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
Claims 1-6, 16-17 and 21-23 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 29 September 2025.
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 7-9 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 terms “high rate” and “many light-detection events” in claim 7 are relative terms which renders the claim indefinite. The terms “high rate” and “many events” are not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. In this case it would not be clear how many photon events would have to be detected by a fluorescence imaging system in what time frame in order to meet the claim limitations.
Claims 8-9 are rejected for their dependence on claim 7.
Regarding claim 9, the term “significantly below” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “significantly below” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. In this case it is not clear what signal-to-noise ratio an imaging system would have to achieve in order to meet the claim limitation.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 7-8, 10-11 and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yan (CN 108387560 A).
Regarding claim 7, Yan teaches a method for rapidly performing a Flourescence-Lifetime Imaging Microscopy measurement (fluorescence lifetime imaging system, Abstract) comprising:
Engaging a sensor (MCP position sensitive anode detector, Abstract) that delivers a continuous data stream (continuous reading, [0065]) of time-and-location tagged light detection events (storing photon position and arrival time, [0066]), and at a high rate of many light-detection events within the fluorescent lifetime of the molecular species of interest (fast speed, [0039]; many events shown in fluorescence-lifetime reconstruction curve in fig. 3) .
Regarding claim 8, Yan teaches that the sensor has a sensitivity for detecting individual photons (photons are basic class of detection and coordinates and time are stored, [0039]).
Regarding claim 10, Yan teaches a system for performing imaging spectroscopy (spectroscopy, [0021]) comprising:
A detection sensor (MCP detector, Abstract) configured for detecting and providing a multi-dimensional data stream (continuous data reading, [0065]) of time-tagged and location-tagged detection (storing photon position and arrival time, [0066]).
Regarding claim 11, Yan teaches that the detection sensor is configured to provide a continuous data stream ([0066]) without time-gating or otherwise modulating a light sensitivity of the detection sensor.
Regarding claim 18, Yan teaches a method comprising:
Performing Fluorescence-Lifetime-Spectroscopy (fluorescence lifetime measurement, Abstract; spectroscopy, [0021]) with a time-resolving imaging detector (MCP detector, Abstract, detects and stores arrival time, [0066]) continuously ([0065]) without time-gating or otherwise modulating a light sensitivity of the imaging sensor.
Regarding claim 19, Yan teaches a method that the imaging sensor is configured to provide a time resolution sufficient to resolve a fluorescence-decay curve of molecules of interest (fluorescence lifetime curve reconstruction, [0068]) and the time resolution independently at each image location (time and location tagging, [0066]).
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.
Claims 9 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yan.
Regarding claims 9 and 20, Yan teaches all the limitations of claims 8 and 19 as described above. The system of Yan has sensitivity for individual photons as argued above.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to set the sensitivity of the system of Yan such that noise events are detected at a rate below true photon events, as a matter of routine optimization of the sensitivity which can be tuned by one of ordinary skill in the art with the goal of minimizing the noise level of the data (by setting the sensitivity to be lower than a noise level) with no unexpected result.
Claims 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yan in view of Howard (US 20210191095 A1).
Regarding claim 12, Yan teaches that the detection sensor is configured for detecting a time dependence of the data stream (position and arrival time, [0066]) following optical excitation (excitation source 2).
Yan does not teach that the optical excitation is pulsed or otherwise modulated.
Howard teaches a fluorescence lifetime imaging microscopy system which uses a modulated optical excitation beam ([0004]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art on or before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system of Yan to have a modulated excitation beam based on the teaching of Howard that this is a known method of extracting a signal in an FLIM system with no unexpected result.
Regarding claim 13, Yan teaches that the detection sensor is a two-dimensional detection sensor (two-dimensional X-Y data is stored, [0068]).
Regarding claim 14, Yan teaches that the detection sensor is a continuous ([0065]) ultrafast (fast, [0039]) time-resolving ([0065]) imaging ([0069]) detector.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yan in view of Howard and in further view of Brubaker (US 9,835,741 B1).
Regarding claim 15, Yan and Howard do not teach that the continuous ultrafast time-resolving imaging detection sensor is a large area picosecond photodetector.
Brubaker teaches a particle imaging system having a large area picosecond photodetector (col. 4 lines 34-61).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system of Yan to have the large-area picosecond photodetector of Brubaker, as a matter of substituting a known equivalent detector capable of time-resolved photon detection with good time resolution and no unexpected result..
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID E SMITH whose telephone number is (571)270-7096. The examiner can normally be reached M to F 8:30 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, Robert Kim can be reached at 22293. 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.
/DAVID E SMITH/Examiner, Art Unit 2881