DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection presented below.
Claim(s) 1-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-6 and 13-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Publication 2016/0231549 to Bosworth et al. and in further view of US Publication 2020/0071727 to Tandon et al.
In regards to claim 1-6, 13-17, Bosworth discloses and shows in Figures 1-3, a biological system and method comprising:
flowing cells within a microfluidic channel (104) (Figures 1-3) (par. 36, 41, 125, 130, 144; wherein the system includes a high-flow imaging cytometry system and microfluidic flow channel); and
a line-field swept source OCT system configured to monitor a distribution of the cells in the microfluidic channel (par. 51, 76, 130, 142, 146, 165; wherein the system obtains 1D line scans of cells within a microfluidic flow channel of a cytometer; and the disclosed approach can be applied to swept-source OCT (par. 165));
[claim 2] further comprising a processing system (110) (applicant’s controller) to obtain continuous imaging and provide screening of cell structure, behavior and heterogeneity (par. 36, 45-46, 125).
Bosworth differs from the limitations in that it is silent to the system and method further comprising:
[claim 1] one or more devices for modifying cells and flowing cells within a microfluidic channel;
[claim 3, 14] wherein the devices include pumps feedback controlled by the controller;
[claims 4, 15] wherein the devices include at least one incubator and a line-field swept source OCT system for monitoring cells in the incubator;
[claims 5, 16] wherein the devices include at least one buffer exchange device and a line-field swept source OCT system for monitoring cells in the buffer exchange device;
[claims 6, 17] wherein the devices include flow electroporation device and a line-field swept source OCT system for monitoring cells in the flow electroporation device.
However, Tandon teaches and shows in Figures 1-5, an automated high throughput, cellular transfection system comprising: a plurality of microfluidic channels (46), an incubator (12), a plurality of buffer exchangers (14, 18) and a flow electroporation assembly (16); wherein a controller (44) is configured to monitor the process and control the system parameters (par. 10-12, 24, 53-54, 73). Further, microscopy images are obtained of a region of interest (par. 131). The system also includes a pumping system for driving the fluids within the devices and wherein the pumping system is controlled by a controller to allow complete automation of the system (par. 12, 17, 28)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Bosworth, to include the cellular transfection system discussed above for the advantage of monitoring and controlling a “hands-free, automated, high throughput, continuous process” of cellular transfection, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claim(s) 7-9 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bosworth in view of Tandon, and in view of US Publication 2018/0149588 to Fortunado et al.
In regards to claims 7-9 and 12, Bosworth discloses and shows in Figures 1-3, an imaging flow cytometer system, which may utilize swept-source OCT (SS-OCT), [claim 9] wherein a structured line illumination is provided to a microfluidic channel by line lens (par. 146).
Bosworth differs from the limitations in that it is silent to the system and method further comprising:
[claim 7] wherein the line-field swept source OCT system includes: a base; a swept laser on the base; a beamsplitter on the base for dividing the beam from the swept laser between a reference arm and a sample arm; and a line-field sensor for detecting light from the reference arm and the sample arm.
[claim 8] further comprising a bracket for mounting the line-field sensor to the base;
[claim 12] further comprising a translation stage for changing a length of the reference arm.
However, Fortunado teaches and shows in Figures 1 and 6a, a biological system and method comprising:
a swept source OCT system (35) for monitoring the cells (par. 9, 16, 47, 49, 53, 72-73; wherein an OCT system is utilized to monitor a region of interest of a microfluidic channel);
[claim 7] wherein the swept source OCT system includes: a base (par. 52-53, 72; wherein Figure 6a shows the OCT within an enclosure or housing); a swept laser (14) on the base (par. 48, 50, 53, 72); a beamsplitter (16) on the base for dividing the beam from the swept laser between a reference arm (18) and a sample arm (13) (par. 53); and photodetector (21) for detecting light from the reference arm and the sample arm (par. 53);
[claim 8] further comprising a bracket for mounting the line-field sensor to the base (Figure 6a; wherein the OCT system is shown to be within a housing or enclosure arranged in relation to a desired region of interest);
[claim 12] further comprising a translation stage for changing a length of the reference arm (par. 53) (Figure 1a; wherein the OCT system is shown to have “optical pathlength scanning” in the reference arm).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Bosworth to include the SS-OCT system discussed above for the advantage of utilizing a robust and reliable, well-known measurement system, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claim(s) 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bosworth in view of Tandon, and in view of US Publication 2022/0371551 to Nikitin et al.
Bosworth differs from the limitations in that it is silent to the system and method further comprising:
[claim 10] wherein the line generating lens forms a substantially flat-top power distribution of the light from the laser;
[claim 11] wherein the line generating lens is a Powell lens.
However, Nikitin teaches and shows in Figure 1, a line-scan OCT system, wherein a Powell lens is utilized to provide a desired line-scan beam to a sample (par. 14, 62), wherein the line scan pattern will provide “a light source having high uniformity in power intensity” (applicant’s flat-top power distribution) in order to ensure high-quality accurate measurement of the sample (par. 7, 9, 14)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Fortunado to include the Powell lens discussed above for the advantage of providing high power efficiency for evaluating micro structures of objects, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN M HANSEN whose telephone number is (571)270-1736. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 8am to 4pm.
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, Michelle Iacoletti can be reached at 571-270-5789. 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.
JONATHAN M. HANSEN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2877
/JONATHAN M HANSEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2877