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 on 5/4/2026 has been entered. Claims 9-14, 36-38 and 41 remain pending in the application.
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 10 and 36 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.
Claim 9 recites that at least one of the resistors of the resistive T-network comprises a variable resistance element and then in claim 10 specifies the ratings of each of the resistors by defining them with an approximate singular value. Claim 10 is therefore unclear how one of the resistors can be a variable resistor and have a steady value as seems to be indicated by claim 10.
Claim 36 recites further comprising a variable gain element and claim 13 recites a detection circuit for defining a gain with a variable resistance element. Claim 36 is therefore unclear if the variable gain element is the same or different than the detection circuit recited in claim 13. For examination purposes, they are interpreted to be the same.
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.
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) 9-14 and 36 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over United States Patent No. 9,096,892, hereinafter Klemer in view of United States Application Publication No. 2006/0082768, hereinafter Wilson and WO 2007/019509, hereinafter Washburn.
Regarding claim 9, Klemer teaches an apparatus for nucleic acid detection (abstract), the apparatus comprising: a light source (item 17) configured to illuminate a chamber (item 8) (figure 6); a power source (item 200) configured provide an electric current to the light source (column 7, lines 39-42); a control system (items 40, 62, 68 and 70) configured to control the electric current provided to the light source (column 7, lines 34-36); and a light detector (item 37) configured to detect a light signal from the chamber (column 7, lines 50-56), wherein the control system comprises a detection circuit with a transimpedance amplifier (column 6, lines 56-59).
Klemer fails to teach the control system is configured to drive the light source using pulsed current having a peak current that exceeds the steady-state rated current of the light source
Wilson teaches a system which utilizes an LED which is pulsed to drive the current of the LED with a current which is greater than the rated maximum current for the LED (Wilson, paragraphs [0013]-[0014]) so that each pulse can produce ten times the normal light intensity produced under manufacture’s operating specification and reduce lifetime degradation (Wilson, paragraph [0041]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have made the control system pulse the LEDs with a peak current that is greater than the maximum rated current for the LED because it would allow for each pulse to produce ten times the normal light intensity produced under manufacture’s operating specification and reduce lifetime degradation (Wilson, paragraph [0041]).
Klemer and Wilson fail to teach the detection circuit has a T-network for defining gain using a transimpedance amplifier, wherein: the T-network comprises a plurality of resistors defined by a T-shaped feedback configuration, and at least one of the resistors of the resistive T-network comprises a variable resistance element.
Washburn teaches a photodetection device which utilizes a transimpedance amplifier with a Tee resistor network with a plurality of resistors with one of the resistors being variable (Washburn, paragraph [0013] and figure 3) which provides electronic circuit designers to realize wider useable bandwidth and faster large signal response in high gain, feedback amplifiers than is achieved using classic feedback network configurations (Washburn, paragraph [0025]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have utilized a detection circuit has a T-network for defining gain using a transimpedance amplifier instead of a standard transimpedance amplifier because it provides electronic circuit designers to realize wider useable bandwidth and faster large signal response in high gain, feedback amplifiers than is achieved using classic feedback network configurations (Washburn, paragraph [0025]).
Regarding claim 10, modified Klemer teaches the transimpedance amplifier with gain defined by a T-network feedback resistor configuration comprises: a first resistor (R200), a second resistor (R202) and third resistor (R201).
Klemer and Washburn fail to specifically teach the resistance values of the three resistors.
Washburn further teaches the values for resistors R200 and R201 maybe chosen or estimated based upon required amplifier performance characteristics and then adjusted as part of a design optimization and the values of resistors R200 and R202 are approximately equal (Washburn, paragraph [0030]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to determine, through routine experimentation, the optimum resistance values of the first, second and third resistor to a 50 kiloohms, 50, kiloohms and 10 kiloohms, respectively, which would allow for the required amplifier performance characteristics and then adjusted as part of a design optimization (Washburn, paragraph [0030]) (MPEP § 2144.05 (II)).
Regarding claim 11, Klemer and Washburn teach all limitations of claim 9; however, they fail to teach the transimpedance amplifier with gain defined by a T-network feedback resistor configuration has an equivalent functional resistance between 0.1-1000 megaohm.
Washburn further teaches the values for resistors R200 and R201 maybe chosen or estimated based upon required amplifier performance characteristics and then adjusted as part of a design optimization and the values of resistors R200 and R202 are approximately equal (Washburn, paragraph [0030]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to determine, through routine experimentation, the optimum equivalent functional resistance to be between 0.1-1000 megaohm which would allow for the required amplifier performance characteristics and then adjusted as part of a design optimization (Washburn, paragraph [0030]) (MPEP § 2144.05 (II)).
Regarding claim 12, Klemer teaches further comprising one or more nucleic acids (column 3, lines 29-41).
Regarding claim 13, Klemer teaches an apparatus for nucleic acid detection (abstract), the apparatus comprising: a light source (item 17) configured to illuminate a chamber (item 8) (figure 6); a power source (item 200) configured provide an electric current to the light source (column 7, lines 39-42); a control system (items 40, 62, 68 and 70) configured to control the electric current provided to the light source (column 7, lines 34-36), wherein the control system is configured to automatically calibrate the amount of electric current provided to the light source (column 7, lines 43-47); and a light detector (item 37) configured to detect a light signal from the chamber (column 7, lines 50-56),
Klemer fails to teach the control system is configured to drive the light source using pulsed current having a peak current that exceeds the steady-state rated current of the light source
Wilson teaches a system which utilizes an LED which is pulsed to drive the current of the LED with a current which is greater than the rated maximum current for the LED (Wilson, paragraphs [0013]-[0014]) so that each pulse can produce ten times the normal light intensity produced under manufacture’s operating specification and reduce lifetime degradation (Wilson, paragraph [0041]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have made the control system pulse the LEDs with a peak current that is greater than the maximum rated current for the LED because it would allow for each pulse to produce ten times the normal light intensity produced under manufacture’s operating specification and reduce lifetime degradation (Wilson, paragraph [0041]).
Klemer and Wilson fail to teach the detection circuit has a T-network for defining gain using a transimpedance amplifier, wherein: the T-network comprises a plurality of resistors defined by a T-shaped feedback configuration, and at least one of the resistors of the resistive T-network comprises a variable resistance element.
Washburn teaches a photodetection device which utilizes a transimpedance amplifier with a Tee resistor network with a plurality of resistors with one of the resistors being variable (Washburn, paragraph [0013] and figure 3) which provides electronic circuit designers to realize wider useable bandwidth and faster large signal response in high gain, feedback amplifiers than is achieved using classic feedback network configurations (Washburn, paragraph [0025]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have utilized a detection circuit has a T-network for defining gain using a transimpedance amplifier instead of a standard transimpedance amplifier because it provides electronic circuit designers to realize wider useable bandwidth and faster large signal response in high gain, feedback amplifiers than is achieved using classic feedback network configurations (Washburn, paragraph [0025]).
Regarding claim 14, Klemer teaches further comprising one or more nucleic acids (column 3, lines 29-41).
Regarding claim 36, modified Klemer teaches further comprising a variable gain element (see supra).
Claim(s) 37 and 38 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Klemer, Wilson and Washburn as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of KR 102022198, hereinafter Chung.
Regarding claim 37, Klemer, Wilson and Washburn teach all limitations of claim 13; however, they fail to teach the control system is configured to control the electric current provided to the light source between a range of about 0.5 amperes and about 15 amperes.
Chung teaches a detection device which has a light source in which the operating voltage and current are adjusted so that the brightness of the light source can be adjusted (Chung, pages 4-5, last paragraph – first paragraph).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to determine, through routine experimentation, the optimum electric current provided to the light source to a range of 0.5-15 amperes which would allow for the desired brightness of the light source (Chung, pages 4-5, last paragraph – first paragraph) (MPEP § 2144.05 (II)).
Regarding claim 38, Klemer, Wilson, Washburn and Chung teach all limitations of claim 38; however, they fail to teach the control system is configured to control the electric current provided to the light source at a duration of less than about 25 milliseconds.
Wilson teaches to pulse the LEDs with a low duty cycle of between one and 12 percent (Wilson, paragraph [0014]) to reduce lifetime degradation of the LED (Wilson, paragraph [0041]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to determine, through routine experimentation, the optimum duration of the pulses (duty cycle) to less than about 25 milliseconds which would allow for the reduction of the lifetime degradation of the LED (Wilson, paragraph [0041]) (MPEP § 2144.05 (II)).
Claim(s) 41 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Klemer, Wilson and Washburn as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of United States Application Publication No. 2004/0029258, hereinafter Heaney.
Regarding claim 41, Klemer, Wilson and Washburn teach all limitations of claim 13; however, they fail to teach the control system is configured to control the rate at which contents of the chamber are heated is greater than 300°C-pL/s.
Heaney teaches a detection device with nucleic acids in which the rate of cooling and heating determines the total processing time and increasing the heating rate shortens the total processing time of the reaction (Heaney, paragraph [0169]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to determine, through routine experimentation, the optimum heating rate to be greater than 300°C-pL/s which would allow for shortening of the total processing times for the reaction (Heaney, paragraph [0169]) (MPEP § 2144.05 (II)).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 5-7, filed 5/4/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 13 and 14 under 102(a)(1) and claim(s) 9-12 and 36 under 103(a) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Klemer, Wilson and Washburn.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
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 MATTHEW D KRCHA whose telephone number is (571)270-0386. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7am-5pm.
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, Maris Kessel can be reached at (571)270-7698. 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.
/MATTHEW D KRCHA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1796
Prosecution Insights