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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 68-83 in the reply filed on 11/07/2025 is acknowledged.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 09/08/2023, 04/17/2025, and 09/30/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
The claims are objected to because the lines are crowded too closely together, making reading difficult. Substitute claims with lines one and one-half or double spaced on good quality paper are required. See 37 CFR 1.52(b). In particular, the spacing between each claim is too close together and crowded.
Claims 68-75 and 77-83 are objected to because of the following informalities: it is suggested applicant amend the claims to read as follows: “The system as defined in claim #,” (insert claim number from which the claim depends on). Applicant did the latter for claim 76, but did not continue for the previous claims or the claims after claim 76, which makes the format inconsistent. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: "configured to" in claims 68, 70, 72, 74, 76-77, 79-80, and 83.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 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.
Claims 70 and 81-83 are is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Regarding claim 70, it is unclear which parts or components, pertaining to the time-of-flight sensor, the light source and the optical communication path are comprises in the claimed LiDAR system.
Regarding claim 81, the phrase "such as" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). Further, dependent claims 82-83 are also rejected, since these claims depend on the aforementioned claim containing the indefinite phrase “such as”.
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)(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.
Claims 68-71, 74, 79, and 81 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2011/0122402 A1-Westphal.
Regarding claim 68, Westphal discloses a system for analyzing biological material (device is configured as a vertical wide-field microscope and has the purpose of investigating an object under investigation 1, e.g. a biological sample, para. [0039], lines 3-5, Fig. 1) comprising: a light source (illumination means—semiconductor based radiation sources 18 each having a LED, para. [0040], lines 1-3, Fig. 1) configured to emit excitation light onto a biological material sample, the excitation light having a wavelength that causes a fluorophore in proximity to or within the biological material to undergo a fluorescent emission or phosphorescent emission (para. [0050], lines 2-12);
Westphal discloses an optical communication path (dichroitic beam splitter 10, an objective 11, detection tube optical system 12, and emission filter 35, para. [0043], lines 1-7, Fig. 1) positioned to obtain an optical signal indicative of the fluorescent emission or phosphorescent emission associated with the fluorophore (luminescence response F is again detected via the objective 11 and provided via the emission filter 35 and the detection tube optical system 12 to the time-of-flight camera 2, para. [0066], lines 1-4);
Westphal discloses a time-of-flight sensor (time-of-flight camera 2, para. [0043], lines 3-4, Fig. 1) comprising a plurality of pixels configured to receive the signal indicative of the fluorescent emission or phosphorescent emission from the optical communication path, each pixel of the plurality of pixels configured to provide a signal associated with a photo-response of the pixel based at least in part on the optical signal (the time-of-flight camera 2 has a two-dimensional arrangement of detector elements which are each referred to as a pixel and allow for a specially resolved detection of the luminescence response F. The arrangement in the form of a regular grid or a matrix comprises at least 100 pixels, the number of pixels can be selected depending on the desired spatial resolution, para. [0044], lines 1-7);
Westphal discloses one or more processors (control and evaluation device 4; the control and evaluation device 4 can also control further functions of the device, e.g. an automatic drive of the microscope table 16 and an automatic focusing of the objective 11. The control and evaluation device can be a microprocessor-based system, in particular a computer system with corresponding input and output devices and memory devices, para. [0048], lines 10-16) in communication with the time-of-flight sensor, the one or more processors configured to determine a fluorescent lifetime or a fluorescent intensity of the fluorophore based at least in part on the photo-response of each pixel.
Regarding claim 69, Westphal discloses a sample staging site for holding a sample of a biological material (microscope table 16, para. [0039], lines 9-10, Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 70, Westphal discloses wherein the light source and time-of-flight sensor are part of a Light Detection and Ranging (LiDAR) subsystem, and wherein the one or more processors are configured to determine the fluorescent lifetime or the fluorescent intensity of the fluorophore based on the fluorescent emission or phosphorescent emission of the fluorophore (illumination means, which in the illustrated case are based on four semiconductor based radiation sources 18 each having a LED. Each of the semiconductor-based radiation sources 18 generates output radiation having a different center wavelength, para. [0040], lines 1-5; and at each of these center wavelengths effective LEDs are available, and a para. [0050], lines 2-12).
Regarding claim 71, Westphal discloses wherein the one or more processors are further configured to determine a magnitude characteristic of a biological parameter based on the fluorescent lifetime or the fluorescent intensity (the control and evaluation device 4 further receives the signals detected by the time-of-flight camera 2, in particular a distance signal and an intensity signal for each pixel of the time-of-flight camera 2, para. [0048], lines 6-10).
Regarding claim 74, Westphal discloses wherein the light source comprises a laser, a laser diode or a light emitting diode (LED), and wherein the light source is configured to emit the excitation light at a modulation rate; and wherein the modulation rate is selected based at least in part on the fluorescent lifetime of the fluorescent emission or phosphorescent emission associated with the fluorophore (illumination means, which in the illustrated case are based on four semiconductor based radiation sources 18 each having a LED. Each of the semiconductor-based radiation sources 18 generates output radiation having a different center wavelength, para. [0040], lines 1-5; and at each of these center wavelengths effective LEDs are available, and a para. [0050], lines 2-12).
Regarding claim 79, Westphal discloses wherein the system includes a fluorophore source, and wherein the fluorophore source is configured to place a plurality of fluorophores in association with the biological material, and wherein the time-of-flight sensor and one or more processors are configured to determine the fluorescent lifetime or the fluorescent intensity of the plurality of fluorophores (in the case of a multi-exponential decay process of the luminescence, which is typical when multiple fluorophores or luminescent materials are present, the luminescence radiation of which is superposed in the luminescence response F, the luminescence lifetime, para. [0075], lines 1-5, also discussed in paragraphs [0076]-[0079]).
Regarding claim 81, Westphal discloses wherein the fluorescent emission or phosphorescent emission of the fluorophore is indicative of a parameter related to cellular metabolism, such as a dissolved gas, an ion, a protein, a metabolite, a nucleic acid, an enzyme, pH, an oxidation state, a viscosity, temperature, NAD(P)H, a salt, or a mineral (parameters to be found, para. [0081], lines 6-7; FLIM measurements include additional information concerning the fluorophores and their chemical environment can be gathered therefrom, para. [0003], lines 1-5).
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.
Claims 72-73 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2011/0122402 A1-Westphal as applied to claim 68 above, and further in view of US 2007/0057198 A1-Wilson et al (hereinafter, Wilson).
Regarding claim 72, Westphal teaches the invention discussed above in claim 68. Further, Westphal teaches an optical communication path, multiple pixels and a time-of-flight sensor. Also, Westphal teaches one or more processors configured to receive fluorescent emissions, also discussed above. However, Westphal does not explicitly teach a plurality of samples.
For claim 72, Wilson teaches an apparatus for and a method of measuring fluorescence lifetime (para. [0001]) and Wilson teaches the apparatus including a plurality of detectors and means for measuring the fluorescence lifetimes of samples in the sample holders substantially simultaneously (para. [0023], lines 4-8), which reads on the instant claim limitation of a plurality of samples.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to take the apparatus of Westphal and further include a plurality of samples as taught by Wilson, because Wilson teaches the system may be adapted for use in a parallelised system for measuring the fluorescence lifetime properties of several specimens simultaneously, for example for conducting a fluorescence assay (para. [0062], lines 1-4). Further, Wilson teaches in this system, the signal generator 24 is connected to either a light source 4 or modulator 22, which has multiplexing optics 32 for supplying excitation light to a plurality of specimens 34 (para. [0062], lines 5-8).
Regarding claim 73, Westphal teaches the invention discussed above in claim 72. However, Westphal does not explicitly teach a plurality of staging site for a plurality of samples.
For claim 73, Wilson teaches an apparatus for and a method of measuring fluorescence lifetime (para. [0001]) and Wilson teaches the fluorescence assay system may include a plurality of sample holders (para. [0023], lines 4-5), which reads on the instant claim limitation of a plurality of staging site for a plurality of samples.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to take the apparatus of Westphal and further include a plurality of staging site for a plurality of samples as taught by Wilson, because Wilson suggests the apparatus may include a plurality of holders for measuring the fluorescence lifetimes of samples in the holders substantially simultaneously (para. [0023], lines 4-8).
Claim 78 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2011/0122402 A1-Westphal as applied to claim 68 above, and further in view of WO 2018065456 A1-Münzer.
Regarding claim 78, Westphal teaches the invention discussed above in claim 68. Further, Westphal teaches fluorophores and a time-of-flight sensor, also discussed above. However, Westphal does not explicitly teach a frequency that permits multiple determinations of the fluorescent lifetime or the fluorescent intensity of the fluorophore in less than about 1 second.
For claim 78, Münzer teaches an invention relating to a fluorescence lifetime sensor module and to a method of determining a fluorescence lifetime using a sensor module (page 1, lines 6-8), and Münzer teaches detection of fluorescence allows unprecedented insight into minute changes in the nanosecond lived electronic states of fluorescent molecules and their immediate neighborhood. In fluorescence analysis light is 15 detected which has been emitted by fluorophores; such a fluorophore, or fluorescent molecule, can be optically excited with light of an appropriate wavelength (page 1, lines 11-17), which reads on the instant claim limitation of a frequency that permits multiple determinations of the fluorescent lifetime or the fluorescent intensity of the fluorophore in less than about 1 second.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to take the apparatus of Westphal and further include a frequency that permits multiple determinations of the fluorescent lifetime or the fluorescent intensity of the fluorophore in less than about 1 second as taught by Münzer, because Münzer teaches the average time a fluorophore spends in its excited state is in the nanosecond range for many fluorophores. Modern fluorescence setups make use of electronics that is able to provide the time resolution necessary to determine lifetime with high accuracy (page 1, lines 30-33).
Claim 80 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2011/0122402 A1-Westphal as applied to claim 68 above, and further in view of Bhandari et al (2015, hereinafter Bhandari).
Regarding claim 80, Westphal teaches the invention discussed above in claim 68. Further, Westphal teaches a time-of-flight sensor and one or more processors. However, Westphal does not teach fluorescent lifetime without calibration.
For claim 80, Bhandari teaches a generalized time-based, cost-effective method for estimating lifetimes by repurposing a consumer-grade time-of-flight sensor (abstract, and page 965, col. 1, lines 5-12), and Bhandari teaches their approach is calibration-free and requires no prior information on the experimental path length (page 972, col. 2, lines 3-4 and page 973, col. 1, line 1), which reads on the instant claim limitation of fluorescent lifetime without calibration.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to take the apparatus of Westphal and further include fluorescent lifetime without calibration as taught by Bhandari, because Bhandari teaches the calibration-free approach allows for faster acquisition time (page 973, col. 1, lines 1-2).
Claims 82-83 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2011/0122402 A1-Westphal as applied to claim 68 above, and further in view of US 2013/0092846 A1-Henning et al (hereinafter Henning).
Regarding claim 82, Westphal teaches the invention discussed above in claim 81. Further, Westphal teaches flurophores, as discussed above. However, Westphal does not explicitly teach wherein the flurophore exhibits a fluorescent lifetime of less than 5 nanoseconds.
For claim 82, Henning teaches an invention relating to the real-time, remote monitoring of metal ion concentrations in aqueous environments (para. [0011], lines 3-4) and Henning teaches fluorescein was chosen as a pH probe because its spectral properties are well-known (para. [0193], lines 1-2) and Henning teaches both methods yielded similar apparent fluorescence lifetimes: approximately 4 ns for the monoanion and approximately 1 ns (para. [0196], lines 8-11), which reads on the instant claim limitation of wherein the flurophore exhibits a fluorescent lifetime of less than 5 nanoseconds.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to take the apparatus of Westphal and further include wherein the flurophore exhibits a fluorescent lifetime of less than 5 nanoseconds as taught by Henning, because Henning teaches the recovered parameters in this work are treated as purely empirical fitting parameters in order to demonstrate a fluorescence lifetime-based approach to sensing by measuring pH (para. [0195], lines 1-4).
Regarding claim 83, Westphal teaches the invention discussed above in claim 81. Further, Westphal teaches parameters can be found, as discussed above. However, Westphal does not explicitly teach a concentration of the parameter or a rate of change of the parameter.
For claim 83, Henning teaches an invention relating to the real-time, remote monitoring of metal ion concentrations in aqueous environments (para. [0011], lines 3-4) and Henning teaches the apparatus may measure the concentration of the analyte in the liquid (para. [0070], lines 1-2), which reads on the instant claim limitation of a concentration of the parameter or a rate of change of the parameter.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to take the apparatus of Westphal and further include a concentration of the parameter or a rate of change of the parameter as taught by Henning, because Henning teaches a probe compound is a luminescent compound that emits an optical signal upon evanescent excitation, wherein the optical signal varies with respect to the concentration of the analyte (para. [0095], lines 4-7).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 75-77 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: for claim 75, the prior art fails to teach or fairly suggest wherein the signal indicative of the photo-response comprises a signal indicative of a response phase for the pixel, and wherein the response phase for a pixel is determined based at least in part by performing operations, the operations comprising: determining a first response for the pixel from a first analog integrator; determining a second response for the pixel using a second analog integrator; determining the response phase based at least in part on the first response and the second response, where these limitations are in combination with the claim as a whole.
The closest prior art is US 2011/0122402 A1-Westphal and US 2007/0057198 A1-Wilson et al (hereinafter Wilson). Westphal teaches an optical device for measuring luminescence includes a pulse generator for generating a periodic modulation signal having rectangular pulses, a pulse duration of the pulse being variably adjustable, an illumination device and/or means for illuminating an object under investigation with excitation radiation modulated in a pulse-like manner depending on the modulation signal, and a time-of-flight camera for phase-sensitive detection of a luminescence response emitted by the object under investigation in response to the excitation radiation. Wilson teaches an apparatus for and a method of measuring fluorescence lifetime. However, Westphal and Wilson does not teach or fairly suggest wherein the signal indicative of the photo-response comprises a signal indicative of a response phase for the pixel, and wherein the response phase for a pixel is determined based at least in part by performing operations, the operations comprising: determining a first response for the pixel from a first analog integrator; determining a second response for the pixel using a second analog integrator; determining the response phase based at least in part on the first response and the second response.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: for claim 76, the prior art fails to teach or fairly suggest wherein one or more processors are configured to determine the fluorescent lifetime based at least in part on the response phase, where these limitations are in combination with the claim as a whole.
The closest prior art is US 2011/0122402 A1-Westphal and US 2007/0057198 A1-Wilson et al (hereinafter Wilson). Westphal teaches an optical device for measuring luminescence includes a pulse generator for generating a periodic modulation signal having rectangular pulses, a pulse duration of the pulse being variably adjustable, an illumination device and/or means for illuminating an object under investigation with excitation radiation modulated in a pulse-like manner depending on the modulation signal, and a time-of-flight camera for phase-sensitive detection of a luminescence response emitted by the object under investigation in response to the excitation radiation. Wilson teaches an apparatus for and a method of measuring fluorescence lifetime. However, Westphal and Wilson does not teach or fairly suggest wherein one or more processors are configured to determine the fluorescent lifetime based at least in part on the response phase.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: for claim 77, the prior art fails to teach or fairly suggest wherein the system further includes a tray that defines a plurality of sample staging sites, the system further comprising an array of plungers that move relative to the tray, the plungers being spaced apart so as to align with the sample staging sites on the tray, the plungers being configured to move towards the sample staging sites for contacting the biological material located in the sample staging sites, the plungers being in communication with the optical communication path for delivering the excitation light to the biological material and for delivering the fluorescent emission or phosphorescent emission produced by the fluorophore to the time-of-flight sensor, where these limitations are in combination with the claim as a whole.
The closest prior art is US 2011/0122402 A1-Westphal and US 2007/0057198 A1-Wilson et al (hereinafter Wilson). Westphal teaches an optical device for measuring luminescence includes a pulse generator for generating a periodic modulation signal having rectangular pulses, a pulse duration of the pulse being variably adjustable, an illumination device and/or means for illuminating an object under investigation with excitation radiation modulated in a pulse-like manner depending on the modulation signal, and a time-of-flight camera for phase-sensitive detection of a luminescence response emitted by the object under investigation in response to the excitation radiation. Wilson teaches an apparatus for and a method of measuring fluorescence lifetime. However, Westphal and Wilson does not teach or fairly suggest wherein the system further includes a tray that defines a plurality of sample staging sites, the system further comprising an array of plungers that move relative to the tray, the plungers being spaced apart so as to align with the sample staging sites on the tray, the plungers being configured to move towards the sample staging sites for contacting the biological material located in the sample staging sites, the plungers being in communication with the optical communication path for delivering the excitation light to the biological material and for delivering the fluorescent emission or phosphorescent emission produced by the fluorophore to the time-of-flight sensor.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LENORA A. ABEL whose telephone number is (571)272-8270. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:00am-4:00pm.
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, Michael Marcheschi can be reached at (571) 272-1374. 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.
/L.A.A./ Examiner, Art Unit 1799
/MICHAEL L HOBBS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1799