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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 9-28 in the reply filed on December 18, 2025 is acknowledged.
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) 9-15 and 19-28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Keller et al., (US 2015/0098126) in view of Callahan et al., (US 2011/0216953).
Regarding claim 9, Keller et al., teach a microscope system for imaging a live biological specimen (paragraph 0026) comprising a specimen holder (paragraphs 0028, 0153, 0154), a perfusion system with a pump (paragraph 0159), an optical system (paragraphs 0139, 0386) having four image sensors (paragraph 0327), an objective lens (paragraphs 0010, 0011, 0029, 0142, 0146), one or more light sources (paragraphs 0128, 0129) and a controller (graphics processing unit, paragraph 0163). Keller et al., do not explicitly teach first and second sample holders; however, the Examiner is reading this limitation as a duplication of parts which would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2144.04 VI B). As set forth in the MPEP, a duplication of parts has no patentable significance absent a new and unexpected result (MPEP 2144.04 VI B). As such, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify Keller et al., to include a second specimen holder as a means of analyzing multiple specimens. Keller et al., do not teach one or more reservoirs, a first dispenser, and a second dispenser.
Callahan et al., teach a system for performing visual optical microscopy comprising syringe pumps that deliver reagents to a biological sample wherein the reagents are stored in one or more reservoirs and delivered through fluid channels (paragraphs 0056, 0095). Callahan et al., teach that it is advantageous to provide fluid channels connected to reservoirs as a means of applying controlled stimulations, perturbations, and interrogations to a biological sample (paragraph 0056).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Keller et al., to include first and second fluid dispensers coupled to a pump and reservoirs in order to apply controlled stimulations, perturbations, and interrogations to a biological sample as taught by Callahan et al.
Regarding claim 10, Keller et al., teach a stage for the sample holder (paragraphs 0153, 0154, 0159), and a motion control system that moves the stage in X, Y, Z, directions (paragraphs 0106, 0139, 0386).
Regarding claims 12, and 19 Keller et al., teach a temperature control system (paragraph 0155).
Regarding claims 13-15, Keller et al., teach an electronics controller capable of executing user-space software for real-time image analysis (paragraphs 0163, 0164).
Regarding claim 20, Keller et al., teach a filter (paragraph 0146) which prevents unwanted wavelengths from reaching the detectors (paragraph 0146).
Regarding claims 21 and 22, Keller et al., teach lasers as the light source (paragraphs 0128-0132) wherein the lasers have a autofocus module (paragraphs 0138, 0142).
Regarding claim 23, Keller et al., teach an air objective (paragraph 0138).
Regarding claim 24, Keller et al., teach a water immersion objective (paragraph 0148).
Regarding claim 25, Keller et al., teach translating the objective along the z-axis (paragraph 0304).
Regarding claims 26 and 27, the Examiner notes that the sample is not a structural element of the system, but instead represent the material worked upon by the claimed system (MPEP 2115). As such, the sample is given the appropriate patentable weight in the claim.
Regarding claim 28, Keller et al., in view of Callahan et al., teach a system that performs an indistinguishable function to that of claim 28, and thus the system of Keller et al., in view of Callahan et al., would be configured for sequencing a plurality of biomolecules.
Claim(s) 16 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Keller et al., (US 2015/0098126) in view of Callahan et al., (US 2011/0216953) as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Frisen et al., (US 2019/0203275).
Regarding claims 16 and 17, Keller et al., in view of Callahan et al., do not teach first and second closed flow cells coupled to a pump.
Frisen et al., teach a method of tagging nucleic acids wherein a specimen a closed flow cell having an inlet and an outlet for delivering and removing reagents (paragraph 0036). Frisen et al., teach that it is advantageous to provide a closed flow cell as a means of allowing convenient delivery of reagents to a biological specimen (paragraph 0091).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Keller et al., in view of Callahan et al., wherein a closed flow cell is utilized in order to allow convenient delivery of reagents to the specimen as taught by Frisen et al.
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Keller et al., (US 2015/0098126) in view of Callahan et al., (US 2011/0216953) as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Clarke et al., (US 2006/0000470).
Regarding claim 18, Keller et al., in view of Callahan et al., do not teach fluid dispensers configured for independent operation.
Clarke et al., teach an apparatus for producing a pharmaceutical comprising first and second dispensing modules that operate independently (paragraphs 0118, 0119, 0122). Clarke et al., teach that it is advantageous to utilize the dispensing modules independently as a means of accommodating different arrays of tablet positions on a holding tray (paragraph 0119).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Keller et al., in view of Callahan et al., wherein the first and second dispensers operate independently in order to accommodate different arrays of dispensing positions as taught by Clarke et al.
Conclusion
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 /LYLE ALEXANDER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1797