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 .
Preliminary Remarks
The amendment filed on 07/01/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-7 and 16 have been amended, claims 11-13 have been canceled, and claims 17-22 have been added. Therefore, claims 1-10 and 14-22 remain pending in the application.
Claim Objections
Claim 17 is objected to because of the following informalities: it is suggest applicant amend the claim to include a period “.” at the end of the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do use the word “means,” and are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “a movable member” in claim 16; “a means of separating light”, “a means of projecting” in claim 17; “a means of programmatically summing” in claim 20; and “ a means of compressing” in claim 22.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. It is not clear if the claimed circuit and the and the claimed detector are related, and therefore, it is not clear what is actually being claimed in the instant application.
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 1-16 and 20 and 21 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. Specifically, it is not clear as to what is actually being claimed, that is, whether the circuit or the detector are related.
The term “type” in claim 20 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “type” 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. The term “type” is not defined by the claim nor is it defined by the specification of the instant application.
The term “e.g.” in claim 21 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “e.g.” 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. The term “e.g.” is not defined by the claim nor is it defined by the specification of the instant application.
Double Patenting
The double patenting rejection cited in the previously mailed Office Action is withdrawn as applicant has provided support for the withdrawal of said rejection.
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.
Claims 1-10 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2002/0168094A1-Kaushikkar et al. (hereinafter “Kaushikkar”).
Regarding claim 1, Kaushikkar discloses a variable gain detector (scanner includes one or more excitation sources, an emission detector having a first gain, and a variable gain element, para. [0008], lines 2-5), comprising: at least one of a circuit that varies the again applied to a sensor between at least two values (a high gain setting of emission detector 415, a high gain setting of circuitry that amplifies emission signal, para. [0100], lines 7-8; sensors to count markers and arrive at a preprogrammed destination, para. [0059], lines 10-11), a higher value and a lower value (the scanner to collect a plurality of sample pixel intensity values using the adjusted first and second gains, para. [0018], lines 10-12; determines a comparison measure based on comparing one or more of the plurality of Sample pixel intensity values to one or more of a plurality of desired pixel intensity values, and (vi) adjusts the auto-gain value based on the comparison measure, para. [0018], lines 12-16), and a detector having a plurality of independently controllable sensors with variable gain (detector 415 thus generates emission signal 492 that represents numbers of photons detected from filtered emission beam 454, para. [0081], lines 8-10), wherein the independently controllable sensors sense fluorescent light emitted from a biological sample tagged with a fluorophore (sample of a first target may be labeled with a first dye (an example of what may more generally be referred to hereafter as an emission label) that fluoresces at a particular characteristic frequency, or narrow band of frequencies, in response to an excitation source of a particular frequency, para. [0072], lines 11-16; over hybridized spotted arrays 132 disposed on slide 333. Flourophores in hybridized probe-target pairs of arrays 132 that have been excited by beams 435 emit emission beams 452, para. [0078], lines 10-12).
Regarding claim 2, Kaushikkar discloses a wavelength separating device which separates a multiwavelength signal emitted from the biological sample according to the wavelengths of the multiwavelength signal (most of combined excitation beams 435 are reflected by dichroic mirror 436, para. [0077], lines 12-13).
Regarding claim 3, Kaushikkar discloses a sampling circuit that samples the higher value and the lower value of the gain, and digitizes these samples (the signal from transducer 515 is provided in the illustrated implementation to user computer 100B so that clock pulses may be provided for digital sampling of emission signal 492 when arm 500 is in certain positions along its scanning arc, para. [0082], lines 13-17).
Regarding claim 4, Kaushikkar discloses wherein the wavelength separating device forms a spatial intensity profile on a first spatial axis, wherein the first spatial axis is orthogonal to an axis of propagation of the fluorescent light (dichroic mirror 436 has characteristics selected so that portions of beams 435A and 435B, referred to respectively as partial excitation beams 437A and 437B and collectively as beams 437, pass through it so that they may be detected by excitation detector 410, thereby producing excitation signal 494, para. [0077], lines 15-20; Fig. 4 shows beams 435a and 435 b intersecting at a right angle).
Regarding claim 5, Kaushikkar discloses wherein the wavelength separating device comprises at least one of refractive optics, diffractive optics, a graded optical filter, and filters of different attenuations (confocal microscopy, filtered beams 454 may be focused by various optical elements such as lens 465 and also passed through illustrative pinhole 467 or other element to limit the depth of field, and thence impinges upon emission detector 415, para. [0080], lines 9-13; scanner optics and detectors 400 also includes excitation filters 425A and 425B that optically filter beams from excitation sources, para. [0077], lines 1-3).
Regarding claim 6, Kaushikkar discloses wherein the spatial intensity profile is projected onto one of a plurality of independently controllable sensors, and wherein at least two of the independently controllable sensors receive different intensities of light within the same wavelength band of the emitted fluorescent light, thereby extending the dynamic range of the detector without requiring adjustment of sensor gain by a user (detector 415 thus generates emission signal 492 that represents numbers of photons detected from filtered emission beam 454, para. [0081], lines 8-10; a first gain controller that applies a first gain to the emission signal based, at least in part, on a first portion of the user-selected gain value; and a Second gain controller that applies a second gain to the emission signal based, para. [0021], lines 3-7).
Regarding claim 7, Kaushikkar discloses wherein fluorescent light emitted from the biological sample is spectrally separated into its wavelength components along a second spectral axis (flourophores in hybridized probe-target pairs of arrays 132 that have been excited by beams 435 emit emission beams 452 (beam 452A in response to excitation beam 435A, and beam 452B in response to excitation beam 435B) at characteristic wavelengths, para. [0078]; para. [0031]).
Regarding claim 8, Kaushikkar discloses wherein the independently controllable sensors are programmable (systems, methods, and software products to acquire, process, analyze, and/or display data from experiments with synthesized and/or spotted arrays are described herein with respect to illustrative, non-limiting, implementations. Various other alternatives, modifications and equivalents are possible, para. [0045]; systems, methods, and computer software products are described herein using exemplary implementations for acquiring, analyzing, and/or dis playing data from arrays of biological materials, para. [0047], lines 1-4).
Regarding claim 9, Kaushikkar discloses wherein the independently controllable sensors are remotely programmable (data may be communicated among user computer 100A of system 148, user computers 100B and 100C of systems 150, and Laboratory Information Management (LIMS) server 120 over network 125, para. [0051], lines 7-10; and LIMS server 120 and network 125 are optional, and the systems in other implementations may include a scanner for spotted arrays and not synthesized arrays, or vice versa. Also, rather than employing Separate user computers 100A and 100B to operate and process data from an arrayer and scanner, para. [0051], lines 16-21, Fig. 1; additionally, input-output controllers 230 could include any of a variety of known devices for accepting and processing information from a user, whether a human or a machine, whether local or remote, para. [0063], lines 1-4).
Regarding claim 10, Kaushikkar discloses wherein the independently controllable sensors are arranged to detect four spectrally dispersed wavelengths wavelength bands (beam 452A in response to excitation beam 435A, and beam 452B in response to excitation beam 435B) at characteristic wavelengths in accordance with well known principles, para. [0078], lines 12-15; filter wheel 460 is provided to filter out spectral components of emission beams 452 that are outside of the emission band of the fluorophore, thereby providing filtered beams 454. The emission band is determined by the characteristic emission frequencies of those fluorophores that are responsive to the frequencies of excitation beams 435, para. [0080], lines 1-7).
Regarding claim 14, Kaushikkar discloses a system for manipulating particles, comprising: a microfabricated cell sorting system (systems, methods, and products for scanning arrays of biological materials and, more particularly, for amplifying, analyzing, and displaying information obtained from scanning, para. [0004]; biological samples such as cells, para. [0049], line 2), which distinguishes target cells from non-target material (samples, referred to herein as targets, typically are processed so that they are spatially associated with certain probes in the probe array, para. [0049], lines 4-6), wherein the target cells are distinguished by a laser-induced fluorescent signal, and wherein this laser-induced fluorescent signal is detected by the variable gain detector of claim 1 (sample of a first target may be labeled with a first dye (an example of what may more generally be referred to hereafter as an emission label) that fluoresces at a particular characteristic frequency, or narrow band of frequencies, in response to an excitation source of a particular frequency. A second target may be labeled with a second dye that fluoresces at a different characteristic frequency, para. [0072], lines 11-18; the excitation Sources could be the same, or different, lasers, para. [0072], lines 20-21; the variable gain detector is discussed above in claim 1).
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.
Claims 15 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2002/0168094A1-Kaushikkar et al. (hereinafter “Kaushikkar”) as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of US20140034555A1-Foster et al. (hereinafter “Foster”).
Regarding claim 15, Kaushikkar teaches the invention discussed above in claim 14. However, Kaushikkar does not explicitly teach a valve that separates the target particle form non-target particle material.
Foster teaches a e MEMS-based particle sorting system is that the fluid may be confined to small, microfabricated channels formed in a semiconductor substrate throughout the sorting process. The MEMS device may be a valve which separates a target particle from other components of a sample stream (para. [0009], lines 1-6), which reads on the instant claim limitation of a valve that separates the target particle form non-target particle material.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to take the invention of Kaushikkar and further include a valve that separates the target particle form non-target particle as taught by Foster, because Foster teaches a valve may be used as a sorting mechanism for sorting various particles from a fluid stream, such as cells from blood (para. [0006], lines 2-3).
Regarding claim 16, Kaushikkar teaches the invention discussed above in claim 14. However, Kaushikkar does not explicitly teach wherein the valve comprises a movable member microfabricated on the substrate, the movable member being movable in a plane parallel to a fabrication plane between a first position in which particles continue in a main channel and a second position in which the movable member is deflected into the fluid channel to divert target particles from the main channel into a sort channel, and wherein the movable member is actuated by an electromagnetic force.
Foster teaches a e MEMS-based particle sorting system is that the fluid may be confined to small, microfabricated channels formed in a semiconductor substrate throughout the sorting process (para. [0009], lines 1-6), and Foster teaches a flap-type fluid valve which sorts a target particle from non-target particles in a fluid stream. The laser interrogation stages are disposed in the microfabricated fluid channels at the input and output of the flap-type sorting valve (abstract; and Foster teaches the particle manipulation stage comprises a movable structure microfabricated on the substrate which includes the microfluidic channels (para. [0012], lines 11-13) and Foster teaches the force may be, for example, electrostatic, magnetostatic or electromagnetic (para. [0044], lines 12-13), which reads on the instant claim limitation of teach wherein the valve comprises a movable member microfabricated on the substrate, the movable member being movable in a plane parallel to a fabrication plane between a first position in which particles continue in a main channel and a second position in which the movable member is deflected into the fluid channel to divert target particles from the main channel into a sort channel, and wherein the movable member is actuated by an electromagnetic force.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to take the invention of Kaushikkar and further include wherein the valve comprises a movable member microfabricated on the substrate, the movable member being movable in a plane parallel to a fabrication plane between a first position in which particles continue in a main channel and a second position in which the movable member is deflected into the fluid channel to divert target particles from the main channel into a sort channel, and wherein the movable member is actuated by an electromagnetic force as taught by Foster, because Foster teaches the movable member allows for the separates a target particle from a remainder of the sample stream, based on a signal from the first laser interrogation region and a sorting mechanism for sorting various particles from a fluid stream, such as cells from blood (para. [0006], lines 2-3).
Allowable Subject Matter
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: for independent claim 17, the prior art fails to teach or fairly suggest a variable gain detector, comprising: at least one sensor with an individually programmable circuit which varies a gain of the at least one sensor; and a means of separating light emitted from a biological sample tagged with a fluorophore into two dimensions, namely into a continuous spatial intensity profile on a first spatial axis, and into its continuous spectral components on a second spectral axis, and a means of projecting the two-dimensional spatial and spectral signals onto one or more essentially contiguous arrays of optical sensors, with these limitations are in combination with the claims as a whole.
The closest prior art is US 2002/0168094A1-Kaushikkar and US20140034555A1-Foster. Kaushikkar teaches systems, methods, and computer program products are described for adjusting the gain of a scanner. The scanner includes one or more excitation sources, an emission detector having a first gain, and a variable gain element having a second gain (abstract). Foster teaches a MEMS-based particle manipulation system which uses a particle manipulation stage and a plurality of laser interrogation regions (abstract). However, Kaushikkar and Foster do not teach or fairly suggest a variable gain detector, comprising: at least one sensor with an individually programmable circuit which varies a gain of the at least one sensor; and a means of separating light emitted from a biological sample tagged with a fluorophore into two dimensions, namely into a continuous spatial intensity profile on a first spatial axis, and into its continuous spectral components on a second spectral axis, and a means of projecting the two-dimensional spatial and spectral signals onto one or more essentially contiguous arrays of optical sensors.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: for claim 18, the prior art fails to teach or fairly suggest further comprising at least one sensor with an individually programmable circuit which varies the sensor's bias voltage, with these limitations are in combination with the claims as a whole.
The closest prior art is US 2002/0168094A1-Kaushikkar and US20140034555A1-Foster. Kaushikkar teaches systems, methods, and computer program products are described for adjusting the gain of a scanner. The scanner includes one or more excitation sources, an emission detector having a first gain, and a variable gain element having a second gain (abstract). Foster teaches a MEMS-based particle manipulation system which uses a particle manipulation stage and a plurality of laser interrogation regions (abstract). However, Kaushikkar and Foster do not teach or fairly suggest at least one sensor with an individually programmable circuit which varies the sensor's bias voltage.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: for claim 19, the prior art fails to teach or fairly suggest an image sensor for each or for all optical interrogation points, such that the two-dimensional spatial and spectral signals are projected onto the image sensors, with these limitations are in combination with the claims as a whole.
The closest prior art is US 2002/0168094A1-Kaushikkar and US20140034555A1-Foster. Kaushikkar teaches systems, methods, and computer program products are described for adjusting the gain of a scanner. The scanner includes one or more excitation sources, an emission detector having a first gain, and a variable gain element having a second gain (abstract). Foster teaches a MEMS-based particle manipulation system which uses a particle manipulation stage and a plurality of laser interrogation regions (abstract). However, Kaushikkar and Foster do not teach or fairly suggest an image sensor for each or for all optical interrogation points, such that the two-dimensional spatial and spectral signals are projected onto the image sensors.
Claims 20-21 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: for claim 20, the prior art fails to teach or fairly suggest a plurality of sensors, wherein the type, number and positions of the sensors are selected to optimize measurement of wavelength and/or dynamic range, with these limitations are in combination with the claims as a whole.
The closest prior art is US 2002/0168094A1-Kaushikkar and US20140034555A1-Foster. Kaushikkar teaches systems, methods, and computer program products are described for adjusting the gain of a scanner. The scanner includes one or more excitation sources, an emission detector having a first gain, and a variable gain element having a second gain (abstract). Foster teaches a MEMS-based particle manipulation system which uses a particle manipulation stage and a plurality of laser interrogation regions (abstract). However, Kaushikkar and Foster do not teach or fairly suggest a plurality of sensors, wherein the type, number and positions of the sensors are selected to optimize measurement of wavelength and/or dynamic range.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: for claim 21, the prior art fails to teach or fairly suggest further comprising a means of programmatically summing the outputs of one or more selected sensors in analog form (e.g. current), with these limitations are in combination with the claims as a whole.
The closest prior art is US 2002/0168094A1-Kaushikkar and US20140034555A1-Foster. Kaushikkar teaches systems, methods, and computer program products are described for adjusting the gain of a scanner. The scanner includes one or more excitation sources, an emission detector having a first gain, and a variable gain element having a second gain (abstract). Foster teaches a MEMS-based particle manipulation system which uses a particle manipulation stage and a plurality of laser interrogation regions (abstract). However, Kaushikkar and Foster do not teach or fairly suggest a means of programmatically summing the outputs of one or more selected sensors in analog form (e.g. current).
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: for claim 22, the prior art fails to teach or fairly suggest further comprising a means of compressing a portion or all of the dynamic range of the analog signals of one or more of the sensors, with these limitations are in combination with the claims as a whole.
The closest prior art is US 2002/0168094A1-Kaushikkar and US20140034555A1-Foster. Kaushikkar teaches systems, methods, and computer program products are described for adjusting the gain of a scanner. The scanner includes one or more excitation sources, an emission detector having a first gain, and a variable gain element having a second gain (abstract). Foster teaches a MEMS-based particle manipulation system which uses a particle manipulation stage and a plurality of laser interrogation regions (abstract). However, Kaushikkar and Foster do not teach or fairly suggest further comprising a means of compressing a portion or all of the dynamic range of the analog signals of one or more of the sensors.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1 and 17 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. More specifically, the current rejection above pertains to new reference(s) relied upon to address the newly amended claim limitations; the arguments filed rely on the reference or combination of references not currently being used in the present Office Action.
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 LENORA A. ABEL whose telephone number is (571)272-8270. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:00am-4:00pm.
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, Michael Marcheschi can be reached at (571) 272-1374. 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.
/LENORA A ABEL/Examiner, Art Unit 1799
/MICHAEL L HOBBS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1799
Prosecution Insights