Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1.The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . Claims 1-17,31,47 and 49 are pending in this application. Applicant’s election of Group I, claims 1-17 and 31 in the reply filed on 06/11/26 is acknowledged. Claims 47 and 49 are withdrawn from consideration.
2. The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
laim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
3. Claim(s) 1-7,10 and 12-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Woessner (WO 01/22080 A2).
With regard to claim 1, Woessner teaches a system for detecting a colony growing on an agar plate (see figs. 1-2 and page 7 of ‘702), the system comprising: (a) a photoelectric array detector having associated optics to detect a detection field of a surface of the agar plate (reads on figs. 1-2 which depicts how a camera having optic to detect the surface of the plate); (b) one or more illumination sources for illuminating the detection field, the illumination sources positioned to illuminate the agar plate (reads on fig. 1, item 4, illuminate the plate 6); (c) a collection lens (10a and/or 12) system positioned between the photoelectric array detector (10) and the agar plate (6),(see fig. 1); (d) a computer (14) programmed to receive data collected by the photoelectric array detector (see page 5), wherein the data is a digital representation of the detection field, the colony growing on an agar within the plate is detected through a bottom surface of the agar plate and the agar, and the computer analyzes (or interpreting data, see page 6, lines 1-14) the data to quantify a number of colonies in the detection field (see Example 2, page 8).
With regard to claim 2, Woessner further teaches wherein two illumination sources are used for illuminating the detection field, and wherein a first illumination source illuminates a side of the agar plate and the agar, optionally wherein a second illumination source illuminates a top surface of the agar (reads on fig. 1, which suggest the camera can have an illumination and the second illumination 4).
With regard to claim 3, Woessner further teaches wherein a second illumination source illuminates a top surface of the agar (inherent reads on fig. 1, which the light can be placed in different direccion(s)).
With regard to claim 4, Woessner further teaches a light diffuser positioned between
the second illumination source and the agar plate (inherent reads on fig. 1, which the light can be placed in different direction(s) and reflect in different direction(s)).
.
With regard to claim 5, Woessner further teaches wherein the first illumination source comprises a plurality of illumination sources encircling the side of the agar plate (inherent reads on fig. 1, which the light can be placed in different direction(s) and encircle toward different direction(s)).
With regard to claim 6, Woessner further teaches wherein the plurality of illumination sources encircles the side of the agar plate at a position between the top cover of the agar plate and the top of the agar (inherent reads on fig. 1, which the light can be placed in different direction(s) and toward different direction(s)).
.
With regard to claim 7, Woessner further teaches wherein the colony is growing on an absorption pad or a membrane surface (8) on the agar within the agar plate (see fig. 1).
With regard to claim 10, Woessner further teaches wherein the photoelectric array detector comprises a charge-coupled device (CCD) detector, a photomultiplier tube detector, a complementary metal-oxide-semiconductor (CMOS) detector, or a photodiode detector (reads on the camera of fig. 1).
With regard to claim 12, Woessner further suggests a stage for positioning the agar plate relative to the illumination source and the photoelectric array detector and optionally a robotic arm for placing and removing the agar plate on the stage (see fig. 1 and page 7, lines 15-20).
With regard to claim 13, Woessner further teaches a robotic arm for placing and
removing the agar plate on the stage (see fig. 1 and page 7, lines 15-20) .
With regard to claim 14, Woessner further teaches wherein the colony is a colony of bacteria cells or a colony of fungal cells (see page 6).
With regard to claim 15, Woessner further teaches wherein a top cover of the agar plate is present during the illuminating and detecting (see fig. 1).
With regard to claim 16, Woessner further teaches wherein the detection field is a bottom surface of the agar plate (see fig. 1, clearly the plaque is placed or stored in the bottom of the plate).
With regard to claim 17, the limitations of claim 17 are covered by the limitations of claim 1 above.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
4. Claim(s) 8-9,11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Woessner (WO 01/22080 A2)..
With regard to claims 8-9 and 11, Woessner teaches illumination sources (see claim 1 above), but does not explicitly using a camera having lasers, LEDs or CMOS. Examiner asserts that cameras having lasers, LEDs or CMOS are well known in the art at the time of the invention to be used for detecting (taking or acquiring) images . Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to switch the camera of Woessner with a different camera, since it would have been a design choice to use the different types of cameras.
Conclusion
5. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Ozcan et al. (2023/0060037) teaches a systems and methods for the early detection and classification of live microorganisms using time-lapse coherent imaging and deep learning.
Larimer et al. (2020/0024634) teaches methods and systems of characterizing and counting microbiological colonies.
FONT SANTAFE (2018/0258383) teaches a device for obtaining images of bacterial cultures in a dish.
6. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Gabriel I. Garcia whose telephone number is (571)272-7434. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday 7:30am-5:30pm.
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, Benny Q Tieu can be reached on 571-272-7490. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Gabriel I Garcia/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2682
July 08, 2026
Prosecution Insights