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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/27/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues on Pg. 6-12 that Wolfe fails to disclose “determining responsivity of the photodiode over a plurality of wavelengths of light from the light source” and that the instant claim specifies wavelength-dependent variations in the behaviors of a photodiode. Applicant notes that Wolfe is concerned with nonlinear circuit behavior and in determining appropriate gain values “over a relatively wide range of signal voltages” compensating for deviations from nominal behavior in photodetector circuitry to account for voltage dependence of integrator capacitance in the imaging system and that this is a separate and distinct problem from determining and compensating for wavelength dependent variations.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Specifically, the Examiner acknowledges and agrees that Wolfe does not disclose a system for determining the responsivity of the photodiode over a plurality of wavelengths of light from the light source, i.e., the spectral responsivity, but instead introduced Maslaney in the previous Office Action to account for the corresponding limitations. Applicant further argues on page 12-13 that Maslaney does not teach “determin[ing] responsivity of the photodiode over a plurality of wavelengths” and instead relates to a technique for storing information relating to the spectral responsivity of the photodiode for use by a microprocessor. In response to arguments against Maslaney, the Examiner notes that Maslaney further discloses a system which is able to identify modulating frequencies/light wavelengths in order to adjust the gain of a current-to-voltage amplifier 76 in a detector module 12 by incorporating compensating parameters from memory which correspond to “the specific photodetector’s 74 responsivity to that particular light wavelength” (Maslaney: Fig. 1; Col. 9, lines 29-37 and Col. 9, line 55 – Col. 10, line 22). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that such a look-up system is equivalent to determining the wavelength dependence of photodiodes and calibrating them in response to the determination (Maslaney: Col. 4, lines 17-37). The motivation would be to improve Wolfe’s system by allowing for calibration across a larger spectral range, improving overall measurement accuracy. As such, the rejection of claim 59 is maintained. The rejections of claims 60-78 and 96-98 are maintained due to their dependence on claim 59.
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) 59-66, 69-74, 76-78 and 96-98 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wolfe et al. (US 2016/0056785 A1) in view of Nishimori et al. (US 10684210 B2) further in view of Maslaney et al. (US 4726676).
Regarding claim 59, Wolfe discloses a system comprising:
a light detection system (Fig. 3A-3C) comprising a photodiode (203) and an amplifier (211) ([0066]; [0067], lines 1-5; [0068], lines 1-5; [0069], lines 1-8); and
a processor (215) comprising memory operably coupled to the processor wherein the memory comprises instructions stored thereon (Fig. 3C; [0035], lines 1-12; [0069], lines 1-8), which when executed by the processor, cause the processor to:
determine responsivity of the photodiode ([0062], lines 8-13; [0064], last 18 lines; [0069], lines 1-8); and
adjust one or more parameters of the amplifier in response to the responsivity of the photodiode ([0067]; [0068], lines 1-5 – where signals from the individual photodetectors are interpreted as input parameters to the amplifier).
Wolfe uses a test current source to produce a plurality of input current or voltage values but does not explicitly disclose a light source for irradiating the detector in implementing the calibration method.
However, Nishimori, which relates to methods and systems used for monitoring a particle analysis apparatus, discloses a light source (OP11) used for irradiating a sample and calibrating (or adjusting) the gain of a light-reception signal in a flow cytometry apparatus (Col. 4, lines 35-46; Col. 6, lines 38-58; Abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Wolfe with a light source which would be necessary for calibrating the photodetectors, and could act as an alternative to the test current source used in Wolfe (Wolfe: [0011]).
Wolfe in view of Nishimori does not explicitly disclose a light detection system configured with steps to determine responsivity of the photodiode over a plurality of wavelengths of light; and
adjust one or more parameters of the amplifier in response to the responsivity of the photodiode over the plurality of wavelengths of light.
However, Maslaney, which relates to optical signal power measurement systems and methods including calibration processes, discloses a system configured with steps to determine responsivity of a photodiode (74) over a plurality of wavelengths of light (Fig. 1; Col. 7, lines 24-42; Col. 9, line 55 – Col. 10, line 22); and
adjust one or more parameters of an amplifier (76) in response to the responsivity of the photodiode over the plurality of wavelengths of light (Fig. 1; Col. 7, lines 24-63; Col. 9, line 55 – Col. 10, line 22).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Wolfe in view of Nishimori with a system which is able to calibrate photodetectors over a plurality of wavelengths, providing a more uniform response across the detector and improving the measurement accuracy of the light detection system.
Regarding claim 60, Wolfe in view of Nishimori and Maslaney discloses the system according to claim 59, as outlined above, and further discloses wherein the memory comprises instructions stored thereon, which when executed by the processor, cause the processor to determine the responsivity of the photodiode over a spectrum of wavelengths of the light (Wolfe: [0062], lines 8-13; [0064], last 18 lines; [0069], lines 1-8).
Regarding claim 61, Wolfe in view of Nishimori and Maslaney discloses the system according to claim 60, as outlined above, and further discloses wherein the spectrum comprises 200 or more wavelengths of light (Wolfe: [0062], lines 8-13; [0064], last 18 lines; [0069], lines 1-8 – where “the spectral region of interest, such as infrared and/or visible light” references a continuous band of wavelengths in the visible and infrared region).
Regarding claim 62, Wolfe in view of Nishimori and Maslaney discloses the system according to claim 59, as outlined above, and further discloses wherein the memory comprises instructions stored thereon, which when executed by the processor, cause the processor to determine the responsivity of the photodiode over wavelengths of light of from 400 nm to 1100 nm (Wolfe: [0062], lines 8-13; [0064], last 18 lines; [0069], lines 1-8 – where “the spectral region of interest, such as infrared and/or visible light” references a continuous band of wavelengths in the visible and infrared region).
Regarding claim 63, Wolfe in view of Nishimori and Maslaney discloses the system according to claim 59, as outlined above, and further discloses wherein the memory comprises instructions stored thereon, which when executed by the processor, cause the processor to determine an average gain of the photodiode over the plurality of wavelengths (Wolfe: [0062], lines 8-13; [0064], last 18 lines; [0069], lines 1-8 – where determining “calibrated gain factors” is interpreted as determining the average gain of the photodetectors).
Regarding claim 64, Wolfe in view of Nishimori and Maslaney discloses the system according to claim 63, as outlined above, and further discloses a calibration process which involves the measurement and tailoring of the resistance values of resistor networks for calibrating the individual photodetectors (Wolfe: [0075]; [0078], lines 1-11).
Wolfe in view of Nishimori and Maslaney does not explicitly disclose wherein the memory comprises instructions stored thereon, which when executed by the processor, cause the processor to calculate a feedback resistance of the amplifier based on the determined responsivity and average gain of the photodiode over the plurality of wavelengths of light. However, it remains that it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to consider using a common modified version of a known integrator circuit which includes a feedback resistor which would provide the advantage of DC gain control to what is understood to be an AC OP-Amp integrator, providing improved stability and performance of the electronic circuit.
Regarding claim 65, Wolfe in view of Nishimori and Maslaney discloses the system according to claim 64, as outlined above, and further presents a method that appears related to the present claimed invention which measures and adjusts resistance networks to control the bias voltages applied to individual and/or an array of photodetectors. Uniquely setting an operating bias for each photodetector allows for adjusting each photodetector’s responsivity to radiation, signal to noise and overall gain across the photodetector array.
Wolfe in view of Nishimori and Maslaney does not explicitly disclose wherein the memory comprises instructions stored thereon, which when executed by the processor, cause the processor to calculate the feedback resistance according to:
Rf X R(λ) = Gt
wherein Rf is feedback resistance of the amplifier;
R(λ) is the responsivity of the photodiode at each wavelength; and
Gt is the average gain of the photodiode over the plurality of wavelengths of light.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wolfe in view of Nishimori and Maslaney with a technique for calibrating a photodetector array where parameters including the resistance, responsivity, and gain, which are known to characterize similar transimpedance amplifiers, are tailored to provide the desired output signal. Further, using a common modified version of a known integrator circuit which includes a feedback resistor would not on its own be considered inventive where the modification would provide the advantage of DC gain control to what is understood to be an AC OP-Amp integrator, improving the overall stability and performance of the electronic circuit.
Regarding claim 66, Wolfe in view of Nishimori and Maslaney discloses the particle analyzer according to claim 64, as outlined above, and further discloses wherein the memory comprises instructions stored thereon, which when executed by the processor, cause the processor to adjust capacitance of the amplifier based on the calculated resistance (Wolfe: [0078], lines 1-11; [0080] – where implied in the calibration process is the measurement and tailoring of the resistance values of resistor networks for calibrating the individual photodetectors).
Regarding claim 69, Wolfe in view of Nishimori and Maslaney discloses the system according to claim 59, as outlined above, and further discloses wherein the amplifier is a transimpedence amplifier (Wolfe: [0063]).
Regarding claim 70, Wolfe in view of Nishimori and Maslaney discloses the system according to claim 59, as outlined above, and further discloses wherein the light detection system comprises:
a photodiode array (102) (Wolfe: Fig. 1A-1B; [0062], lines 8-17) comprising
a plurality of photodiodes (203); and a plurality of amplifiers (211) (Wolfe: [0062], lines 8-17),
wherein each photodiode is in electrical communication with an amplifier (Wolfe: Fig. 2; [0067], lines 1-5; [0062], lines 8-17).
Regarding claim 71, Wolfe in view of Nishimori and Maslaney discloses the system according to claim 70, as outlined above, and further discloses wherein the memory comprises instructions stored thereon, which when executed by the processor, cause the processor to determine responsivity of each photodiode in the photodiode array over the plurality of wavelengths of light (Wolfe: [0062], lines 8-13; [0064], last 18 lines; [0069], lines 1-8).
.
Regarding claim 72, Wolfe in view of Nishimori and Maslaney discloses the system according to claim 71, wherein the memory comprises instructions stored thereon, which when executed by the processor, cause the processor to independently determine responsivity of two or more of the photodiodes in the photodiode array over the plurality of wavelengths of light (Wolfe: [0062], lines 8-13; [0064], last 18 lines; [0069], lines 1-8).
Regarding claim 73, Wolfe in view of Nishimori and Maslaney discloses the system according to claim 70, as outlined above, and further discloses wherein the memory comprises instructions stored thereon, which when executed by the processor, cause the processor to determine an average gain of each photodiode in the photodiode array over the plurality of wavelengths (Wolfe: [0062], lines 8-13; [0064], last 18 lines; [0069], lines 1-8 – where determining “calibrated gain factors” is interpreted as determining the average gain of the photodiode).
Regarding claim 74, Wolfe in view of Nishimori and Maslaney discloses the system according to claim 73, as outlined above, and further discloses wherein the memory comprises instructions stored thereon, which when executed by the processor, cause the processor to independently calculate resistance of each amplifier based on the determined responsivity and average gain of each photodiode over the plurality of wavelengths of light (Wolfe: [0075]; [0078], lines 1-11 – where implied in the calibration process is the measurement and tailoring of the resistance values of resistor networks for calibrating the individual photodetectors).
Regarding claim 76, Wolfe in view of Nishimori and Maslaney discloses the system according to claim 59, as outlined above, and further discloses wherein the system is a flow cytometer (100) (Nishimori: Fig. 1; Col. 4, lines 24-32).
Regarding claim 77, Wolfe in view of Nishimori and Maslaney discloses the system according to claim 76, as outlined above, and further discloses wherein the flow cytometer comprises a flow cell (110) for propagating particles in a flow stream (Nishimori: Fig. 1 and 6; Col. 4, lines 24-32 and 36-39).
Regarding claim 78, Wolfe in view of Nishimori and Maslaney discloses the system according to claim 77, as outlined above, and further discloses wherein the photodiode (OP14) is positioned to detect light from particles in the flow stream (Nishimori: Fig. 1 and 6; Col. 4, lines 36-46).
Regarding claim 96, Wolfe in view of Nishimori and Maslaney discloses the system according to claim 59, as outlined above, and further discloses wherein determining responsivity of the photodiode comprises determining responsivity of the photodiode as a function of wavelength of incident light (Maslaney: Col. 7, lines 24-63; Col. 9, line 55 – Col. 10, line 22).
Regarding claim 97, Wolfe in view of Nishimori and Maslaney discloses the system according to claim 59, as outlined above, and further discloses wherein responsivity of the photodiode at a specified wavelength comprises a ratio of photocurrent generated by the photodiode to incident optical power at the specified wavelength (Maslaney: Col. 4, lines 17-37; Col. 9, lines 29-37; Col. 9, line 55 – Col. 10, line 22).
Regarding claim 98, Wolfe in view of Nishimori and Maslaney discloses the system according to claim 64, as outlined above, and further discloses wherein the feedback resistance comprises the resistance of a resistor (77) electrically connected to an input and an output of the amplifier (Maslaney: Fig. 1; Col. 7, lines 43-63).
Claim(s) 67-68 and 75 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wolfe et al. (US 2016/0056785 A1) in view of Nishimori et al. (US 10684210 B2) in view of Maslaney et al. (US 4726676) further in view of Frasch et al. (US 2019/0044489 A1).
Regarding claim 67, Wolfe in view of Nishimori and Maslaney discloses the system according to claim 66, as outlined above, and further discloses a method that appears related to the present claimed invention which measures and adjusts resistance networks to control the bias voltages and/or integration times of an integrator (which is understood to be the time between closing and opening the integrator switch) applied to individual and/or an array of photodetectors (Wolfe: [0075]-[0076]; [0078], lines 1-11; [0080]). Uniquely setting an operating bias, or controlling the integration time, for each photodetector allows for adjusting each photodetector’s responsivity to radiation, signal to noise and overall gain across each photodetector by adjusting for differences between the nominal capacitance and the actual capacitance (Wolfe: [0066]-[0067]). Wolfe in view of Nishimori does not explicitly disclose tuning the capacitance of the amplifier to control the bandwidth of each photodetector.
However, Frasch, in the same field of endeavor of methods and systems for calibrating transimpedance amplifiers, discloses a system including a programmable compensation capacitor which can be used for adjusting the bandwidth of transimpedance amplifiers, which is in electrical communication with photodetectors (Abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wolfe in view of Nishimori and Maslaney with an additional means for calibrating the detector array by directly tuning the capacitance, improving the overall efficiency and accuracy of the detection system.
Regarding claim 68, Wolfe in view of Nishimori, Maslaney and Frasch discloses the system according to claim 67, as outlined above, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the memory comprises instructions stored thereon, which when executed by the processor, cause the processor to adjust the capacitance of the amplifier according to:
1/2πRfCf =BW
wherein BW is bandwidth; and
Cf is capacitance of the amplifier.
Wolfe discloses a method that appears related to the present claimed invention which measures and adjusts resistance networks to control the bias voltages and/or integration times of an integrator (which is understood to be the time between closing and opening the integrator switch) applied to individual and/or an array of photodetectors ([0075]-[0076]; [0078], lines 1-11; [0080] – where the relationships between resistance, capacitance, gain and integration time are known). Uniquely setting an operating bias for each photodetector allows for adjusting each photodetector’s responsivity to radiation, signal to noise and overall gain across the photodetector array ([0066]-[0067]). However, Wolfe does not explicitly disclose tuning the capacitance of the amplifier to control the bandwidth of each photodetector.
However, Frasch, discloses a system including a programmable compensation capacitor which can be used for adjusting the bandwidth of a transimpedance amplifiers, which is in electrical communication with the photodetector.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wolfe in view of Nishimori, Maslaney and Frasch with an additional means for calibrating the detector array by directly tuning the capacitance, improving the overall efficiency and accuracy of the detection system.
Regarding claim 75, Wolfe in view of Nishimori and Maslaney discloses the system according to claim 74, as outlined above, and further discloses wherein the memory comprises instructions stored thereon, which when executed by the processor, cause the processor to adjusts resistance networks to control the bias voltages and/or integration times of an integrator (which is understood to be the time between closing and opening the integrator switch) applied to individual and/or an array of photodetectors (Wolfe: [0075]-[0076]; [0078], lines 1-11; [0080]). Uniquely setting an operating bias, or controlling the integration time, for each photodetector allows for adjusting each photodetector’s responsivity to radiation, signal to noise and overall gain across each photodetector by adjusting for differences between the nominal capacitance and the actual capacitance (Wolfe: [0066]-[0067]). Wolfe in view of Nishimori and Maslaney does not explicitly disclose adjusting the capacitance of each amplifier based on the calculated resistance.
However, Frasch, in the same field of endeavor of methods and systems for calibrating transimpedance amplifiers, discloses a system including a programmable compensation capacitor which can be used for adjusting the bandwidth of a transimpedance amplifiers, which is in electrical communication with the photodetector.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wolfe in view of Nishimori and Maslaney with an additional means for calibrating the detector array by directly tuning the capacitance, improving the overall efficiency and accuracy of the detection system.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 MAHER YAZBACK whose telephone number is (703)756-1456. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 am - 5:30 pm.
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.
/MAHER YAZBACK/Examiner, Art Unit 2877
/MICHELLE M IACOLETTI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2877
Prosecution Insights