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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The listing of references in the specification (e.g., paragraphs 26 and 62) is not a proper information disclosure statement. 37 CFR 1.98(b) requires a list of all patents, publications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office, and MPEP § 609.04(a) states, “the list may not be incorporated into the specification but must be submitted in a separate paper”. Therefore, unless the references have been cited by the examiner on form PTO-892, they have not been considered.
Claim Interpretation
MPEP § 2111.01 states that “… Under a broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), words of the claim must be given their plain meaning, unless such meaning is inconsistent with the specification. The plain meaning of a term means the ordinary and customary meaning given to the term by those of ordinary skill in the art at the relevant time. The ordinary and customary meaning of a term may be evidenced by a variety of sources, including the words of the claims themselves, the specification, drawings, and prior art. However, the best source for determining the meaning of a claim term is the specification - the greatest clarity is obtained when the specification serves as a glossary for the claim terms …”. Thus under a broadest reasonable interpretation, the greatest clarity is obtained when the specification (e.g., see “… In some embodiments, the excitation port 104 and/or emission port 106 are configured as modular ports capable of being selectively integrated with a pre-existing confocal microscope system. For example, a modular port may include a scan head attachment site for connecting the modular port to the scan head 110, a fiber bundle attachment site for connecting the modular port to an optical fiber bundle 103 or 107, and an interior optical assembly that forms an optical path for transmission of excitation light from a connected optical fiber bundle toward the scan head attachment site (when configured as an excitation port 104) or for transmission of emission light from a connected scan head 110 toward the fiber bundle attachment site (when configured as an emission port 106) …” in paragraph 44) serves as a glossary for the newly added claim term “the one or more ports comprise at least one port assembly attached to the scan head”.
The specification (e.g., see “… excitation port 104 and/or emission port 106 are configured as modular ports … a scan head attachment site for connecting the modular port to the scan head 110 …” in paragraph 44) serves as a glossary for the newly added claim term “a scan head interface”.
The specification (e.g., see “… excitation port 104 and/or emission port 106 are configured as modular ports … a fiber bundle attachment site for connecting the modular port to an optical fiber bundle 103 or 107 …” in paragraph 44) serves as a glossary for the newly added claim term “a fiber bundle interface”.
The specification (e.g., see “… distance "b" between fibers, each excitation fiber 113 may be substantially equidistantly spaced within the connector 130 such that the corresponding spots transmitted to the sample plane are substantially equidistantly spaced …” in paragraph 48) serves as a glossary for the claim term “equidistantly spaced”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation 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.
Claim(s) 4, 8, 13, 16, 17, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 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 pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
While the specification discloses a port (104 and/or 106) optionally configured as a modular port comprising an interior optical assembly forming an optical path between a scan head attachment site and a fiber bundle attachment site (e.g., see “… In some embodiments, the excitation port 104 and/or emission port 106 are configured as modular ports capable of being selectively integrated with a pre-existing confocal microscope system. For example, a modular port may include a scan head attachment site for connecting the modular port to the scan head 110, a fiber bundle attachment site for connecting the modular port to an optical fiber bundle 103 or 107, and an interior optical assembly that forms an optical path for transmission of excitation light from a connected optical fiber bundle toward the scan head attachment site (when configured as an excitation port 104) or for transmission of emission light from a connected scan head 110 toward the fiber bundle attachment site (when configured as an emission port 106) …” in paragraph 44 cited as support by applicant), there does not appear to be any disclosure of a combination of the newly added claim limitation “wherein the one or more ports comprise at least one port assembly attached to the scan head, the port assembly comprising: a scan head interface configured to attach to the scan head; a fiber bundle interface configured to attach to at least one optical fiber bundle including at least one of the plurality of optical excitation fibers or the plurality of emission fibers; and an interior optical assembly forming an optical path between the fiber bundle interface and the scan head” and the claim limitation “wherein the excitation fibers are disposed in an excitation fiber bundle, the excitation fibers of the excitation fiber bundle terminating at an excitation connector configured to define spacing of the excitation fibers relative to each excitation fiber and configured to connect the excitation fiber bundle to a port of the one or more ports, wherein the excitation fibers are equidistantly spaced within the excitation connector, and wherein the corresponding spots transmitted to the sample plane are equidistantly spaced”. Therefore, there does not appear to be a written description of a combination of the newly added claim limitation “wherein the one or more ports comprise at least one port assembly attached to the scan head, the port assembly comprising: a scan head interface configured to attach to the scan head; a fiber bundle interface configured to attach to at least one optical fiber bundle including at least one of the plurality of optical excitation fibers or the plurality of emission fibers; and an interior optical assembly forming an optical path between the fiber bundle interface and the scan head” and the claim 4 limitation “wherein the excitation fibers are disposed in an excitation fiber bundle, the excitation fibers of the excitation fiber bundle terminating at an excitation connector configured to define spacing of the excitation fibers relative to each excitation fiber and configured to connect the excitation fiber bundle to a port of the one or more ports, wherein the excitation fibers are equidistantly spaced within the excitation connector, and wherein the corresponding spots transmitted to the sample plane are equidistantly spaced” in the application as filed.
While the specification discloses a port (104 and/or 106) optionally configured as a modular port comprising an interior optical assembly forming an optical path between a scan head attachment site and a fiber bundle attachment site (e.g., see “… In some embodiments, the excitation port 104 and/or emission port 106 are configured as modular ports capable of being selectively integrated with a pre-existing confocal microscope system. For example, a modular port may include a scan head attachment site for connecting the modular port to the scan head 110, a fiber bundle attachment site for connecting the modular port to an optical fiber bundle 103 or 107, and an interior optical assembly that forms an optical path for transmission of excitation light from a connected optical fiber bundle toward the scan head attachment site (when configured as an excitation port 104) or for transmission of emission light from a connected scan head 110 toward the fiber bundle attachment site (when configured as an emission port 106) …” in paragraph 44 cited as support by applicant), there does not appear to be any disclosure of a combination of the newly added claim limitation “wherein the one or more ports comprise at least one port assembly attached to the scan head, the port assembly comprising: a scan head interface configured to attach to the scan head; a fiber bundle interface configured to attach to at least one optical fiber bundle including at least one of the plurality of optical excitation fibers or the plurality of emission fibers; and an interior optical assembly forming an optical path between the fiber bundle interface and the scan head” and the claim limitation “wherein the emission fibers are disposed in an emission fiber bundle, the emission fibers of the emission fiber bundle terminating at an emission connector configured to define spacing of the emission fibers equidistant to each emission fiber and configured to connect the emission fiber bundle to a port of the one or more port”. Therefore, there does not appear to be a written description of a combination of the newly added claim limitation “wherein the one or more ports comprise at least one port assembly attached to the scan head, the port assembly comprising: a scan head interface configured to attach to the scan head; a fiber bundle interface configured to attach to at least one optical fiber bundle including at least one of the plurality of optical excitation fibers or the plurality of emission fibers; and an interior optical assembly forming an optical path between the fiber bundle interface and the scan head” and the claim 8 limitation “wherein the emission fibers are disposed in an emission fiber bundle, the emission fibers of the emission fiber bundle terminating at an emission connector configured to define spacing of the emission fibers equidistant to each emission fiber and configured to connect the emission fiber bundle to a port of the one or more port” in the application as filed.
While the specification discloses a port (104 and/or 106) optionally configured as a modular port comprising an interior optical assembly forming an optical path between a scan head attachment site and a fiber bundle attachment site (e.g., see “… In some embodiments, the excitation port 104 and/or emission port 106 are configured as modular ports capable of being selectively integrated with a pre-existing confocal microscope system. For example, a modular port may include a scan head attachment site for connecting the modular port to the scan head 110, a fiber bundle attachment site for connecting the modular port to an optical fiber bundle 103 or 107, and an interior optical assembly that forms an optical path for transmission of excitation light from a connected optical fiber bundle toward the scan head attachment site (when configured as an excitation port 104) or for transmission of emission light from a connected scan head 110 toward the fiber bundle attachment site (when configured as an emission port 106) …” in paragraph 44 cited as support by applicant), there does not appear to be any disclosure of a combination of the newly added claim limitation “wherein the one or more ports comprise at least one port assembly attached to the scan head, the port assembly comprising: a scan head interface configured to attach to the scan head; a fiber bundle interface configured to attach to at least one optical fiber bundle including at least one of the plurality of optical excitation fibers or the plurality of emission fibers; and an interior optical assembly forming an optical path between the fiber bundle interface and the scan head” and the claim limitation “wherein the one or more ports comprise a beam splitter configured to separate excitation and emission light, wherein the beam splitter is disposed within the emission port and has a reflectance to transmission ratio (R:T) of about 5:95 to about 20:80”. Therefore, there does not appear to be a written description of a combination of the newly added claim limitation “wherein the one or more ports comprise at least one port assembly attached to the scan head, the port assembly comprising: a scan head interface configured to attach to the scan head; a fiber bundle interface configured to attach to at least one optical fiber bundle including at least one of the plurality of optical excitation fibers or the plurality of emission fibers; and an interior optical assembly forming an optical path between the fiber bundle interface and the scan head” and the claim 13 limitation “wherein the one or more ports comprise a beam splitter configured to separate excitation and emission light, wherein the beam splitter is disposed within the emission port and has a reflectance to transmission ratio (R:T) of about 5:95 to about 20:80” in the application as filed.
While the specification discloses a port (104 and/or 106) optionally configured as a modular port comprising an interior optical assembly forming an optical path between a scan head attachment site and a fiber bundle attachment site (e.g., see “… In some embodiments, the excitation port 104 and/or emission port 106 are configured as modular ports capable of being selectively integrated with a pre-existing confocal microscope system. For example, a modular port may include a scan head attachment site for connecting the modular port to the scan head 110, a fiber bundle attachment site for connecting the modular port to an optical fiber bundle 103 or 107, and an interior optical assembly that forms an optical path for transmission of excitation light from a connected optical fiber bundle toward the scan head attachment site (when configured as an excitation port 104) or for transmission of emission light from a connected scan head 110 toward the fiber bundle attachment site (when configured as an emission port 106) …” in paragraph 44 cited as support by applicant), there does not appear to be any disclosure of a combination of the newly added claim limitation “wherein the one or more ports comprise at least one port assembly attached to the scan head, the port assembly comprising: a scan head interface configured to attach to the scan head; a fiber bundle interface configured to attach to at least one optical fiber bundle including at least one of the plurality of optical excitation fibers or the plurality of emission fibers; and an interior optical assembly forming an optical path between the fiber bundle interface and the scan head” and the claim limitation “wherein the one or more ports comprise an excitation port to which the excitation fibers are connected and a separate emission port to which the emission fibers are connected”. Therefore, there does not appear to be a written description of a combination of the newly added claim limitation “wherein the one or more ports comprise at least one port assembly attached to the scan head, the port assembly comprising: a scan head interface configured to attach to the scan head; a fiber bundle interface configured to attach to at least one optical fiber bundle including at least one of the plurality of optical excitation fibers or the plurality of emission fibers; and an interior optical assembly forming an optical path between the fiber bundle interface and the scan head” and the claim 16 limitation “wherein the one or more ports comprise an excitation port to which the excitation fibers are connected and a separate emission port to which the emission fibers are connected” in the application as filed.
While the specification discloses a port (104 and/or 106) optionally configured as a modular port comprising an interior optical assembly forming an optical path between a scan head attachment site and a fiber bundle attachment site (e.g., see “… In some embodiments, the excitation port 104 and/or emission port 106 are configured as modular ports capable of being selectively integrated with a pre-existing confocal microscope system. For example, a modular port may include a scan head attachment site for connecting the modular port to the scan head 110, a fiber bundle attachment site for connecting the modular port to an optical fiber bundle 103 or 107, and an interior optical assembly that forms an optical path for transmission of excitation light from a connected optical fiber bundle toward the scan head attachment site (when configured as an excitation port 104) or for transmission of emission light from a connected scan head 110 toward the fiber bundle attachment site (when configured as an emission port 106) …” in paragraph 44 cited as support by applicant), there does not appear to be any disclosure of a combination of the newly added claim limitation “wherein the one or more ports comprise at least one port assembly attached to the scan head, the port assembly comprising: a scan head interface configured to attach to the scan head; a fiber bundle interface configured to attach to at least one optical fiber bundle including at least one of the plurality of optical excitation fibers or the plurality of emission fibers; and an interior optical assembly forming an optical path between the fiber bundle interface and the scan head” and the claim limitation “wherein a single port in the one or more ports is configured to direct excitation light from the excitation fibers to the scan head and to direct emission light to the emission fibers, wherein each excitation fiber is joined in a fiber group with one or more corresponding emission fibers, and wherein for at least one fiber group, the excitation fiber is grouped with multiple emission fibers”. Therefore, there does not appear to be a written description of a combination of the newly added claim limitation “wherein the one or more ports comprise at least one port assembly attached to the scan head, the port assembly comprising: a scan head interface configured to attach to the scan head; a fiber bundle interface configured to attach to at least one optical fiber bundle including at least one of the plurality of optical excitation fibers or the plurality of emission fibers; and an interior optical assembly forming an optical path between the fiber bundle interface and the scan head” and the claim 17 limitation “wherein a single port in the one or more ports is configured to direct excitation light from the excitation fibers to the scan head and to direct emission light to the emission fibers, wherein each excitation fiber is joined in a fiber group with one or more corresponding emission fibers, and wherein for at least one fiber group, the excitation fiber is grouped with multiple emission fibers” in the application as filed.
While the specification discloses an optical path for transmission of either: excitation light from the optical fiber bundle toward the scan head attachment site; or emission light from the scan head toward the fiber bundle attachment site, wherein a beam splitter disposed along the optical path is configured to transmit at least a portion of emission light toward the fiber bundle attachment site (e.g., see “… In some embodiments, the excitation port 104 and/or emission port 106 are configured as modular ports capable of being selectively integrated with a pre-existing confocal microscope system. For example, a modular port may include a scan head attachment site for connecting the modular port to the scan head 110, a fiber bundle attachment site for connecting the modular port to an optical fiber bundle 103 or 107, and an interior optical assembly that forms an optical path for transmission of excitation light from a connected optical fiber bundle toward the scan head attachment site (when configured as an excitation port 104) or for transmission of emission light from a connected scan head 110 toward the fiber bundle attachment site (when configured as an emission port 106) …” in paragraph 44 cited as support by applicant), there does not appear to be any disclosure of a beam splitter disposed along the optical path is configured to: transmit at least a portion of emission light toward the fiber bundle attachment site; and to reflect at least a portion of light received from the scan head toward a secondary port attachment site. Therefore, there does not appear to be a written description of a combination of the claim limitation “an interior optical assembly that forms an optical path for transmission of excitation light from the optical fiber bundle, when connected, toward the scan head attachment site, or for transmission of emission light from the scan head, when connected, toward the fiber bundle attachment site, wherein the interior optical assembly includes a beam splitter disposed along the optical path between the scan head attachment site and the fiber bundle attachment site, wherein the beam splitter is configured to transmit at least a portion of emission light toward the fiber bundle attachment site” and the newly added claim 20 limitation “wherein the modular port is configured as an excitation port for passing excitation light from a connected optical fiber bundle toward the scan head attachment site, and wherein the beam splitter has a reflectance to transmission ratio (R:T) with greater reflection than transmission, wherein the beam splitter is configured to reflect at least a portion of light received from the scan head toward a secondary port attachment site” in the application as filed.
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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 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.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 20 recites the newly added limitation “at least a portion of light received from the scan head” which is indefinite because the relationship to “emission light from the scan head” is unclear.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the [fifth paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA )], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim(s) 13, 16, 17, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
The newly added limitation “wherein the one or more ports comprise an emission port having a beam splitter configured to separate excitation and emission light, wherein the beam splitter is disposed within the emission port and has a reflectance to transmission ratio (R:T) of about 5:95 to about 20:80.” recited in claim 13 does not appear to further limit or include the newly added limitation “wherein the one or more ports comprise at least one port assembly attached to the scan head, the port assembly comprising: a scan head interface configured to attach to the scan head; a fiber bundle interface configured to attach to at least one optical fiber bundle including at least one of the plurality of optical excitation fibers or the plurality of emission fibers; and an interior optical assembly forming an optical path between the fiber bundle interface and the scan head” recited in claim 1.
The limitation “wherein the one or more ports comprise an excitation port to which the excitation fibers are connected and a separate emission port to which the emission fibers are connected” recited in claim 16 does not appear to further limit or include the newly added limitation ““wherein the one or more ports comprise at least one port assembly attached to the scan head, the port assembly comprising: a scan head interface configured to attach to the scan head; a fiber bundle interface configured to attach to at least one optical fiber bundle including at least one of the plurality of optical excitation fibers or the plurality of emission fibers; and an interior optical assembly forming an optical path between the fiber bundle interface and the scan head” recited in claim 1.
The limitation “wherein a single port in the one or more ports is configured to direct excitation light from the excitation fibers to the scan head and to direct emission light to the emission fibers” recited in claim 17 does not appear to further limit or include the newly added limitation ““wherein the one or more ports comprise at least one port assembly attached to the scan head, the port assembly comprising: a scan head interface configured to attach to the scan head; a fiber bundle interface configured to attach to at least one optical fiber bundle including at least one of the plurality of optical excitation fibers or the plurality of emission fibers; and an interior optical assembly forming an optical path between the fiber bundle interface and the scan head” recited in claim 1.
The newly added limitation “wherein the modular port is configured as an excitation port for passing excitation light from a connected optical fiber bundle toward the scan head attachment site, and wherein the beam splitter has a reflectance to transmission ratio (R:T) with greater reflection than transmission, wherein the beam splitter is configured to reflect at least a portion of light received from the scan head toward a secondary port attachment site” recited in claim 20 does not appear to further limit or include the limitation “an interior optical assembly that forms an optical path for transmission of excitation light from the optical fiber bundle, when connected, toward the scan head attachment site, or for transmission of emission light from the scan head, when connected, toward the fiber bundle attachment site, wherein the interior optical assembly includes a beam splitter disposed along the optical path between the scan head attachment site and the fiber bundle attachment site, wherein the beam splitter is configured to transmit at least a portion of emission light toward the fiber bundle attachment site.” recited in previously amended independent claim 18.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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 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.
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 at the time any inventions covered therein were effectively filed 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 at the time a later invention was effectively filed 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.
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 of this title, 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.
Claim(s) 1-5 and 7-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Natori et al. (US 2006/0187499) in view of Xu (US 2019/0324241) and Chiu et al. (US 2024/0027325).
In regard to claims 1-3, 7, 9, and 15 and claims 4, 8, and 16 (in so far as understood), Natori et al. disclose a confocal microscope system for multiplexed spectral fluorescence imaging, comprising:
(a) an excitation light assembly configured to provide excitation light at a plurality of wavelengths, wherein the excitation light assembly comprises a plurality of laser sources, and wherein each laser source of the plurality of laser sources is configured to provide excitation light at a different wavelength (e.g., see “… light-source unit 3 includes a plurality of laser light sources 6 with different wavelengths … to obtain high-resolution confocal fluorescence images …” in Fig. 1,
PNG
media_image1.png
1474
2565
media_image1.png
Greyscale
, and paragraphs 40 and 53);
(b) a scan head optically connected to the excitation light assembly (e.g., see “… casing 16, an optical scanning section 17 for two-dimensionally scanning the laser light coming from the lightsource unit 3 …” in Fig. 1, Fig. 2, and paragraph 42), wherein the excitation light from the excitation light assembly is directed onto a sample plane through an optical assembly, wherein the optical assembly comprises: a first lens; at least one reflective surface; and a second lens (e.g., see “… an optical scanning section 17 for two-dimensionally scanning the laser light coming from the lightsource unit 3, a pupil-projection lens 18 for focusing the laser light scanned by the optical scanning section 17 to form an intermediate image, an image-forming lens 19 for collimating the laser light forming the intermediate image, and an objective lens 20 for further focusing the laser light collimated by the image-forming lens 19 to re-image it at a specimen A. The optical scanning section 17 is formed, for example, of proximity galvanometer mirrors in which two galvanometer mirrors 17a and 17b …” in Fig. 1, Fig. 2, and paragraphs 42 and 43);
(c) an excitation fiber, the excitation fiber coupled to the excitation light assembly, and the excitation fiber configured to transmit a beam of the excitation light from the excitation light assembly to the scan head through one or more ports, wherein the excitation fiber terminating at an excitation connector and the excitation fiber configured to connect to a port of the one or more ports, and wherein the one or more ports comprise at least one port assembly attached to the scan head, the at least one port assembly comprising: a scan head interface configured to attach to the scan head (e.g., see “… cassette unit 21 which is removably connected to the casing 16 …” in Fig. 1, Fig. 2, and paragraph 44); a fiber interface configured to attach to the optical excitation fiber (e.g., see “… end 7b of the first optical fiber 7 is fixed to the cassette unit 21 …” in Fig. 1, Fig. 2, and paragraph 44); and an interior optical assembly forming an optical path between the fiber interface and the scan head (e.g., see “… laser light conveyed by the first optical fiber 7 is collimated by the collimator lens 24, is reflected by the mirror 26 and the dichroic mirror 27, and enters the optical scanning section 17 … optical fibers 7 and 11, the collimator lens 24, the coupling lens 25, the mirror 26, and the mirror 27 are fixed such that their optical axes are aligned with each other …” in Fig. 1, Fig. 2, and paragraph 46), and wherein the excitation fiber is a single-mode fiber connected to the one or more ports (e.g., “… optical fibers 7 and 11 are, for example, single-mode optical fibers having core diameters of about 5 µm …” in paragraph 45 and one of the ports can be labeled an excitation port);
(d) an emission fiber optically coupled to the scan head through the one or more ports, wherein the emission fiber terminating at an emission connector configured to connect the emission fiber to a port of the one or more port (e.g., see “… end 11b of the second optical fiber 11 is fixed to the cassette unit 21 …” in Fig. 1, Fig. 2, and paragraph 45), wherein the emission fiber is configured to receive emission light from the sample plane corresponding to a excitation beam transmitted by the optical excitation fiber (e.g., see “… by irradiating the specimen A with laser light, the fluorescence generated in the specimen A … is made incident on the other end lib of the second optical fiber 11 …” in Fig. 1, Fig. 2, and paragraph 47), and wherein the emission fiber is a multi-mode fiber connected to the one or more ports, the emission fiber having larger core diameter than the excitation fiber (e.g., “… confocal fluorescence images are obtained by using a single-mode fiber as the second optical fiber 11 and allowing the end face 11b thereof to effectively function as a confocal pinhole. Instead of this, however, as shown in FIG. 7, a multi-mode fiber may be used as the second optical fiber 11 and a pinhole 39 with a variable aperture diameter may be provided at the end face thereof …” in paragraph 63 and another of the ports can be labeled an excitation port); and
(e) a detector assembly optically connected to the emission fiber, wherein the detector assembly receives the emission light (e.g., see “… fluorescence incident on the second optical fiber 11 propagates in the second optical fiber 11; thereafter, it enters the light-detecting unit 4 …” in Fig. 1, Fig. 2, and paragraph 52), wherein the detector assembly includes a plurality of light detector modules, each detector module in the plurality of light detector modules providing one or more spectral detection channels (e.g., see “… plurality of dichroic mirrors 13 for separating the collimated fluorescence into individual wavelengths, barrier filters 40 for transmitting only a desired fluorescence wavelength range of the fluorescence that is divided into the individual wavelengths, focusing lenses 14 for focusing the fluorescence transmitted through the barrier filters 40, and photodetectors 15 for detecting the focused fluorescence. For example, photomultiplier tubes (PMTs), …” in Fig. 1, Fig. 2, and paragraph 41).
The system of Natori et al. lacks at least one optical fiber bundle including at least one of: (a) an excitation fiber bundle (that can be labeled as a plurality of optical excitation fibers) connected to a port of the one or more ports by the excitation connector to define equidistantly spacing of the excitation fibers, wherein each of the laser sources is coupled to one of the excitation fibers for transmitting separated excitation light beam of a different wavelength from the excitation light assembly to the scan head through one or more ports to a plurality of equidistantly spaced spatially separated spots on a sample plane thereby simultaneously providing excitation light at a different wavelength to each of the spots; and (b) an emission bundle (that can be labeled as a plurality of emission fibers) optically coupled to the scan head by the at least one port assembly and the emission connector to define equidistant spacing of the emission fibers, wherein each of the excitation fibers is matched to at least one of the emission fibers such that each of the emission fibers receives emission light from the sample plane caused by the excitation light, wherein the emission fibers are multi-mode fibers having larger core diameters than the excitation fibers which are single-mode fibers, and wherein each of the detector modules is optically connected to at least one of the emission fibers. However, Xu teaches (paragraphs 24 and 38) that “… One of the advantages of the disclosed technology is the improved scalability. By decoupling the focal spots of different laser sources, the detection optical paths for different laser sources become independent to each other. A dedicated detection unit therefore can be used for a specific laser source. Expansion of the system to support additional fluorescent agents is free of the constraint, i.e., the conflict of excitation and emission wavelength. Adding a channel to the detection unit or adding a laser source requires no architecture change. The detection unit is independent of other components and acts as a multi-spectral detector with fiber interface, and therefore it can be modularly designed to further improve the scalability … simultaneously focusing the different probe laser beams onto the sample at different probe laser beam locations so that each probe laser beam at a respective laser wavelength excites generation in the sample of a corresponding fluorescent emission at different fluorescent emission wavelengths caused by laser light at the respective laser wavelength and the different probe laser beams at the different probe laser beam locations cause different fluorescent emissions in the sample at the different probe laser beam locations; collecting the different fluorescent emissions in the sample at the different probe laser beam locations at different fluorescent emission beam propagation angles to focus the different fluorescent emissions to different beam focus locations; using different optical fibers located to have respective fiber end facets at the different beam focus locations, respectively, so that one fiber end facet of one optical fiber receives one of the different fluorescent emission beams; coupling different optical detection modules to the different optical fibers to receive the different fluorescent emission beams, respectively, one optical detection module for one fluorescent emission beam caused by one of the different probe laser beams; and, within each optical detection module for detection of fluorescent emission by the sample excited by one corresponding probe laser beam at a corresponding laser wavelength, spatially separating different optical spectral components of a received fluorescent emission beam into different fluorescent emission spectral beams at different optical fluorescent emission wavelengths for optical detection of fluorescent emission by the sample excited by the one corresponding probe laser beam at the corresponding laser wavelength …” and Chiu et al. teach (Fig. 1A, Fig. 1B, and paragraphs 94, 100, 106, and 108) that “… excitation line widths that are too wide and too closely spaced (e.g. when there is substantial overlap of two excitation lines) will generate crosstalk between portions of the channel 102. Additionally, excitation line widths that are too wide will illuminate larger portions of the channel 102 creating larger amounts of background light that will lower a signal-to-noise ratio … distal end of the first excitation optical fiber 164 and a distal end of the second excitation optical fiber 168 are arranged in an excitation fiber bundle head 172. As shown, the distal ends of the excitation optical fibers 164 and 168 are spaced apart by a spacing 176. In an embodiment, this spacing 176 defines, at least in part, a spacing of the excitation light 112 and 116 output by the excitation fiber bundle head 172 … Like the excitation fiber bundle 172, the emission optical fiber bundle 130 brings ends of optical fibers, here emission optical fibers 134 and 138, in close proximity and according to a particular orientation or arrangement … proximal ends 136 and 140 of each emission optical fiber 134 and 138 of the emission fiber bundle 130 are positioned to receive emission light 146 and 152 emitted from a distinct portion 122 and 124 …”. Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide at least one optical fiber bundle including at least one of: (a) an excitation fiber bundle (that can be labeled as a plurality of optical excitation fibers) connected to a port of the one or more ports by the excitation connector to define equidistantly spacing of the excitation fibers, wherein each of the laser sources is coupled to one of the excitation fibers for transmitting separated excitation light beam of a different wavelength from the excitation light assembly to the scan head through one or more ports to a plurality of equidistantly spaced spatially separated spots on a sample plane thereby simultaneously providing excitation light at a different wavelength to each of the spots; and (b) an emission bundle (that can be labeled as a plurality of emission fibers) optically coupled to the scan head by the at least one port assembly and the emission connector to define equidistant spacing of the emission fibers, wherein each of the excitation fibers is matched to at least one of the emission fibers such that each of the emission fibers receives emission light from the sample plane caused by the excitation light, wherein the emission fibers are multi-mode fibers having larger core diameters than the excitation fibers which are single-mode fibers, and wherein each of the detector modules is optically connected to at least one of the emission fibers in the system of Natori et al., in order to achieve “improved scalability” while minimizing “crosstalk”.
In regard to claim 5 which is dependent on claim 1, Natori et al. also disclose that the scan head comprises one or more adjustable mirrors to enable scanning of the plurality of spots of excitation light onto the sample plane, wherein the scan head is configured to scan the plurality of spots of excitation light onto the sample plane according to a two-dimensional raster (e.g., “… optical scanning section 17 is formed, for example, of proximity galvanometer mirrors in which two galvanometer mirrors 17 a and 17 b that oscillate about the two mutually orthogonal axes are disposed opposite each other …” in paragraph 43).
In regard to claim 10 which is dependent on claim 9, Natori et al. also disclose (paragraph 8) that “… can increase the number of image channels …”. In this case, a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP § 2144.05) since the claimed from 1 to at least 15 different spectral detection channels range lie inside “can increase the number of image channels” range disclosed by the cited prior art.
In regard to claim 11 which is dependent on claim 9, Natori et al. also disclose each detector module in the plurality of the detector modules is a bank of photomultiplier tubes (e.g., see “… plurality of dichroic mirrors 13 for separating the collimated fluorescence into individual wavelengths, barrier filters 40 for transmitting only a desired fluorescence wavelength range of the fluorescence that is divided into the individual wavelengths, focusing lenses 14 for focusing the fluorescence transmitted through the barrier filters 40, and photodetectors 15 for detecting the focused fluorescence. For example, photomultiplier tubes (PMTs), …” in Fig. 1, Fig. 2, and paragraph 41).
In regard to claim 12 which is dependent on claim 9, the system of Natori et al. lacks that the detector assembly comprises a plurality of spectrometers, wherein the plurality of spectrometers include a detector comprising one or more single photon avalanche diodes (SPADs), arranged in a configuration selected from the group consisting of: linear and a two dimensional array. However, Xu teaches (paragraphs 24 and 38) that “… One of the advantages of the disclosed technology is the improved scalability. By decoupling the focal spots of different laser sources, the detection optical paths for different laser sources become independent to each other. A dedicated detection unit therefore can be used for a specific laser source. Expansion of the system to support additional fluorescent agents is free of the constraint, i.e., the conflict of excitation and emission wavelength. Adding a channel to the detection unit or adding a laser source requires no architecture change. The detection unit is independent of other components and acts as a multi-spectral detector with fiber interface, and therefore it can be modularly designed to further improve the scalability … simultaneously focusing the different probe laser beams onto the sample at different probe laser beam locations so that each probe laser beam at a respective laser wavelength excites generation in the sample of a corresponding fluorescent emission at different fluorescent emission wavelengths caused by laser light at the respective laser wavelength and the different probe laser beams at the different probe laser beam locations cause different fluorescent emissions in the sample at the different probe laser beam locations; collecting the different fluorescent emissions in the sample at the different probe laser beam locations at different fluorescent emission beam propagation angles to focus the different fluorescent emissions to different beam focus locations; using different optical fibers located to have respective fiber end facets at the different beam focus locations, respectively, so that one fiber end facet of one optical fiber receives one of the different fluorescent emission beams; coupling different optical detection modules to the different optical fibers to receive the different fluorescent emission beams, respectively, one optical detection module for one fluorescent emission beam caused by one of the different probe laser beams; and, within each optical detection module for detection of fluorescent emission by the sample excited by one corresponding probe laser beam at a corresponding laser wavelength, spatially separating different optical spectral components of a received fluorescent emission beam into different fluorescent emission spectral beams at different optical fluorescent emission wavelengths for optical detection of fluorescent emission by the sample excited by the one corresponding probe laser beam at the corresponding laser wavelength …” and Chiu et al. teach (Fig. 1A and paragraph 122) that “… While photodetectors, such as photodetectors within detector modules 144 and 150, are discussed, it will be understood that other types of light detection structures and components are possible and within the scope of the present disclosure. In an embodiment the photodetectors within detector modules 144 and 150 are selected from the group consisting of a camera, an electron multiplier, a charge-coupled device (CCD) image sensor, a photomultiplier tube (PMT), a microchannel plate PMT (MCP), a hybrid PMT detector, an avalanche photodiode (APD), a single-photon avalanche diode (SPAD) …”. Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide spectrometers including a single photon avalanche diode array in the system of Natori et al., in order to “spatially separating different optical spectral components of a received fluorescent emission beam into different fluorescent emission spectral beams at different optical fluorescent emission wavelengths for optical detection of fluorescent emission by the sample excited by the one corresponding probe laser beam at the corresponding laser wavelength” for achieving “improved scalability” while minimizing “crosstalk”.
In regard to claim 13 which is dependent on claim 1, in so far as understood, while Natori et al. also disclose (paragraph 46) a “… dichroic mirror 27 …” configured to separate excitation and emission light, the system of Natori et al. lacks an explicit description of details of the “… dichroic mirror 27 …” such as the reflectance to transmission ratio (R:T) is about 5:95 to about 20:80. However, “… beam splitter …” details are known to one of ordinary skill in the art (e.g., see “… While dichroic mirror 160 is illustrated, it will be understood that other optical components may be used to selectively or partially transmit and reflect light. In an embodiment, dichroic mirror 160 is replaced with a transmissive mirror, such as a 20% reflective/80% transmissive mirror, or other structure configured to selectively or partially transmit and reflect light …” in paragraph 104 of Chiu et al.). It should be noted that “when a patent claims a structure already known in the prior art that is altered by the mere substitution of one element for another known in the field, the combination must do more than yield a predictable results”. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 at 416, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) at 1395 (citing United States v. Adams, 383 U.S. 39, 40 [148 USPQ 479] (1966)). See MPEP § 2143. In this case, one of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted a known conventional beamsplitter (e.g., comprising details such as “20% reflective/80% transmissive mirror”) for the unspecified beamsplitter of Natori et al. and the results of the substitution would have been predictable. Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a known conventional beamsplitter (e.g., comprising details such as the beam splitter is disposed within the emission port and has a reflectance to transmission ratio (R:T) of about 5:95 to about 20:80) as the unspecified beamsplitter of Natori et al.
In regard to claim 14 which is dependent on claim 1, while Natori et al. also disclose (paragraph 46) a “… dichroic mirror 27 …” for separating excitation and emission light, the system of Natori et al. lacks an explicit description of details of the “… dichroic mirror 27 …” such as not multi-band dichroic elements. However, “… dichroic mirror …” details are known to one of ordinary skill in the art (e.g., see “… While dichroic mirror 160 is illustrated, it will be understood that other optical components may be used to selectively or partially transmit and reflect light. In an embodiment, dichroic mirror 160 is replaced with a transmissive mirror, such as a 20% reflective/80% transmissive mirror, or other structure configured to selectively or partially transmit and reflect light …” in paragraph 104 of Chiu et al.). It should be noted that “when a patent claims a structure already known in the prior art that is altered by the mere substitution of one element for another known in the field, the combination must do more than yield a predictable results”. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 at 416, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) at 1395 (citing United States v. Adams, 383 U.S. 39, 40 [148 USPQ 479] (1966)). See MPEP § 2143. In this case, one of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted a known conventional beamsplitter (e.g., comprising details such as “dichroic mirror 160 is replaced with a transmissive mirror”) for the unspecified beamsplitter of Natori et al. and the results of the substitution would have been predictable. Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a known conventional beamsplitter (e.g., comprising details such as the one or more ports omit multi-band dichroic elements for separating excitation and emission light) as the unspecified beamsplitter of Natori et al.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Natori et al. in view of Xu and Chiu et al. as applied to claim(s) 1 above, and further in view of Kalkbrenner (US 2015/0253557).
In regard to claim 6 which is dependent on claim 1 the system of Natori et al. lacks an explicit description of details of the “… plurality of laser light sources 6 …” such as each of said wavelengths have a different modulation frequency. However, “… sources …” details are known to one of ordinary skill in the art (e.g., see “… switching frequencies of up to 100 MHz, also with intensity modulation … illumination radiation can be adjusted individually for every individual spot. This is a great advantage for certain fluorescence microscopy procedures such as FLIM or lock-in detection techniques. Accordingly, for example, the individual spots can be modulated differently and can accordingly separate adjacent image points through different modulations or demodulations … optics irradiate the pinhole elements with spectrally adjustable radiation …” in paragraphs 23-35 of Kalkbrenner). It should be noted that “when a patent claims a structure already known in the prior art that is altered by the mere substitution of one element for another known in the field, the combination must do more than yield a predictable results”. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 at 416, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) at 1395 (citing United States v. Adams, 383 U.S. 39, 40 [148 USPQ 479] (1966)). See MPEP § 2143. In this case, one of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted known conventional sources (e.g., comprising details such as “optics irradiate the pinhole elements with spectrally adjustable radiation” with “individual spots can be modulated differently” in order to achieve “lock-in detection techniques”) for the sources of Natori et al. and the results of the substitution would have been predictable. Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide known conventional sources (e.g., comprising details such as the excitation light assembly is configured to provide excitation light at a plurality of modulation frequencies, and wherein the excitation light assembly is configured to provide a different wavelength of excitation light for each frequency in the plurality of modulation frequencies) as the sources of Natori et al.
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Natori et al. in view of Xu and Chiu et al. as applied to claim(s) 1 above, and further in view of Tsuchiya et al. (US 2006/0017920).
In regard to claim 17 which is dependent on claim 1 in so far as understood, the cited prior art is applied as in claim 1 above. The system of Natori et al. lacks an explicit description of details of the “… fibers …” such as at least one of the excitation fibers is grouped with a multiple of the emission fibers. However, “… fibers …” details are known to one of ordinary skill in the art (e.g., see “… laser light from the first and second light sources 11 and 12 is made incident on the first core 62 at the center via dichroic mirrors 15, 21, and 16 and a coupling lens 17, and is transmitted therethrough. Thereafter, the laser light is irradiated onto a specimen A by means of the measurement head 3. Fluorescence produced in the specimen A is introduced into and transmitted through the first core 62 or the second core 64 by the collimator lens 7 in the measurement head 3, and is detected by first and second optical detectors 13 and 14 … as shown in FIG. 11, a fiber bundle in which a plurality of second cores 68 are disposed in a bundle around a first core 62 at the center may be employed. With this configuration too, the same advantages as those described above can be achieved, and making the optical fiber 61 more flexible allows the ease-of-handling to be improved …” in paragraphs 101 and 105 of Tsuchiya et al.). It should be noted that “when a patent claims a structure already known in the prior art that is altered by the mere substitution of one element for another known in the field, the combination must do more than yield a predictable results”. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 at 416, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) at 1395 (citing United States v. Adams, 383 U.S. 39, 40 [148 USPQ 479] (1966)). See MPEP § 2143. In this case, one of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted a known conventional fiber group (e.g., comprising details such as “plurality of second cores 68 are disposed in a bundle around a first core 62 at the center”) for the unspecified fiber group of Xu and the results of the substitution would have been predictable. Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to group the excitation fiber of Natori et al. with multiple emission fibers as a fiber group and to provide at least one additional fiber group, in order to achieve “more flexible”.
Claim(s) 18 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Natori et al. (US 2006/0187499) in view of Chiu et al. (US 2024/0027325).
In regard to claim 18, Natori et al. disclose a modular port for a confocal microscope system, the modular port comprising:
(a) a scan head attachment site where the modular port (e.g., see “… cassette unit 21 …” in Fig. 1, Fig. 2, and paragraph 44) attaches to a laser scanning confocal microscope scan head (e.g., see “… casing 16, an optical scanning section 17 … confocal fluorescence images …” in Fig. 1, Fig. 2, and paragraphs 42 and 53);
(b) a fiber attachment site where the modular port attaches to an optical fiber (e.g., see “… end 7b of the first optical fiber 7 is fixed to the cassette unit 21 … end 11b of the second optical fiber 11 is fixed to the cassette unit 21 …” in Fig. 1, Fig. 2, and paragraphs 44 and 45); and
(c) an interior optical assembly that forms an optical path for transmission of excitation light from the optical fiber, when connected, toward the scan head attachment site (e.g., see “… laser light conveyed by the first optical fiber 7 is collimated by the collimator lens 24, is reflected by the mirror 26 and the dichroic mirror 27, and enters the optical scanning section 17 …” in Fig. 1, Fig. 2, and paragraph 46), or for transmission of emission light from the scan head, when connected, toward the fiber attachment site (e.g., see “… by irradiating the specimen A with laser light, the fluorescence generated in the specimen A passes through the objective lens 20, the image-forming lens 19, the pupil-projection lens 18, and the optical scanning section 17, returns to the cassette unit 21 as a collimated beam, and is transmitted through the dichroic mirror 27, where it is split off from the laser beam and is made incident on the other end 11b of the second optical fiber 11 by the coupling lens 25 …” in Fig. 1, Fig. 2, and paragraph 46), wherein the interior optical assembly includes a beam splitter disposed along the optical path between the scan head attachment site and the fiber attachment site, wherein the beam splitter is configured to transmit at least a portion emission light toward the fiber attachment site (e.g., see “… by irradiating the specimen A with laser light, the fluorescence generated in the specimen A … is transmitted through the dichroic mirror 27 …” in Fig. 1, Fig. 2, and paragraph 46).
The modular port of Natori et al. lacks an explicit description of details of the “… fiber …” such as a fiber bundle. However, “… fiber …” details are known to one of ordinary skill in the art (e.g., see “… excitation line widths that are too wide and too closely spaced (e.g. when there is substantial overlap of two excitation lines) will generate crosstalk between portions of the channel 102. Additionally, excitation line widths that are too wide will illuminate larger portions of the channel 102 creating larger amounts of background light that will lower a signal-to-noise ratio … distal end of the first excitation optical fiber 164 and a distal end of the second excitation optical fiber 168 are arranged in an excitation fiber bundle head 172. As shown, the distal ends of the excitation optical fibers 164 and 168 are spaced apart by a spacing 176. In an embodiment, this spacing 176 defines, at least in part, a spacing of the excitation light 112 and 116 output by the excitation fiber bundle head 172 … Like the excitation fiber bundle 172, the emission optical fiber bundle 130 brings ends of optical fibers, here emission optical fibers 134 and 138, in close proximity and according to a particular orientation or arrangement … proximal ends 136 and 140 of each emission optical fiber 134 and 138 of the emission fiber bundle 130 are positioned to receive emission light 146 and 152 emitted from a distinct portion 122 and 124 …” in Fig. 1A, Fig. 1B, and paragraphs 94, 100, 106, and 108 of Chiu et al.). It should be noted that “when a patent claims a structure already known in the prior art that is altered by the mere substitution of one element for another known in the field, the combination must do more than yield a predictable results”. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 at 416, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) at 1395 (citing United States v. Adams, 383 U.S. 39, 40 [148 USPQ 479] (1966)). See MPEP § 2143. In this case, one of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted a known conventional fiber (e.g., comprising details such as “an excitation fiber bundle head 172. As shown, the distal ends of the excitation optical fibers 164 and 168 are spaced apart by a spacing 176”, in order to minimize “crosstalk”) for the unspecified fiber of Natori et al. and the results of the substitution would have been predictable. Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a known conventional fiber (e.g., comprising details such as a fiber bundle) as the unspecified fiber of Natori et al.
In regard to claim 19 which is dependent on claim 18, while Natori et al. also disclose that the modular port is configured as an emission port for passing emission light from a connected scan head toward the fiber attachment site (e.g., see “… by irradiating the specimen A with laser light, the fluorescence generated in the specimen A passes through the objective lens 20, the image-forming lens 19, the pupil-projection lens 18, and the optical scanning section 17, returns to the cassette unit 21 as a collimated beam, and is transmitted through the dichroic mirror 27, where it is split off from the laser beam and is made incident on the other end 11b of the second optical fiber 11 by the coupling lens 25 …” in Fig. 1, Fig. 2, and paragraph 46) and that “… by replacing the connection unit, which can be attached to and detached from the apparatus main body, it is possible to detect fluorescence of various wavelengths using various dichroic mirrors …” (paragraph 28), the modular port of Natori et al. lacks an explicit description of details of the “… dichroic mirror …” such as the beam splitter being substantially aligned to reflect light into, and/or received from, a secondary port having a secondary port attachment site for connecting to the modular port and the beam splitter has a reflectance to transmission ratio (R:T) with greater transmission than reflectance. However, “… dichroic mirror …” details are known to one of ordinary skill in the art (e.g., see “… While dichroic mirror 160 is illustrated, it will be understood that other optical components may be used to selectively or partially transmit and reflect light. In an embodiment, dichroic mirror 160 is replaced with a transmissive mirror, such as a 20% reflective/80% transmissive mirror, or other structure configured to selectively or partially transmit and reflect light …” in paragraph 104 of Chiu et al.). It should be noted that “when a patent claims a structure already known in the prior art that is altered by the mere substitution of one element for another known in the field, the combination must do more than yield a predictable results”. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 at 416, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) at 1395 (citing United States v. Adams, 383 U.S. 39, 40 [148 USPQ 479] (1966)). See MPEP § 2143. In this case, one of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted a known conventional beamsplitter (e.g., comprising details such as additional “connection unit” and “other structure configured to selectively or partially transmit and reflect light” in order to “detect fluorescence of various wavelengths” by “replacing” at least one “connection unit”) for the unspecified beamsplitter of Natori et al. and the results of the substitution would have been predictable. Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a known conventional beamsplitter (e.g., comprising details such as a secondary port attachment site for connecting a secondary port to the modular port, the secondary port attachment site being substantially aligned with the beam splitter such that: the beam splitter can reflect light received from a connected scan head into the secondary port, and/or the beam splitter can reflect light received from the secondary port toward a connected scan head, the beam splitter has a reflectance to transmission ratio (R:T) with greater transmission than reflectance) as the unspecified beamsplitter of Natori et al.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the amended claims have been fully considered but some are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection. Applicant's remaining arguments filed 21 July 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the written description requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) is satisfied because paragraphs 46-48 describe connector structures configured to attach excitation and emission fiber bundles to the disclosed ports, paragraphs 36-43 describe beam splitters disposed within the port assemblies and their reflectance-to-transmission characteristics, and paragraph 45 describes both excitation-port and emission-port configurations of the modular port. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The scope of amended independent claim 1 requires at least one optical fiber bundle including the plurality of optical excitation fibers. Dependent claim 4 further requires the excitation fibers are also disposed in an excitation fiber bundle and configured to connect the excitation fiber bundle to a port of the one or more ports. Therefore, there does not appear to be a written description of a combination of the newly added claim limitation “wherein the one or more ports comprise at least one port assembly attached to the scan head, the port assembly comprising: a scan head interface configured to attach to the scan head; a fiber bundle interface configured to attach to at least one optical fiber bundle including at least one of the plurality of optical excitation fibers or the plurality of emission fibers; and an interior optical assembly forming an optical path between the fiber bundle interface and the scan head” and the claim 4 limitation “wherein the excitation fibers are disposed in an excitation fiber bundle, the excitation fibers of the excitation fiber bundle terminating at an excitation connector configured to define spacing of the excitation fibers relative to each excitation fiber and configured to connect the excitation fiber bundle to a port of the one or more ports, wherein the excitation fibers are equidistantly spaced within the excitation connector, and wherein the corresponding spots transmitted to the sample plane are equidistantly spaced” in the application as filed. Similarly, there does not appear to be a written description of a combination of the newly added claim limitation “wherein the one or more ports comprise at least one port assembly attached to the scan head, the port assembly comprising: a scan head interface configured to attach to the scan head; a fiber bundle interface configured to attach to at least one optical fiber bundle including at least one of the plurality of optical excitation fibers or the plurality of emission fibers; and an interior optical assembly forming an optical path between the fiber bundle interface and the scan head” and the claim 8 limitation “wherein the emission fibers are disposed in an emission fiber bundle, the emission fibers of the emission fiber bundle terminating at an emission connector configured to define spacing of the emission fibers equidistant to each emission fiber and configured to connect the emission fiber bundle to a port of the one or more port” in the application as filed.
Applicant argues that the written description requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) is satisfied because paragraphs 46-48 describe connector structures configured to attach excitation and emission fiber bundles to the disclosed ports, paragraphs 36-43 describe beam splitters disposed within the port assemblies and their reflectance-to-transmission characteristics, and paragraph 45 describes both excitation-port and emission-port configurations of the modular port. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The scope of amended independent claim 1 requires an optical fiber bundle including both the optical excitation fibers and the emission fibers with an interior optical assembly forming an optical path between the fiber bundle interface and the scan head. Amended dependent claim 13 further requires a beam splitter for separating excitation and emission light. Therefore, there does not appear to be a written description of a combination of the newly added claim limitation “wherein the one or more ports comprise at least one port assembly attached to the scan head, the port assembly comprising: a scan head interface configured to attach to the scan head; a fiber bundle interface configured to attach to at least one optical fiber bundle including at least one of the plurality of optical excitation fibers or the plurality of emission fibers; and an interior optical assembly forming an optical path between the fiber bundle interface and the scan head” and the claim 13 limitation “wherein the one or more ports comprise a beam splitter configured to separate excitation and emission light, wherein the beam splitter is disposed within the emission port and has a reflectance to transmission ratio (R:T) of about 5:95 to about 20:80” in the application as filed.
Applicant argues that the written description requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) is satisfied because paragraphs 46-48 describe connector structures configured to attach excitation and emission fiber bundles to the disclosed ports, paragraphs 36-43 describe beam splitters disposed within the port assemblies and their reflectance-to-transmission characteristics, and paragraph 45 describes both excitation-port and emission-port configurations of the modular port. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The scope of amended independent claim 1 requires an optical fiber bundle including both the optical excitation fibers and the emission fibers with an interior optical assembly forming an optical path between the fiber bundle interface and the scan head. Dependent claim 16 further requires an excitation port to which the excitation fibers are connected and a separate emission port to which the emission fibers are connected. Therefore, there does not appear to be a written description of a combination of the newly added claim limitation “wherein the one or more ports comprise at least one port assembly attached to the scan head, the port assembly comprising: a scan head interface configured to attach to the scan head; a fiber bundle interface configured to attach to at least one optical fiber bundle including at least one of the plurality of optical excitation fibers or the plurality of emission fibers; and an interior optical assembly forming an optical path between the fiber bundle interface and the scan head” and the claim 16 limitation “wherein the one or more ports comprise an excitation port to which the excitation fibers are connected and a separate emission port to which the emission fibers are connected” in the application as filed.
Applicant argues that the written description requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) is satisfied because paragraphs 46-48 describe connector structures configured to attach excitation and emission fiber bundles to the disclosed ports, paragraphs 36-43 describe beam splitters disposed within the port assemblies and their reflectance-to-transmission characteristics, and paragraph 45 describes both excitation-port and emission-port configurations of the modular port. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The scope of amended independent claim 1 requires an optical fiber bundle including the optical excitation fibers or the emission fibers with an interior optical assembly forming an optical path between the fiber bundle interface and the scan head. Dependent claim 17 further requires a single port configured to direct excitation light from the excitation fibers to the scan head and to direct emission light to the emission fibers, wherein each excitation fiber is joined in a fiber group with one or more corresponding emission fibers, and wherein for at least one fiber group, the excitation fiber is grouped with multiple emission fibers. Therefore, there does not appear to be a written description of a combination of the newly added claim limitation “wherein the one or more ports comprise at least one port assembly attached to the scan head, the port assembly comprising: a scan head interface configured to attach to the scan head; a fiber bundle interface configured to attach to at least one optical fiber bundle including at least one of the plurality of optical excitation fibers or the plurality of emission fibers; and an interior optical assembly forming an optical path between the fiber bundle interface and the scan head” and the claim 17 limitation “wherein a single port in the one or more ports is configured to direct excitation light from the excitation fibers to the scan head and to direct emission light to the emission fibers, wherein each excitation fiber is joined in a fiber group with one or more corresponding emission fibers, and wherein for at least one fiber group, the excitation fiber is grouped with multiple emission fibers” in the application as filed.
Applicant argues that the written description requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) is satisfied because paragraphs 46-48 describe connector structures configured to attach excitation and emission fiber bundles to the disclosed ports, paragraphs 36-43 describe beam splitters disposed within the port assemblies and their reflectance-to-transmission characteristics, and paragraph 45 describes both excitation-port and emission-port configurations of the modular port. Examiner respectfully disagrees. While the specification discloses an optical path for transmission of either: excitation light from the optical fiber bundle toward the scan head attachment site; or emission light from the scan head toward the fiber bundle attachment site, wherein a beam splitter disposed along the optical path is configured to transmit at least a portion of emission light toward the fiber bundle attachment site (e.g., see “… In some embodiments, the excitation port 104 and/or emission port 106 are configured as modular ports capable of being selectively integrated with a pre-existing confocal microscope system. For example, a modular port may include a scan head attachment site for connecting the modular port to the scan head 110, a fiber bundle attachment site for connecting the modular port to an optical fiber bundle 103 or 107, and an interior optical assembly that forms an optical path for transmission of excitation light from a connected optical fiber bundle toward the scan head attachment site (when configured as an excitation port 104) or for transmission of emission light from a connected scan head 110 toward the fiber bundle attachment site (when configured as an emission port 106) …” in paragraph 44 cited as support by applicant), there does not appear to be any disclosure of a beam splitter disposed along the optical path is configured to: transmit at least a portion of emission light toward the fiber bundle attachment site; and to reflect at least a portion of light received from the scan head toward a secondary port attachment site. Therefore, there does not appear to be a written description of a combination of the claim limitation “an interior optical assembly that forms an optical path for transmission of excitation light from the optical fiber bundle, when connected, toward the scan head attachment site, or for transmission of emission light from the scan head, when connected, toward the fiber bundle attachment site, wherein the interior optical assembly includes a beam splitter disposed along the optical path between the scan head attachment site and the fiber bundle attachment site, wherein the beam splitter is configured to transmit at least a portion of emission light toward the fiber bundle attachment site” and the newly added claim 20 limitation “wherein the modular port is configured as an excitation port for passing excitation light from a connected optical fiber bundle toward the scan head attachment site, and wherein the beam splitter has a reflectance to transmission ratio (R:T) with greater reflection than transmission, wherein the beam splitter is configured to reflect at least a portion of light received from the scan head toward a secondary port attachment site” in the application as filed.
Applicant argues that each of the rejected claims satisfies 35 U.S.C. 112(d) because claim 13 further limits claim 1 by requiring that the one or more ports comprise a beam splitter disposed within an emission port having a specified reflectance-to-transmission ratio. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Amended independent claim 1 requires an interior optical assembly forming an optical path between the fiber bundle interface and the scan head. Amended dependent claim 12 requires a beam splitter forming separate optical paths that appears replace the optical path between the fiber bundle interface and the scan head formed by the interior optical assembly. Therefore the newly added limitation “wherein the one or more ports comprise an emission port having a beam splitter configured to separate excitation and emission light, wherein the beam splitter is disposed within the emission port and has a reflectance to transmission ratio (R:T) of about 5:95 to about 20:80” recited in claim 13 does not appear to further limit or include the newly added limitation “wherein the one or more ports comprise at least one port assembly attached to the scan head, the port assembly comprising: a scan head interface configured to attach to the scan head; a fiber bundle interface configured to attach to at least one optical fiber bundle including at least one of the plurality of optical excitation fibers or the plurality of emission fibers; and an interior optical assembly forming an optical path between the fiber bundle interface and the scan head” recited in claim 1.
Applicant argues that each of the rejected claims satisfies 35 U.S.C. 112(d) because claim 16 further limits claim 1 by requiring separate excitation and emission ports. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Amended independent claim 1 requires an interior optical assembly forming an optical path between the fiber bundle interface and the scan head. Dependent claim 16 requires an excitation optical path and a separate emission optical path that appears replace the optical path between the fiber bundle interface and the scan head formed by the interior optical assembly. Therefore, the limitation “wherein the one or more ports comprise an excitation port to which the excitation fibers are connected and a separate emission port to which the emission fibers are connected” recited in claim 16 does not appear to further limit or include the newly added limitation ““wherein the one or more ports comprise at least one port assembly attached to the scan head, the port assembly comprising: a scan head interface configured to attach to the scan head; a fiber bundle interface configured to attach to at least one optical fiber bundle including at least one of the plurality of optical excitation fibers or the plurality of emission fibers; and an interior optical assembly forming an optical path between the fiber bundle interface and the scan head” recited in claim 1.
Applicant argues that each of the rejected claims satisfies 35 U.S.C. 112(d) because claim 17 further limits claim 1 by requiring a single port configured to direct excitation light to the scan head and emission light to the emission fibers, together with specified excitation and emission fiber group relationships. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Amended independent claim 1 requires an interior optical assembly for directing light along an optical path between the fiber bundle interface and the scan head. Dependent claim 17 requires a single port configured to direct excitation light from the excitation fibers to the scan head and to direct emission light to the emission fibers and thus appears replace the interior optical assembly. Therefore, the limitation “wherein a single port in the one or more ports is configured to direct excitation light from the excitation fibers to the scan head and to direct emission light to the emission fibers” recited in claim 17 does not appear to further limit or include the newly added limitation ““wherein the one or more ports comprise at least one port assembly attached to the scan head, the port assembly comprising: a scan head interface configured to attach to the scan head; a fiber bundle interface configured to attach to at least one optical fiber bundle including at least one of the plurality of optical excitation fibers or the plurality of emission fibers; and an interior optical assembly forming an optical path between the fiber bundle interface and the scan head” recited in claim 1.
Applicant argues that each of the rejected claims satisfies 35 U.S.C. 112(d) because claim 20 further limits claim 18 by requiring that the modular port be configured as an excitation port and by further specifying the reflectance-to-transmission characteristics and operation of the beam splitter. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Amended independent claim 18 requires an interior optical assembly forming an optical path between the scan head attachment site and the fiber bundle attachment site. Dependent claim 20 requires a beam splitter for forming separate optical paths that appear to replace the optical path between the scan head attachment site and the fiber bundle attachment site formed by the interior optical assembly. Therefore, the newly added limitation “wherein the modular port is configured as an excitation port for passing excitation light from a connected optical fiber bundle toward the scan head attachment site, and wherein the beam splitter has a reflectance to transmission ratio (R:T) with greater reflection than transmission, wherein the beam splitter is configured to reflect at least a portion of light received from the scan head toward a secondary port attachment site” recited in claim 20 does not appear to further limit or include the limitation “an interior optical assembly that forms an optical path for transmission of excitation light from the optical fiber bundle, when connected, toward the scan head attachment site, or for transmission of emission light from the scan head, when connected, toward the fiber bundle attachment site, wherein the interior optical assembly includes a beam splitter disposed along the optical path between the scan head attachment site and the fiber bundle attachment site, wherein the beam splitter is configured to transmit at least a portion of emission light toward the fiber bundle attachment site.” recited in previously amended independent claim 18.
Applicant argues “the cassette as an independent removable optical subsystem rather than as a structural interface of the scan head itself” is a “optical boundary” deficiency of “an Incorrect Architectural Premise” because Natori et al.'s cassette unit 21 does not teach or suggest applicant's claimed “port assembly attached to the scan head”. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Initially, applicant's arguments are not persuasive because “optical boundary” does not appears to recited in any of applicant’s claims, does not appears to described in the specification as filed, and applicant fails to provide any evidence. Further, Natori et al. disclose a port assembly comprising: a scan head interface (e.g., see
PNG
media_image2.png
452
288
media_image2.png
Greyscale
of Fig. 2) configured to attach to the scan head (e.g., see
PNG
media_image3.png
891
582
media_image3.png
Greyscale
of Fig. 2 and wherein
PNG
media_image4.png
1701
2491
media_image4.png
Greyscale
shows the scan head interface attached to the scan head); a fiber interface configured to attach to the optical excitation fiber (e.g., see optical excitation fiber “7” attached to cassette unit “21” via a fiber interface in Fig. 1 and described as “… end 7b of the first optical fiber 7 is fixed to the cassette unit 21 …” in paragraph 44); and an interior optical assembly forming an optical path between the fiber interface and the scan head (e.g., see an interior optical assembly “24”, “26”, and “27” forming an optical path in Fig. 1 and described as “… laser light conveyed by the first optical fiber 7 is collimated by the collimator lens 24, is reflected by the mirror 26 and the dichroic mirror 27, and enters the optical scanning section 17 … optical fibers 7 and 11, the collimator lens 24, the coupling lens 25, the mirror 26, and the mirror 27 are fixed such that their optical axes are aligned with each other …” in paragraph 46). Therefore, the combination of the cited prior art teaches or suggests all limitations as arranged in the claims.
Applicant argues that Xu and Chiu et al. “Do Not Cure the Missing Architectural Relationship”. Examiner respectfully disagrees for the reasons discussed above.
Applicant argues that “Why a Person of Ordinary Skill Would Have Modified Natori's Architecture” has not articulated. In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found in the references themselves. It is important to recognize Natori et al.'s “… light-source unit 3 includes a plurality of laser light sources 6 with different wavelengths …”. In regard to different laser sources, Xu states (paragraphs 24 and 38) that “… One of the advantages of the disclosed technology is the improved scalability. By decoupling the focal spots of different laser sources, the detection optical paths for different laser sources become independent to each other. A dedicated detection unit therefore can be used for a specific laser source. Expansion of the system to support additional fluorescent agents is free of the constraint, i.e., the conflict of excitation and emission wavelength. Adding a channel to the detection unit or adding a laser source requires no architecture change. The detection unit is independent of other components and acts as a multi-spectral detector with fiber interface, and therefore it can be modularly designed to further improve the scalability … simultaneously focusing the different probe laser beams onto the sample at different probe laser beam locations so that each probe laser beam at a respective laser wavelength excites generation in the sample of a corresponding fluorescent emission at different fluorescent emission wavelengths caused by laser light at the respective laser wavelength and the different probe laser beams at the different probe laser beam locations cause different fluorescent emissions in the sample at the different probe laser beam locations; collecting the different fluorescent emissions in the sample at the different probe laser beam locations at different fluorescent emission beam propagation angles to focus the different fluorescent emissions to different beam focus locations; using different optical fibers located to have respective fiber end facets at the different beam focus locations, respectively, so that one fiber end facet of one optical fiber receives one of the different fluorescent emission beams; coupling different optical detection modules to the different optical fibers to receive the different fluorescent emission beams, respectively, one optical detection module for one fluorescent emission beam caused by one of the different probe laser beams; and, within each optical detection module for detection of fluorescent emission by the sample excited by one corresponding probe laser beam at a corresponding laser wavelength, spatially separating different optical spectral components of a received fluorescent emission beam into different fluorescent emission spectral beams at different optical fluorescent emission wavelengths for optical detection of fluorescent emission by the sample excited by the one corresponding probe laser beam at the corresponding laser wavelength …”. Thus Xu teaches “improved scalability” (i.e., “additional fluorescent agents is free of the constraint, i.e., the conflict of excitation and emission wavelength”) as some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to “decoupling the focal spots of different laser sources” by “simultaneously focusing the different probe laser beams onto the sample at different probe laser beam locations”. In regard different probe laser beam locations, Chiu et al. state (Fig. 1A, Fig. 1B, and paragraphs 94, 100, 106, and 108) that “… excitation line widths that are too wide and too closely spaced (e.g. when there is substantial overlap of two excitation lines) will generate crosstalk between portions of the channel 102. Additionally, excitation line widths that are too wide will illuminate larger portions of the channel 102 creating larger amounts of background light that will lower a signal-to-noise ratio … distal end of the first excitation optical fiber 164 and a distal end of the second excitation optical fiber 168 are arranged in an excitation fiber bundle head 172. As shown, the distal ends of the excitation optical fibers 164 and 168 are spaced apart by a spacing 176. In an embodiment, this spacing 176 defines, at least in part, a spacing of the excitation light 112 and 116 output by the excitation fiber bundle head 172 … Like the excitation fiber bundle 172, the emission optical fiber bundle 130 brings ends of optical fibers, here emission optical fibers 134 and 138, in close proximity and according to a particular orientation or arrangement … proximal ends 136 and 140 of each emission optical fiber 134 and 138 of the emission fiber bundle 130 are positioned to receive emission light 146 and 152 emitted from a distinct portion 122 and 124 …”. Thus Chiu et al. teach minimizing “crosstalk” as some teaching, suggestion, or motivation for excitation optical fibers “to be spaced apart by a spacing”. Therefore, the combination of the cited prior art teaches or suggests all limitations as arranged in the claims.
Applicant argues that “The Proposed Combination Is Inconsistent with Natori's Expressly Stated Design Objective” because “rejection therefore does not explain why a skilled artisan would have modified” Natori et al. Examiner respectfully disagrees for the reasons discussed above.
Applicant argues that “The Additional References Do Not Cure the Deficiencies of the Base Combination” because Kalkbrenner “Adds Illumination Features; Not Applicant's Claimed Architecture” and Kalkbrenner is relied on “only for an isolated optical characteristic while leaving untouched the underlying architectural deficiency”. Examiner respectfully disagrees for the reasons discussed above.
Applicant argues that “The Additional References Do Not Cure the Deficiencies of the Base Combination” because Tsuchiya et al. “Teaches Fiber Routing And Not the Claimed Modular Port Architecture” and “The rejection of claim 17 suffers from the same defect”. Examiner respectfully disagrees for the reasons discussed above.
Applicant argues that “Claims 18-20 Further Demonstrate the Deficiency in the Examiner Analysis” because “analysis simply repeats the same threshold error discussed above”. Examiner respectfully disagrees for the reasons discussed above.
Applicant argues failure “to Establish a Prima facie Case of Obviousness” “As discussed above”. Examiner respectfully disagrees for the reasons discussed above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 2010/0182683 teaches a microscope.
US 2010/0142041 teaches a microscope.
US 2006/0033988 teaches a microscope.
US 2013/0135715 teaches a microscope.
US 2015/0077842 teaches a microscope.
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 Shun Lee whose telephone number is (571)272-2439. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday.
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, Uzma Alam can be reached at (571)272-3995. 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.
/SL/
Examiner, Art Unit 2884
/UZMA ALAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2884
