Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/273,635

AUTOFLUORESCENCE QUENCHING DEVICE

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Aug 16, 2023
Examiner
FISHER, BRITTANY I
Art Unit
1796
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
Nepa Gene Co. Ltd.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
84%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 11m
To Grant
96%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 84% — above average
84%
Career Allow Rate
438 granted / 520 resolved
+19.2% vs TC avg
Moderate +12% lift
Without
With
+12.3%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 11m
Avg Prosecution
26 currently pending
Career history
546
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
1.2%
-38.8% vs TC avg
§103
41.7%
+1.7% vs TC avg
§102
31.9%
-8.1% vs TC avg
§112
20.6%
-19.4% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 520 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
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 . Drawings The drawings were received on August 16, 2023. These drawings are accepted. 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) 1 and 3-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Duong et al (A multispectral LED array for the reduction of background autofluorescence in brain tissue", JOURNAL OF NEUROSCIENCE METHODS, ELSEVIER SCIENCE PUBLISHER B.V., AMSTERDAM, NL, vol. 220, no. 1, 27 August 2013 (2013-08-27), pages 46-54, XP028742016, ISSN: 0165-0270, DOI: 10.1016/J.JNEUMETH.2013.08.018) (provided by applicant in IDS dated 10/20/2023) in view of Peumans et al (US 2018/0172588 A1). With respect to claim 1 Duong discloses an autofluorescence quenching device for a sample (See pages 47-48, chapter 2.1 disclosing a photo-irradiation device; Pg. 52, col. 2, first paragraph "quenching the autofluorescence"), comprising: a sample placement unit (See figure 1 depicting a supporting rack 3 and a plate holder that together represent a sample placement unit); and an irradiation unit mounted on the sample placement unit (See Fig. 1 depicting an LED panel situated in the center of the supporting rack 3), wherein the sample placement unit comprises a flat plate (See plate holder 4a, Fig. 1), one or more sample placement recesses each in which a sample is to be placed and which are provided in the flat plate (See D1, Pg. 49, Col. 1, second paragraph "Unprocessed paraffin-embedded and deparaffinized slide-mounted specimens, as well as semi-thick specimens in well plates, were positioned 7 mm above the LED panel surface and photo-irradiated for 0 to 24 h"), and a cooling means for cooling the sample placement recesses (cooling unit 1 in Fig. 1 which cools the entire rack and thus also the samples on plate holder 4a), and the irradiation unit comprises one or a plurality of white LED illuminations positioned proximal to the respective sample placement recesses (See Pgs. 47-48, chapter 2.1 disclosing several white diodes for broad coverage of the visible light spectrum positioned below the plate holder 4a). Duong fails to disclose that the irradiation unit is placed/positioned above the respective sample placement recesses. Peumans teaches a device 100 for quantifying targets (analyte) which may be present in a fluid sample, w herein the device may comprise a microfluidic channel 170 for guiding the sample towards a cavity 180 in or on a substrate 160, for instance a semiconductor substrate such as e.g. a silicon substrate or a transparent substrate such as e.g. a glass substrate. The microfluidic channel 170 and/or the cavity 180 may have sidewalls 171 and top 172, inlet(s) and/or outlet(s) 173. These sidewalls 171, 172 and/or inlets/outlets 173 may be transparent or opaque (See Para. 0062). In free space illumination light source 111 is illuminating at least the surface 190 with the affinity probes. The light source 111 may be located at the top (the top wall 172 and any other layer between the light source 111 and the cavity 180 should be transparent) or bottom (the substrate 160 and any other layer between the light source 111 and the cavity 180 should be transparent) of the sensor device 100 (See Para. 0064). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to position the light source of Duong above the plate holder, such as taught by Peumans, such that the light does not have to penetrate the plate holder before reaching the sample (See Para. 0064 of Peumans). With respect to claim 3 the combination of Duong and Peumans teaches that the irradiation unit comprises a second flat plate, and the white LED illumination is disposed on the second flat plate (See Fig. 1 of Duong for depiction of the structure of the LED panel 2). With respect to claim 4 the combination of Duong and Peumans teaches that the irradiation unit further comprises a second cooling means (See Duong,Pg. 48, Col. 1, first paragraph, and Figs. 1A-B for discussion of the “LED array photo-irradiation device apparatus that includes a LED panel with 3 built-in cooling fans). With respect to claim 5 the combination of Duong and Peumans teaches that the second cooling means is a heat sink and/or a cooling fan provided on the second flat plate (See Duong,Pg. 48, Col. 1, first paragraph, and Figs. 1A-B for discussion of the “LED array photo-irradiation device apparatus that includes a LED panel with 3 built-in cooling fans). With respect to claim 6 the combination of Duong and Peumans teaches that the irradiation unit is mounted on the sample placement unit via ribs, and a space is provided between the flat plate and the second flat plate by the ribs (See Fig. 1 of Duong for depiction of the supporting rack 3 with vertical and horizontal bars at its edges and in the middle; these bars are considered to represent the claimed ribs). Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Duong et al (A multispectral LED array for the reduction of background autofluorescence in brain tissue", JOURNAL OF NEUROSCIENCE METHODS, ELSEVIER SCIENCE PUBLISHER B.V., AMSTERDAM, NL, vol. 220, no. 1, 27 August 2013 (2013-08-27), pages 46-54, XP028742016, ISSN: 0165-0270, DOI: 10.1016/J.JNEUMETH.2013.08.018) and Peumans et al (US 2018/0172588 A1) in view of Webster et al (US 2014/0011266 A1). Refer above for the discussion of Duong and Peumans. With respect to claim 2, the combination of Duong and Peumans fails to teach that cooling means is a heat sink and/or a cooling fan provided under the flat plate. Webster teaches a PCR system 1 includes an array 2 of vessels 3. The array 2 is positioned in a thermal mount 4 positioned on a thermoelectric heater/cooler 5, such as a Peltier module, of the well-known type. As is known, a Peltier module can be used to heat or cool and the Peltier module is positioned on a heat sink 6 to provide storage of thermal energy, as required. The heat sink 6 is provided with a fan 7 mounted on a fan mounting 8 on the lower side of the heat sink 6 in order to facilitate heat dissipation, as necessary (See Para. 0036). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the device of combined Duong and Peumans with the heat sink and fan combination under the array as taught by Webster, in order to provide storage of thermal energy as required, in addition to facilitating heat dissipation, as necessary (See Para. 0036 of Webster). Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRITTANY I FISHER whose telephone number is (469)295-9182. The examiner can normally be reached IFP. 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, Elizabeth Robinson can be reached at 571-272-7129. 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. /BRITTANY I FISHER/Examiner, Art Unit 1796 January 8, 2026
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Aug 16, 2023
Application Filed
Jan 08, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12600931
MICROFLUIDIC CELL CULTURE PLATE FOR AIR-LIQUID INTERFACE AND 3D CULTURED TISSUE APPLICATIONS
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12599903
LEUKOCYTE TRAPPING APPARATUS
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12589386
PIPETTING METHOD AND PIPETTING DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12590881
CELL SORTING CHIP, DEVICE AND METHOD BASED ON DIELECTROPHORESIS INDUCED DETERMINISTIC LATERAL DISPLACEMENT
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12584896
PROCESS FOR QUANTIFICATION OF METAL AMINO ACID CHELATES IN SOLUTIONS AND SOLIDS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
84%
Grant Probability
96%
With Interview (+12.3%)
2y 11m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 520 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month