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 with respect to claim(s) 6-12-2026 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 5, 10, 12, 13, 14, 18, 19, 21-25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Minolta Co LTD (JP 2004-340733 A) (Minolta) in view of Lee et al (US PAT 11,404,848) (Lee).
Regarding Claim 1, Minolta discloses a measuring instrument (figs. 12, 13, 15) for irradiating a biological specimen (S), comprising:
a first light source (51a, fig. 12);
a second light source (51b); and
at least one holographic optical component (52, Paragraph 71);
wherein the first light source, the second light source, and the holographic optical component are positioned relative to one another in such a way that first light from the first light source and second light from the second light source are deflected via the holographic optical component onto a specimen region for irradiation of the specimen. (Paragraph 71);
Minolta fails to explicitly discloses a transparent body, separate from said at least one holographic optical component, arranged such that at least one of the first light and the second light is passed through the transparent body;
However, Lee discloses the construction of a VCSEL laser (Fig. 2B) with a transparent body (31), separate from said at least one holographic optical component, arranged such that at least one of the first light and the second light is passed through the transparent body (Column 1, lines 24-27 & Column 5, lines 57-57). The mirrors of the VCSEL form a lasing cavity and the upper mirror emits the laser light thus it meets the limitation as being a transparent body separate from the HOE. Further, each laser would have such a structure and in total the mirrors would emit the first and second light;
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Minolta with a transparent body, separate from said at least one holographic optical component, arranged such that at least one of the first light and the second light is passed through the transparent body because such lasers would be chosen based upon availability of parts and cost.
Regarding Claim 2, Minolta discloses the aforementioned. Further, Minolta discloses wherein the first light and the second light comprise different wavelength spectra (Paragraph 70).
Regarding Claim 5, Minolta discloses the aforementioned. Further, Minolta discloses wherein at least one of the first light source and the second light source is arranged on a surface of a component. This is inherent since the light sources must be mounted on something and a component is a generic term.
Regarding Claim 10, Minolta discloses the aforementioned. Further, Minolta discloses wherein at least one of the first light source and the second light source and the holographic optical component are adjacent the transparent body. This limitation is by the combination since adjacent isn’t defined and all the elements are next to the transparent body without anything intervening.
Regarding Claims 12 & 18, Minolta discloses the aforementioned in the embodiments shown in figs. 12, 13, & 15 but does not explicitly disclose wherein the holographic optical component is configured to collimate or focus diverging light having a spherical wavefront; or wherein the holographic optical component is configured to collimate or focus incident radiation;
However, Minolta in the embodiment shown in fig. 11 discloses wherein the holographic optical component is configured to collimate or focus diverging light having a spherical wavefront (Paragraph 66). Converting light into parallel light is collimating the light;
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Minolta of figs. 12, 13, 15 with wherein the holographic optical component is configured to collimate or focus diverging light having a spherical wavefront; or wherein the holographic optical component is configured to collimate or focus incident radiation because that ensures even illumination over the entire sample which provides the best efficiency for gaining an even response from the sample which improves signal to noise ratio of the detection.
Regarding Claim 21, Minolta discloses the aforementioned. Further, Minolta discloses wherein the at least one holographic optical component includes a first holographic optical component arranged to deflect the at least one of the first light and the second light to the specimen region (Fig. 13, Paragraph 77). The diffractive elements (52a, and 52b) each deflect a specific wavelength to the sample.
Regarding Claim 22, Minolta discloses the aforementioned. Further, Minolta discloses wherein the first holographic optical component comprises a transmission hologram (Paragraphs 71 and 77). The diffractive elements (52a & 52b) transmit the wavelengths they do not deflect thus meeting the limitation.
Regarding Claim 23, Minolta discloses the aforementioned. Further, Minolta discloses wherein the first holographic optical component (52b, fig. 13) comprises a reflection hologram and has a width extending across the transparent body to deflect incident light towards the center of the first holographic optical component to deflect to the specimen region. In combination the first holographic component would be a reflection hologram to deflect incident light towards the center of the first holographic optical component to deflect to the specimen region. Further, the configuration in Minolta shows the HOE extending someone transverse to the light source emission direction thus they would have a width extending across the transparent body.
Regarding Claim 24, Minolta discloses the aforementioned. Further, Minolta discloses wherein the at least one holographic optical component (52a) includes at least one further holographic optical component (52a) arranged adjacent the transparent body to deflect incident light towards the first holographic optical component (Fig. 13). In this case, the HOE is adjacent to the transparent body since there are no intervening optics and the applicant hasn’t defined adjacent.
Regarding Claim 25, Minolta discloses the aforementioned in the embodiments shown in figs. 12, 13, & 15 but does not explicitly disclose wherein the at least one holographic optical component includes two further holographic optical components arranged adjacent the transparent body, each of the two further holographic optical components arranged opposite a corresponding one of the first light source and the second light source to deflect incident light towards the first holographic optical component;
However, the embodiment shown in fig. 15 discloses three light sources (61a-c) and that the HOE (62) only reflects light of a certain wavelength from each of the sources towards the sample (Paragraph 91). Further, in the embodiment shown in fig. 13 the HOE that deflects only two wavelengths is shown (52) as a laminated structure comprising two diffractive elements (52a & 52b);
Thus, in combination it would be obvious that one could use a laminated structure with three diffractive elements i.e. 52a, 52b, and 52c to achieve the function of Fig. 15 and such a structure would meet the scope of the limitation since 52b and 52c would have to reflect the light back through 52a;
Further, they would all be adjacent to the transparent body since there are no other intervening optics between the lasers and the HOE;
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Minolta with wherein the at least one holographic optical component includes two further holographic optical components arranged adjacent the transparent body, each of the two further holographic optical components arranged opposite a corresponding one of the first light source and the second light source to deflect incident light towards the first holographic optical component because this would be functionally equivalent to the structure of fig. 15 and would not have a high degree of sensitivity to change in the angle of the incident light which may be caused by vibration or misalignment.
Regarding Claim 13, Minolta discloses a measuring instrument (figs. 12, 13, 15) for irradiating a biological specimen (S), comprising:
a first light source (51a, fig. 12);;
a second light source (51b); and
at least one holographic optical component (52, Paragraph 71);
wherein the first light source, the second light source, and the holographic optical component are
positioned relative to one another in such a way that first light from the first light source and second light from the second light source are deflected via the holographic optical component onto a specimen region for irradiation of the specimen (Paragraph 71); and
a measuring device (54) configured to detect light emitted from the specimen (Paragraph 74);
Minolta fails to explicitly discloses a transparent body, separate from said at least one holographic optical component, arranged such that at least one of the first light and the second light is passed through the transparent body;
However, Lee discloses the construction of a VCSEL laser (Fig. 2B) with a transparent body (31), separate from said at least one holographic optical component, arranged such that at least one of the first light and the second light is passed through the transparent body (Column 1, lines 24-27 & Column 5, lines 57-57). The mirrors of the VCSEL form a lasing cavity and the upper mirror emits the laser light thus it meets the limitation as being a transparent body separate from the HOE. Further, each laser would have such a structure and in total the mirrors would emit the first and second light;
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Minolta with a transparent body, separate from said at least one holographic optical component, arranged such that at least one of the first light and the second light is passed through the transparent body because such lasers would be chosen based upon availability of parts and cost.
Regarding Claim 19, Minolta discloses the aforementioned. Further, Minolta discloses wherein the measuring device is configured to detect light fluorescent emitted from the specimen (Paragraph 74).
Regarding Claim 14, Minolta discloses a method for irradiating a biological specimen, comprising:
providing a first light from a first light source (Fig. 12, 51a) and a second light from a second light source (51b);
deflecting the first light (Fig. 12, 51a) and the second light (51b) via a holographic optical component (52, Paragraph 71), onto a common specimen region (S) for irradiation of the specimen (fig. 12, Paragraph 71). The specimen shown is the common region and the light is shown being reflected from a common spot on the HOE onto it;
Minolta fails to explicitly discloses passing the first and second light through a transparent body; and the HOE is separate from the transparent body;
However, Lee discloses the construction of a VCSEL laser (Fig. 2B) with a transparent body (31), separate from said at least one holographic optical component, arranged such that at least one of the first light and the second light is passed through the transparent body (Column 1, lines 24-27 & Column 5, lines 57-57). The mirrors of the VCSEL form a lasing cavity and the upper mirror emits the laser light thus it meets the limitation as being a transparent body separate from the HOE which would pass the lights through them. Further, each laser would have such a structure and in total the mirrors would emit the first and second light;
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Minolta with passing the first and second light through a transparent body; and the HOE is separate from the transparent body because such lasers would be chosen based upon availability of parts and cost.
Claim(s) 4, 15, & 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Minolta in view of Lee and further in view of Hoff et al (PGPub 2004/0066510) (Hoff).
Regarding Claim 4, Minolta as modified by Lee discloses the aforementioned but does not explicitly disclose one or more optical elements configured to bundle and/or focus light from the first and second light sources diverted by the holographic optical component;
However, Hoff discloses an apparatus for illuminating a target (Fig. 1) which comprises a lens (60) for focusing light from a diffractive optical element (40) onto a target (Paragraph 36);
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Minolta with one or more optical elements configured to bundle and/or focus light from the first and second light sources diverted by the holographic optical component because using optical components such as a lens to focus light onto a sample are commonplace and done to provide the most efficient amount of light to the sample as possible to improve the signal to noise ratio.
Regarding Claims 15 & 20, Minolta as modified by Lee discloses the aforementioned but does not explicitly disclose wherein the method is employed in a polymerase chain reaction; and wherein the method is employed in a real-time quantitative polymerase chain reaction;
However, Hoff discloses a fluorescence method employed in a real-time quantitative polymerase chain reaction (Paragraph 84);
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Minolta with wherein the method is employed in a polymerase chain reaction; and wherein the method is employed in a real-time quantitative polymerase chain reaction because this allows one to monitor the process of a PCR to ensure that it is working and producing the desired outcome.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 26 is 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:
As to Claim 26 the prior art of record, taken alone or in combination, fails to disclose or render obvious wherein said first holographic optical component is disposed between the two further holographic optical components, in combination with the rest of the limitations of the claim. While Minolta renders obvious three optical elements, as discussed in the rejection of claim 25, it does not render obvious the positioning of the first holographic optical component being disposed between the two further holographic optical components, but rather the first optical holographic optical element would be before both holographic optical elements.
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 JONATHON COOK whose telephone number is (571)270-1323. The examiner can normally be reached 11am-7pm.
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, Kara Geisel can be reached at 571-272-2416. 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.
/JONATHON COOK/Examiner, Art Unit 2877 August 24, 2026
/Kara E. Geisel/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2877
Prosecution Insights