmitting stimulation light to a different lane, i.e. well, of the device, and analyzing said light from each of said wells. (See Buermann Abstract, Fig. 6, [0006] and [0065])
It would have been obvious to provide a plurality of detection devices with a plurality of objective lenses each transmitting light to a different well in the device of Hanashi as described by Buermann because doing so increases allows simultaneous analysis of different samples increasing throughput and reducing analysis time as would be desirable in the device of Hanashi.
Hanashi discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above as well as the device wherein a plurality of light sources and a plurality of detectors each for detecting a different wavelength but does not specifically disclose 3 such light sources, detectors, and wavelengths. It is noted such a modification would have required a mere duplication of parts, i.e. detectors and associated optical components, which would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to follow the suggestion of the prior art to provide a plurality of detectors and to detect any number of light wavelengths and because mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. In re Harza, 124 USPQ 378, 380 (CCPA 1960). Further, it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
In regards to the number of different emissions wavelengths being one fewer than a number of stimulation wavelengths it is noted that Hanashi in Fig. 1 appears to disclose 3 light sources in light system 2 and two detectors 16. Furthermore the number of emission wavelengths is based entirely upon materials worked on which produce such emission wavelengths and as such said emissions wavelengths produced and the number thereof is directed to an intended use and materials worked on by the cited prior art. The cited prior art is capable of being provided with any number of fluorescent species producing any number of emission wavelength. Such limitations do not define structural elements which differentiate the claimed invention from the cited prior art as the cited prior art is fully capable of being provided with such materials and used in such a manner. See MPEP 2114 and 2115.
Regarding claim 23 Hanashi discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above as well as the device wherein the plate reader comprises an optical subsystem comprising one or more dichroic mirrors or filters that pass an optical signal of the first wavelength from a well down a first optical path to a first light detector and pass an optical signal of the second or third wavelength from a well down a second or third optical path to a second light detector. (See Hanashi Fig. 1 and [0043] wherein a dichroic mirror 5 passes first or second wavelengths from the well down an optical path to a first light detector, i.e. one of detectors 16, and another optical signal of second wavelength to a second of detectors 16.)
Regarding claim 24 Hanashi discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above as well as the device the detectors digitize the optical signals into digital signals, and the reader further comprises a processing system that analyzes and/or stores the digitized signals. . (See Hanashi Fig. 1, [0002], and [0034] and [0052] wherien the detectors digitize the optical signals into digital signals sent to a processing system ,i.e. computer which analyzes said signals.)
Regarding claims 25-26 Hanashi discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above as well as the device wherein the processing system is operable to model activity-related waveforms from the digitized signals and wherein said activity-related waveform is selected from an action potential or, a synaptic signal, or a change in membrane potential, or a change in intracellular ion concentration and a change in concentration of intracellular mediators. It is noted that such limitations are directed to materials worked on, cell, and intended uses, signal types, which are not structural elements which differentiate the claimed invention form the cited prior art as the cited prior art is fully capable of detecting and analyzing activity related waveforms appropriate signals form any number of cell signals. See MPEP 2114 and 2115.
Regarding claim 27 Hanashi discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above as well as the device wherein the optical subsystem transmits the different stimulation wavelengths through each objective lens to each well respectively aligned with an objective lens such that the one ore more emission wavelengths from each well are passed through their same respective objective lens. (See Hanashi Fig. 1, [0002], and [0034] and [0052] wherein the optical subsystem transmits stimulation light through each objective lens 8 to each well aligned with the objective lens and each emission wavelength passes through the same objective lens to be detected.)
Regarding claim 29 Hanashi discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above as well as the device wherein the stimulation light causes a biological sample in a well to produce the optical signal of the first and/or second or additional wavelengths. (See Hanashi Fig. 1, [0002], and [0034] and [0052] wherein the stimulation light causes the sample to produce an optical signal of at least first and/or second wavelength.)
Regarding claim 30 Hanashi discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above as well as the device wherein after the optical signals are passed to the optical detectors the plate pusher displaces the multi-well plate with respect to the read head assembly such that a second plurality of wells are each respectively aligned with a different objective lens of the read head assembly. (See Hanashi Fig. 1, [0002], and [0045] wherien the plate pusher, i.e. stage, moves the multi-well plate with respect to the read head assembly to align the objective with different wells.)
Claim(s) 17 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hanashi (US 2021/0156784) as applied to claims above, and further in view of Buermann et al. (US 2017/0246635) and Attias (US 2004/0064013).
Regarding claims 17-18 multi-well plate reader comprising: See Hanashi Fig. 1 and Abstract)
a reading platform configured to receive a multi-well plate; (See Hanashi Fig. 1 wherein a stage 17a receives a multi-well plate 9)
and an optical subsystem comprising: one or more light sources operable to transmit stimulation light at a plurality of different stimulation wavelengths through the objective to a well of the multi-well plate,(See Hanashi Fig. 1 [0002] and [0043] wherein an optical subsystem comprises a plurality of light sources 2 to transmit stimulation light through the objective to a well 10 of the multi-well plate 9.) The optical subsystem configured to simultaneously detect different emission wavelengths from the well through the objective lens. (See Hanashi Fig. 1 wherein detectors 16 detect emission wavelengths passed through objective lens 8.)
In regards to the number of different emissions wavelengths being one fewer than a number of stimulation wavelengths it is noted that Hanashi in Fig. 1 appears to disclose 3 light sources in light system 2 and two detectors 16. Furthermore the number of emission wavelengths is based entirely upon materials worked on which produce such emission wavelengths and as such said emissions wavelengths produced and the number thereof is directed to an intended use and materials worked on by the cited prior art. The cited prior art is capable of being provided with any number of fluorescent species producing any number of emission wavelength. Such limitations do not define structural elements which differentiate the claimed invention from the cited prior art as the cited prior art is fully capable of being provided with such materials and used in such a manner. See MPEP 2114 and 2115.
Hanashi does not specifically disclose multiple objective lenses.
Buermann et al. discloses a device for optically analyzing biological samples wherein multiple lanes, i.e. wells, having different biological samples are analyzed simultaneously by providing detection devices comprising a plurality of objective lenses with each lens aligned for transmitting stimulation light to a different lane, i.e. well, of the device, and analyzing said light from each of said wells. (See Buermann Abstract, Fig. 6, [0006] and [0065])
It would have been obvious to provide a plurality of detection devices with a plurality of objective lenses each transmitting light to a different well in the device of Hanashi as described by Buermann because doing so increases allows simultaneous analysis of different samples increasing throughput and reducing analysis time as would be desirable in the device of Hanashi.
Hanashi does not specifically disclose automated loading, fluidics, and environmental control of the device.
Attias discloses a multi-well plate reader comprising a facility to enable simultaneous loading of a plurality of plates and automated sequential reading of each plate, a fluidic assembly to deliver fluids to wells in said multi-well plate; and further comprising environmental control elements. (See Attias Abstract Figs. 2-3 [0030]-[0033] and [0042] wherein a plurality of multi-well plates are simultaneously loaded in an air-tight environmentally controlled chamber and may be automatically filled with materials and automatically and sequentially sent to an analysis device.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to provide an automated loading, fluidic, and environmental control system as described by Attias in the device of Hanashi because such a system allows for the automated loading and control of environmental conditions ensuring biological samples are contained in a optimal environment and reduces operator intervention as would be desirable in the device of Hanashi.
Hanashi discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above as well as the device wherein a plurality of light sources and a plurality of detectors each for detecting a different wavelength but does not specifically disclose 3 such detectors and stimulation wavelengths. It is noted such a modification would have required a mere duplication of parts, i.e. light sources, detectors and associated optical components, which would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to follow the suggestion of the prior art to provide a plurality of detectors and to detect any number of light wavelengths and because mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. In re Harza, 124 USPQ 378, 380 (CCPA 1960). Further, it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
Furthermore in regards to the fluidic system being microfluidic it is noted that such a modification would have required a mere change in size of the fluidic components which would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to optimize fluid flow and space requirements and because A change in size (dimension) is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). Where the only difference between the prior art and the claims is a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device, and the device having the claimed dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device is not patentably distinct from the prior art device, Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984).
Claims 3-4 and 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hanashi (US 2021/0156784) as applied to claims above and further in view of Durrer et al. (US 2014/0093948).
Regarding claims 3-4, and 6 Hanashi discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above as well as the device, wherein said emission light is generated by a fluorescent molecule or non-fluorescent molecule and wherein the fluorescent molecule is a dye or a protein. Hanshi also discloses that the excitation light is chosen based upon the desired analysis to be performed but does not specify specific light sources or wavelengths used.
Durrer discloses a light source for use in an analytical instrument analyzing biological samples which utilizes white light providing a plurality of simultaneous wavelengths which may be used for stimulation at said wavelengths. (See Durrer Abstract and Fig. 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to provide a white light excitation source or sources as described by Durrer in the device of Hanashi because such a light source provides a controllable light source providing numerous wavelegnths and which saves energy as would be desirable in the device of Hanashi.
It is noted that the white light provides stimulation wavelengths at 450-493nm and 580-650nm and provides stimulation wavelengths first wavelengths which activates a light-gated ion channel; a second wavelength at a fluorescence excitation wavelength of a voltage indicator protein; and a third wavelength at a fluorescence excitation wavelength of a calcium indicator protein. (See Durrer Fig. 3 line 172 which provides stimulation wavelengths between ~415nm – 800nm and includes wavelengths which include all first, second and third wavelengths described.)
Claims 19-22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hanashi (US 2021/0156784) in view of Buermann et al. (US 2017/0246635) as applied to claims above and further in view of Durrer et al. (US 2014/0093948).
Regarding claims 19-22 Hanashi discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above as well as the device, wherein said emission light is generated by a fluorescent molecule or non-fluorescent molecule and wherein the fluorescent molecule is a dye or a protein. Hanshi also discloses that the excitation light is chosen based upon the desired analysis to be performed but does not specify specific light sources or wavelengths used.
Durrer discloses a light source for use in an analytical instrument analyzing biological samples which utilizes white light providing a plurality of simultaneous wavelengths which may be used for stimulation at said wavelengths. (See Durrer Abstract and Fig. 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to provide a white light excitation source or sources as described by Durrer in the device of Hanashi because such a light source provides a controllable light source providing numerous wavelegnths and which saves energy as would be desirable in the device of Hanashi.
It is noted that the white light provides stimulation wavelengths at 450-493nm and 580-650nm and provides stimulation wavelengths first wavelengths which activates a light-gated ion channel; a second wavelength at a fluorescence excitation wavelength of a voltage indicator protein; a third wavelength at a fluorescence excitation wavelength of a calcium indicator protein, a fourth wavelength at a fluorescence emission wavelength of the voltage indicator and a fifth wavelength at a fluorescence emission wavelength of the calcium indicator protein.(See Durrer Fig. 3 line 172 which provides stimulation wavelengths between ~415nm – 800nm and includes wavelengths which include all first to fifth wavelengths described.)
Claim 28 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hanashi (US 2021/0156784) in view of Buermann et al. (US 2017/0246635) and Attias (US 2004/0064013) as applied to claims above and further in view of Durrer et al. (US 2014/0093948).
Regarding claim 28 Hanashi discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above as well as the device, wherein said emission light is generated by a fluorescent molecule or non-fluorescent molecule and wherein the fluorescent molecule is a dye or a protein. Hanshi also discloses that the excitation light is chosen based upon the desired analysis to be performed but does not specify specific light sources or wavelengths used.
Durrer discloses a light source for use in an analytical instrument analyzing biological samples which utilizes white light providing a plurality of simultaneous wavelengths which may be used for stimulation at said wavelengths. (See Durrer Abstract and Fig. 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to provide a white light excitation source or sources as described by Durrer in the device of Hanashi because such a light source provides a controllable light source providing numerous wavelegnths and which saves energy as would be desirable in the device of Hanashi.
It is noted that the white light provides stimulation wavelengths at 450-493nm and 580-650nm and provides stimulation wavelengths first wavelengths which activates a light-gated ion channel; a second wavelength at a fluorescence excitation wavelength of a voltage indicator protein; a third wavelength at a fluorescence excitation wavelength of a calcium indicator protein, a fourth wavelength at a fluorescence emission wavelength of the voltage indicator and a fifth wavelength at a fluorescence emission wavelength of the calcium indicator protein.(See Durrer Fig. 3 line 172 which provides stimulation wavelengths between ~415nm – 800nm and includes wavelengths which include all first to fifth wavelengths described.)
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/20/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues “Hanashi does not teach or suggest a plate reader that transmits stimulation light at a
plurality of stimulation wavelengths while using one or more light detectors for capturing one fewer emission wavelengths than the number of stimulation wavelengths, as recited in the amended independent claims. Hanashi reports providing a light source and allowing only "the light component of a specific wavelength band" to reach a light detector. US 2021/012528, [0037]. For samples with a plurality of different light emitting particles, polarization is used to reduce background light noise. Id., [0043]. Hanashi states that its device is set to operate at an excitation wavelength of 642 nm and an observation wavelength of 660 nm to 710 nm. Id., [0102]. That is, like with any fluorescent imaging system, Hanashi uses two wavelengths (excitation and emission). Hanashi states that "Further, in the photoanalysis device 100, as shown in FIG. 1, a plurality of light sources 2 may be provided. The wavelength of the excitation light may be appropriately selected". Id., [0043]. There is no disclosure in Hanashi that a device could stimulate a sample with some number of stimulation wavelengths while simultaneously detecting emission light via one fewer detection channels.”
Firstly applicant disagrees with applicant that Hanashi does not disclose one fewer detector than light source. In Fig. 1 Hanshi appears to disclose 3 light sources in light system 2 and two detectors 16 thus reading on applicant’s argued invention.
Furthermore it is noted that Hanashi discloses utilizing a plurality of stimulation light wavelengths and detecting various emission light wavelengths created by fluorescent bodies in a sample which are excited by the said stimulation wavelengths. The created emission wavelengths are not structural elements but are a direct result only of providing materials worked on and intended uses of the claimed device. Hanashi is fully capable of providing a sample which creates emission wavelengths which are fewer in number than the number of stimulation wavelengths. For example the Hanashi system may have light sources which produce two different stimulation wavelengths but provide a sample which is tagged only with a single fluorophore and thus creates only one emission wavelength detectable by the device. It appears as if applicant is arguing for a specific arrangement of a specific number of light sources related to a specific number of detectors however the claims require specific stimulation wavelengths and specific emission wavelengths which are a result of using the device and do not require the specific structural arrangement argued by applicant. It is suggested that applicant claim specific device components rather than rely on non-structural wavelengths which may or may not be created using such a device of the prior art according to a user’s operation.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN M HURST whose telephone number is (571)270-7065. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 7AM-4PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Michael Marcheschi can be reached on 571-272-1374. 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 obtaine39d 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.
/JONATHAN M HURST/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1799
Prosecution Insights