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 Amendment
The Amendment filed March 17, 2026 has been entered. Claims 1-9, 16, 18, 21, 23, 25, 27, 38-39, 43-45, and 91-92 remain pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed March 17, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues, see pages 6-13, that previously presented prior art reference Weber et al. (Patent Publication Number US 2007/0286611 A1), hereafter referred to as Weber, fails to disclose a voltage controlled current source, and that therefore, the rejections of claims 1-9, 16, 18, 21, 23, 25, 27, 38-39 and 43-45 are not appropriate. Examiner respectfully disagrees.
As described in Weber regarding Fig. 3, amplifier 331 outputs a current that flows via either resistor 332 or switch 333 to the node 304 to enable charging the capacitor 334 (Weber, Paragraph 37, lines 6-10). Therefore, amplifier 331 of Weber, Fig. 3, is appropriately mapped to the claimed voltage controlled current source. Therefore, applicant’s arguments are unconvincing and the rejections of claims 1-9, 16, 18, 21, 23, 25, 27, 38-39, and 43-45 are maintained.
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 1-2, 4, 6-9, 23, 25, 27, 39, 44, and 92 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Weber.
Regarding claim 1, Weber discloses:
A baseline restoration circuit (Weber, Fig. 3), the baseline restoration circuit comprising: an input module (Fig. 3, 310) for receiving an input signal from a sensor (Fig. 3, see connection between 310 and sensor 340); an amplifier module (Fig. 3, 320), operably connected to the input module, for modifying the input signal (Fig. 3, see connection between 320 and 310); a baseline restoration module (Fig. 3, 330), operably connected to the amplifier module (Fig. 3, see connection between 330 and 320), for extracting a direct current component of the input signal (Paragraph 33, lines 10-14); wherein the baseline restoration module comprises: a voltage controlled current source (Fig. 3, 331) configured to be controlled by a voltage differential between output terminals of the amplifier module (Paragraph 35, lines 1-5); and a capacitor (Fig. 3, 334) configured to be charged by the output of the voltage controlled current source (Paragraph 35, lines 5-8); and an output module (Fig. 3, see V-out and V+out), operably connected to the amplifier module (Fig. 3, see connection between V-out, V+out, and 320), for transmitting a baseline restored signal (Paragraph 37, lines 10-12), wherein the output module comprises differential outputs (Fig. 3, see V-out and V+out).
Regarding claim 2, Weber further discloses:
wherein the baseline restoration circuit is configured to subtract a direct current component of the input signal that varies slowly over time relative to a duration of the input signal (Weber, Paragraph 35, lines 1-5).
Regarding claim 4, Weber further discloses:
wherein the baseline restoration circuit is configured to receive input signals corresponding to a plurality of events and to separate signals corresponding to each event in time (Weber, Paragraph 32, lines 10-14 [this claim describes the functioning of a detector, disclosed in Weber]).
Regarding claim 6, Weber further discloses:
wherein the output module comprises a first differential output (Weber, Fig. 3, V+out) and a second differential output (Fig. 3, V-out).
Regarding claim 7, Weber further discloses:
wherein a difference between signals on the first and second differential outputs comprises the baseline restored signal (Weber, Paragraph 35, lines 1-5).
Regarding claim 8, Weber further discloses:
wherein the difference between signals comprises a voltage difference between the first and second differential outputs (Weber, Paragraph 35, lines 1-5).
Regarding claim 9, Weber further discloses:
wherein the baseline restoration circuit is configured so that the differential outputs reduce sensitivity to low-frequency noise (Weber, Paragraph 6, lines 8-11, consider that the DC restoration loop 240 is a generic version of the baseline restoration module 330 of Fig. 3 of Weber).
Regarding claim 23, Weber further discloses:
wherein the sensor is a light detector (Weber, Paragraph 32, lines 10-14).
Regarding claim 25, Weber further discloses:
wherein the amplifier module comprises a first amplifier (Weber, Fig. 3, 320) with differential amplifier outputs (Fig. 3, see differential outputs of the amplifier 320).
Regarding claim 27, Weber further discloses:
wherein the baseline restoration module comprises a filter network (Weber, Fig. 3, 331, see also Paragraph 35, lines 1-5, consider that 331 passes only the DC signal for the DC cancellation effect) operably connected to differential outputs of the amplifier module (Fig. 3, see connection 331, V+out, and V-out).
Regarding claim 39, Weber further discloses:
wherein the input module is configured to transform the input signal received from the sensor (Weber, Fig. 3, see TIA 310 to transform current signal from sensor 340 to voltage signal).
Regarding claim 44, Weber further discloses:
wherein the baseline restoration circuit is a circuit of a light detection system (Weber, Paragraph 32, lines 10-14).
Regarding claim 92, Weber further discloses:
wherein the amplifier module comprises an operational amplifier (Weber, Fig. 3, 331) in a closed-loop negative feedback configuration (Paragraph 33, lines 8-10).
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.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weber as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Niu et al. (Patent Publication Number CN 1,588,051 A), hereafter referred to as Niu.
Regarding claim 3, Weber fails to disclose:
wherein the direct current component of the input signal varies slowly over time in part based on a temperature of the sensor generating the input signal.
However, Niu teaches wherein the direct current component of the input signal varies slowly over time in part based on a temperature of the sensor generating the input signal (Niu, Page 5, Paragraph 6, lines 5-10).
Weber and Niu are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of improving amplifiers used in sensor systems. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified Weber to incorporate the teachings of Niu to modify the input signal of Weber to have its DC component vary based on the temperature of the sensor of Weber, which would have the effect of providing an example of a signal with low-frequency noise that can be readily removed by the amplifier of Weber.
Claims 5, 16, 43, and 91 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weber as applied to claims 1 (for claims 16, 43, and 91) and 4 (for claim 5) above, and further in view of Denoyer et al. (Patent Publication Number US 2004/0207473 A1), as cited by applicant, hereafter referred to as Denoyer.
Regarding claim 5, Weber fails to disclose:
wherein the baseline restoration circuit is configured so that a high-pass cutoff frequency of the baseline restoration circuit is below 1 Hz.
However, Denoyer teaches wherein the baseline restoration circuit is configured so that a high-pass cutoff frequency of the baseline restoration circuit is below 1 Hz (Denoyer, Fig. 12, see that maximum cutoff frequencies for Fig. 9 are below 1 Hz).
Weber and Denoyer are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of improving amplifiers used in sensor systems. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified Weber to incorporate the teachings of Denoyer to modify the cutoff frequency to be below 1 Hz, which would have the effect of providing strong performance over a wider range of frequencies (Denoyer, Paragraph 91, lines 3-6).
Regarding claim 16, Weber fails to disclose:
wherein the output module is configured to absorb reflections of signals transmitted at the differential outputs.
However, Denoyer teaches wherein the output module is configured to absorb reflections of signals transmitted at the differential outputs (Denoyer, Fig. 3, see output buffer 212).
Weber and Denoyer are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of improving amplifiers used in sensor systems. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified Weber to incorporate the teachings of Denoyer to include the buffer of Denoyer in the circuit of Weber, which would have the effect of increasing the stability of the circuit of Weber (Denoyer, Paragraph 31, lines 8-9).
Regarding claim 43, Weber fails to disclose:
wherein the baseline restoration circuit is an analog circuit.
However, Denoyer teaches wherein the baseline restoration circuit is an analog circuit (Denoyer, see Fig. 1, of which Fig. 3 is an implementation of TIA 120, and consider Paragraph 30, lines 16-18, which state that the output of TIA 120 is converted to a digital signal by 108 [in other words, TIA 120 handles an analog signal]).
Weber and Denoyer are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of improving amplifiers used in sensor systems. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified Weber to incorporate the teachings of Denoyer to make the circuit of Weber an analog circuit, which would have the effect of enabling the circuit of Weber to provide DC cancellation for analog signals.
Regarding claim 91, Weber further discloses:
wherein the voltage controlled current source is a first voltage controlled current source (Weber, Fig. 3, 331), but fails to disclose and the baseline restoration module further comprises a second voltage controlled current source, operably connected to the capacitor.
However, Denoyer teaches and the baseline restoration module further comprises a second voltage controlled current source (Denoyer, Fig. 3, 204), operably connected to the capacitor (Fig. 3, consider connection between 204 and 214, and consider that amplifier 214 is analogous to amplifier 331 of Weber, Fig. 3, which has capacitor 334 connected to its output).
Weber and Denoyer are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of improving amplifiers used in sensor systems. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified Weber to incorporate the teachings of Denoyer to include the voltage controlled current source of Denoyer in the circuit of Weber, which would have the effect of providing gain control for the circuit of Weber (Denoyer, Paragraph 40, lines 1-4).
Claims 18 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weber as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hill et al. (Patent Publication Number US 2005/0146512 A1), hereafter referred to as Hill.
Regarding claim 18, Weber fails to disclose:
wherein the baseline restoration circuit is configured to be located at proximity of the sensor.
However, Hill teaches wherein the baseline restoration circuit is configured to be located at proximity of the sensor (Hill, Paragraph 67, lines 9-11).
Weber and Hill are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of improving amplifiers used in sensor systems. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified Weber to incorporate the teachings of Hill to modify the system of Weber to locate the amplifier of Weber in proximity to the sensor of Weber, which would have the effect of maintaining high quality signals (Hill, Paragraph 67, lines 6-9).
Regarding claim 21, Weber fails to disclose:
wherein the baseline restoration circuit is installed on a substrate, wherein the substrate is shaped such that the substrate is located proximally with the sensor.
However, Hill teaches wherein the baseline restoration circuit is installed on a substrate (Hill, Paragraph 67, lines 2-6), wherein the substrate is shaped such that the substrate is located proximally with the sensor (Paragraph 67, lines 9-11).
Weber and Hill are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of improving amplifiers used in sensor systems. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified Weber to incorporate the teachings of Hill to modify the system of Weber to locate the amplifier of Weber on a substrate in proximity to the sensor of Weber, which would have the effect of maintaining high quality signals (Hill, Paragraph 67, lines 6-9).
Claim 38 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weber as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Wang (Patent Number US 11,060,906 B1), hereafter referred to as Wang.
Regarding claim 38, Weber fails to disclose:
wherein the baseline restoration module comprises a switch to disengage the baseline restoration module from the baseline restoration circuit.
However, Wang teaches wherein the baseline restoration module comprises a switch (Wang, Fig. 7, Q1) to disengage the baseline restoration module from the baseline restoration circuit (Col. 17, lines 13-18).
Weber and Wang are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of improving amplifiers used in sensor systems. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified Weber to incorporate the teachings of Wang to include a switch able to disengage the baseline restoration module from the circuit of Weber, which would have the effect of reducing noise generated at low-current operating conditions (Weber, Col. 18, lines 20-28)
Claim 45 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weber as applied to claim 44 above, and further in view of Quesada et al. (Patent Publication Number US 2010/0033231 A1), as cited by applicant, hereafter referred to as Quesada.
Regarding claim 45, Weber fails to disclose:
wherein the baseline restoration circuit is a circuit of a light detection system of a flow cytometer.
However, Quesada teaches wherein the baseline restoration circuit is a circuit of a light detection system of a flow cytometer (Quesada, see Fig. 2, which shows an amplifier circuit for removing a DC component of a signal, and Fig. 1, which uses that amplifier circuit as part of a flow cytometry system).
Weber and Quesada are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of improving amplifiers used in sensor systems. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified Weber to incorporate the teachings of Quesada to include the amplifier of Weber in a flow cytometry system, which would have the effect of providing a useful implementation for the amplifier of Weber.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Jing et al. (Patent Publication Number US 2024/0146270 A1) discloses (Fig. 6) a baseline restoration circuit for a photodiode.
Sukumaran et al. (Patent Number US 11,381,318 B1) discloses (Fig. 3) a differential baseline restoration circuit.
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 Lance T Bartol whose telephone number is (703)756-1267. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 6:30 a.m. - 4:00 p.m. CT, Alternating Fridays 6:30 - 3:00.
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, Andrea Lindgren Baltzell can be reached at 571-272-5918. 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.
/LANCE TORBJORN BARTOL/Examiner, Art Unit 2843
/ANDREA LINDGREN BALTZELL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2843
Prosecution Insights