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 .
Claims 1 – 19 are presented for examination.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2, 13-15, 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Veiseh et al. (US 2020/0101455 A1; pub. Apr. 2, 2020).
Regarding claim 1, Veiseh et al. disclose: a chip (para. [0212]) comprising a plurality of sample wells (fig.5 item 18); and
a cap (para. [0098]) disposed on the chip and comprising an optical component configured to direct an excitation light signal for exciting samples within the plurality of sample wells of the chip (para. [0105]).
Regarding claim 2, Veiseh et al. disclose: a cap body; and
a mirror configured to deflect an excitation light signal for exciting samples within the plurality of sample wells of the chip (the claim is rejected on the same basis as claim 1).
Regarding claim 13, Veiseh et al. disclose: A system for sequencing a sample, comprising:
a chip having a sample well configured to hold the sample;
a light source configured to produce an excitation light signal; and
a cap disposed on the chip and comprising a mirror configured to direct the excitation light signal for exciting the sample within the sample well (the claim is rejected on the same basis as claim 1).
Regarding claim 14, Veiseh et al. disclose: the light source comprises a pulsed laser source (para. [0117]).
Regarding claim 15, Veiseh et al. disclose: A method of manufacturing a cap configured to engage a chip having a plurality of sample wells, the method comprising:
providing a cap body; and
placing a mirror in the cap body, such that the mirror is configured to direct an excitation light signal for exciting samples within the plurality of sample wells of the chip (the claim is rejected on the same basis as claim 1).
Regarding claim 19, Veiseh et al. disclose: attaching the cap to the chip (the claim is rejected on the same basis as claim 1).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Veiseh et al. (US 2020/0101455 A1; pub. Apr. 2, 2020) in view of Richards et al. (WO2016/161022 A2; pub. Oct. 06, 2016).
Regarding claim 3, Veiseh et al. are silent about: the mirror is removably attached to the cap body.
In a similar field of endeavor, Richards et al. disclose: the mirror is removably attached to the cap body (para. [00245]) motivated by the benefits for a modular device.
In light of the benefits for a modular device, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Veiseh et al. with the teachings of Richards et al.
Claims 4 – 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Veiseh et al. (US 2020/0101455 A1; pub. Apr. 2, 2020) in view of Abbott et al. (US 2018/0203216 A1; pub. Jul. 19, 2018).
Regarding claim 4, Veiseh et al. are silent about: the chip has a first surface facing the cap; and
the mirror is positioned to deflect an excitation light signal towards the first surface.
In a similar field of endeavor, Abbott et al. disclose: the chip has a first surface facing the cap; and the mirror (fig.8A item 808, para. [0103]) is positioned to deflect an excitation light signal towards the first surface motivated by the benefits for improving sample illumination.
In light of the benefits for improving sample illumination, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Veiseh et al. with the teachings of Abbott et al.
Regarding claim 5, Abbott et al. disclose: the excitation light signal is substantially parallel to the first surface (the claim is rejected on the same basis as claim 4).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Veiseh et al. (US 2020/0101455 A1; pub. Apr. 2, 2020) in view of Weisbuch et al. (US 2005/0214160 A1; pub. Sep. 29, 2005).
Regarding claim 10, Veiseh et al. are silent about: the mirror comprises silicon.
In a similar field of endeavor, Weisbuch et al. disclose: the mirror comprises silicon (para. [0089]) motivated by the benefits for a lightweight device.
In light of the benefits for a lightweight device, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Veiseh et al. with the teachings of Weisbuch et al.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Veiseh et al. (US 2020/0101455 A1; pub. Apr. 2, 2020) in view of Humayun et al. (US 2015/0032207 A1; pub. Jan. 29, 2015).
Regarding claim 11, Veiseh et al. are silent about: the cap body comprises a polymer material.
In a similar field of endeavor, Humayun et al. disclose: the cap body comprises a polymer material (para. [0233]) motivated by the benefits for a lightweight and cost-effective device.
In light of the benefits for a lightweight and cost-effective device, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Veiseh et al. with the teachings of Humayun et al.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Veiseh et al. (US 2020/0101455 A1; pub. Apr. 2, 2020) in view of Abbott et al. (US 2018/0203216 A1; pub. Jul. 19, 2018) and further in view of Rothberg et al. (US 2019/0025214 A1; pub. Jan. 24, 2019).
Regarding claim 12, the combined references are silent about: the chip further comprises at least one waveguide and one or more grating couplers, the one or more grating couplers configured to optically couple the excitation light signal deflected by the mirror to the at least one waveguide for exciting samples.
In a similar field of endeavor, Rothberg et al. disclose: the chip further comprises at least one waveguide and one or more grating couplers, the one or more grating couplers configured to optically couple the excitation light signal deflected by the mirror to the at least one waveguide for exciting samples (para. [0074]) motivated by the benefits for massively-parallel sample analyses (Rothberg et al. para. [0059]).
In light of the benefits for massively-parallel sample analyses as taught by Rothberg et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Veiseh et al. and Abbott et al. with the teachings of Rothberg et al.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Veiseh et al. (US 2020/0101455 A1; pub. Apr. 2, 2020) in view of Seaton et al. (US 5,888,455; pub. Mar. 30, 1999).
Regarding claim 18, Veiseh et al. are silent about: attaching a retaining clip to prevent the mirror from being removed from the cap body.
In a similar field of endeavor, Seaton et al. disclose: attaching a retaining clip to prevent the mirror from being removed from the cap body (col.12 L56-59) motivated by the benefits for secure attachment (Seaton et al. col.12. 56-59).
In light of the benefits for secure attachment as taught by Seaton et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Veiseh et al. with the teachings of Seaton et al.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-9, 16-17 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding claim 6, the prior arts alone or in combination fail to teach, disclose, suggest or render obvious: the cap body comprises a first support surface in contact with a first point of the mirror and a second support surface in contact with a second point of the mirror.
Claims 7 – 9 would be allowable on the same basis as claim 6 for dependency reasons.
Regarding claim 16, the prior arts alone or in combination fail to teach, disclose, suggest or render obvious: determining if a tilt angle of the mirror is within a predetermined range; and in response to a determination that the tilt angle is outside the predetermined range, replacing the mirror with a second mirror of a different length.
Claim 17 would be allowable on the same basis as claim 16 for dependency reasons.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MAMADOU FAYE whose telephone number is (571)270-0371. The examiner can normally be reached Mon – Fri 9AM-6PM.
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.
Dave Porta can be reached at 571-272-2444. 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.
/DAVID P PORTA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2884
/MAMADOU FAYE/Examiner, Art Unit 2884