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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 6 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the combination of references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
At the outset, the Examiner notes that independent claim 1 has been amended to include the limitations of claim 2 which was previously indicated as allowable subject matter. As such, claim 1, and claims depending from claim 1 are in condition for allowance. Applicant has amended claim 6 to be an independent claim that does not include the limitations of now cancelled claim 2, thus claim 6 does not recite the subject matter previously indicated as allowable. Applicant has amended claim 6 to recite a second lens spaced apart from a first lens in a vertical direction wherein the second lens is between the first lens and a light source, and argued that the combination of Rutter et al., in view of Petruno et al., do not meet the claim limitations. As detailed below, claim 6 now stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over the teachings of Rutter et al., in view of Straus (US 2003/0082516). Because reference to Straus is newly cited, the Examiner will not argue the merits of its teachings here, but will instead rely on the rejection detailed below. Therefore, in light of the teachings of the prior art, the Examiner contends that the limitations of independent claim 6 are taught by the combination of Rutter et al., in view of Straus, thus the claim is not in condition for allowance.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rutter et al., (US 2010/0267049) in view of Straus (US 2003/0082516).
Regarding claim 6, Rutter et al., teach a lateral flow test strip reader (paragraphs 0244, 0247) comprising a lateral flow test strip receptacle (paragraph 0023), a light source (paragraph 0020), an optical detector (paragraph 0026), and at least one lens having a light transmission region (paragraph 0151). Rutter et al., do not teach a second lens spaced apart from a first lens in a vertical direction between the first lens and a light source.
Straus teaches an imaging system comprising first lens (Figure 4, focusing lens), a second lens spaced from the first lens in a vertical direction (Figure 4, collection lens) wherein the second lens is between a light source and the first lens (paragraph 0230, Figure 4). Straus teaches that it is advantageous to provide a first lens spaced vertically from a second lens as a means of allowing a filter wheel to be inserted into the path of a collection lens (paragraph 0229).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Rutter et al., in include a second lens spaced apart in a vertical direction from a first lens in order to allow a filter wheel to be inserted into the path of a collection lens as taught by Straus.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 3, 5, 7, 8, 10-18, and 36 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: the prior art of record does not teach or suggest a lateral flow test strip reader comprising a housing, a lateral flow test strip receptacle, a light source, an optical detector, at least one lens in the housing between the optical detector and the lateral flow test strip wherein the lens has a an excitation light directing region and an excitation light transmission region wherein the excitation light transmission region comprises an aperture in the lens configured to allow passage of the excitation light to one of a test region and a control region. The prior art closest to the limitations of independent claim 1 is the combination of Rutter et al., in view of Petruno et al. Reference to Rutter et al., teach a lateral flow test strip reader comprising a lateral flow test strip receptacle, light source, optical detector, and at least one lens having a light transmission region. Reference to Petruno et al., teach a diagnostic test system comprising an illumination system having a light source, two light detectors, and two lenses wherein light from the light source transmits through the lenses to control and test regions of a test strip, and emissions from the control and test regions of a test strip transmits through the lenses to the detectors. Neither reference teaches a lens having an excitation light transmission region comprising an aperture, and therefore do not teach or suggest the limitations of independent claim 1.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DWAN A GERIDO whose telephone number is (571)270-3714. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 10-6.
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, Lyle Alexander can be reached at (571) 272-1254. 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.
/DWAN A GERIDO/Examiner, Art Unit 1797
/BRIAN R GORDON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1798
Prosecution Insights