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 Amendment
The Amendment filed 16 June 2026 has been entered. Claims 1 and 3-10 remain pending in the application. Applicant’s amendments to Claims 1, 3-6 and 8-10 have overcome each and every objection and U.S.C. 112(f) claim interpretation previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed on 30 March 2026. However, Applicant’s amendments to Claims 1, 3-6 and 8-10 do not overcome the U.S.C. 102 nor the U.S.C. 103 rejections.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 16 June 2026, with respect to the U.S.C. 102 and U.S.C. 103 rejections of claims 1 and 3-10, have been fully considered and are not persuasive.
Applicant Remarks
Applicant remarks that Yeung 1994 abstract merely mentions that the light emitted by the capillary array is imaged orthogonally through the microscope; and Yeung 1994 col. 7 ln. 7-12 merely mentions that the microscope objective 45 is a means of collimating the laser beam 47 onto the ends of optical fiber 15. Applicant remarks that Yeung 1994 does not teach a selective light shielding element. In fact, Yeung 1994 fails to contemplate the issue of crosstalk which is central to the arrangement claimed in claim 1.
Examiner Responses
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Yeung 1994 abstract mentioning the orthogonal imaging with the CCD camera teaches a selective light shielding element. Further in Yeung 1994 fig. 1; col. 7 ln. 7-12; “The fluorescent light emitted from the fluorescent species in the array 102 of capillaries 20 through capillary walls 104 is imaged orthogonally through the microscope 60 by means of an adapter 55 onto a charge-coupled device camera 50 for signal analysis”. The use of an adapter with the CCD camera for imaging an array orthogonally can be considered selective light shielding under broadest reasonable interpretation because the light is selectively blocked, sampled or routed from specific coordinates of the array. This selective light shielding allows the orthogonal imaging to be possible.
Examiner respectfully points out that “crosstalk” is not a claim limitation, and suggests claim amendments to include crosstalk as a limitation. Please note that Yeung 1994 periodically mentions “crosstalk” through the prior art reference, which may affect how the Applicant would like to amend the claims further.
Examiner respectfully suggests claim amendments to further limit the selective light shielding. Specifically, in the present application Specification para. [0021], the pinhole 105 is the specific selective light shielding element used. Please note that Yeung 1994 does not explicitly mention a pinhole.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 1, 5 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yeung et al. (US5324401A), hereinafter Yeung 1994.
As to claim 1, Yeung 1994 teaches a capillary electrophoresis device (claim 1; A multiplexed fluorescence detection system for use with capillary electrophoresis) comprising:
a light source (col. 6 ln. 63-65; fig. 1; excitation laser 40);
a plurality of capillaries (fig. 1; col. 7 ln. 1-5; the capillaries 20 are arranged in an array 102);
a light detector (fig. 1; col. 3 ln. 55-60; col. 7 ln. 7-12; “a means for detecting the fluorescent light emitted by the fluorescent species through the wall of each capillary” comprises the charge-coupled device camera 50 for signal analysis);
and a plurality of detection optical fibers (fig. 1; col. 7 ln. 5-7; the optical fibers 15 are held firmly in place in an array 102 by guides) each having one end face disposed in association with corresponding one of the capillaries (fig. 1; col. 6 ln. 59-62; each optical fiber 15 is coupled to an individual capillary 20) and another end face connected to the light detector (col. 7 ln. 23-28; fig. 2; Detection zone 90 is the area of a capillary 20 before the end 70 of the optical fiber. The detection zones 90 of the capillaries 20 are arranged such that the capillary images are detected by the pixel columns of the camera 50 coupled to the microscope 60).
wherein the light detector includes at least a photodetector (fig. 1; col. 7 ln. 7-12; charge-coupled device camera 50 for signal analysis) and a selective light shielding element (abstract; fig. 1; “The array is imaged orthogonally through a microscope onto a charge-coupled device camera for signal analysis”. Thus, the microscope 60 with microscope objective 45 is described by Yeung as the selective light shielding element. Col. 7 ln. 7-12; “The fluorescent light emitted from the fluorescent species in the array 102 of capillaries 20 through capillary walls 104 is imaged orthogonally through the microscope 60 by means of an adapter 55 onto a charge-coupled device camera 50 for signal analysis”. The use of an adapter with the CCD camera for imaging an array orthogonally can be considered selective light shielding under broadest reasonable interpretation because the light is selectively blocked, sampled or routed from specific coordinates of the array. This selective light shielding allows the orthogonal imaging to be possible);
and wherein the light detector selectively detects light in a central portion of the detection optical fiber (fig. 1; abstract; The array 102 is imaged orthogonally through a microscope 60 onto a charge-coupled device camera 50 for signal analysis. The imaged portion of the array 102 is the central portion of the fibers 15).
PNG
media_image1.png
1075
578
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Yeung 1994 Fig. 1
PNG
media_image2.png
652
1033
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Yeung 1994 Fig. 2
As to claim 5, Yeung 1994 teaches the capillary electrophoresis device according to claim 1, wherein the light detector further includes an imaging optical system that forms an image of light emitted from an emitting end of the detection optical fiber at a position of the selective light shielding element (col. 9 ln. 9-15; fig. 1; “The emitted fluorescent light that passes through the capillary wall 104 is detected by a charge transfer device imaging system 50 through coupling with a microscope 60. Any appropriate microscope or camera lens system may be used so long as it adequately transmits the image of the separation zone of the capillary array to the imaging camera”. Col. 6 ln. 66 – col. 7 ln. 1; “The laser 40 and the microscope objective 45 are positioned so that the laser beam, represented by arrow 47, is focused onto the ends 42 of the optical fibers 15”. Thus, the device imaging system forms an image of light emitted is from the ends 42 of the fibers 15 at a position of the microscope 60).
As to claim 8, Yeung 1994 teaches the capillary electrophoresis device according to claim 4, wherein the light detector further includes an imaging optical system that forms an image of light emitted from an emitting end of the detection optical fiber on the imaging device (col. 9 ln. 9-15; fig. 1; “The emitted fluorescent light that passes through the capillary wall 104 is detected by a charge transfer device imaging system 50 through coupling with a microscope 60”. Col. 6 ln. 66 – col. 7 ln. 1; “The laser 40 and the microscope objective 45 are positioned so that the laser beam, represented by arrow 47, is focused onto the ends 42 of the optical fibers 15”. Thus, the device imaging system forms an image of light emitted is from the ends 42 of the fibers 15 on the camera 50).
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 of this title, 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.
Claims 3, 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yeung 1994 in view of Zare et al. (US4675300A), hereinafter Zare.
As to claim 3, Yeung 1994 teaches the capillary electrophoresis device according to claim 1, wherein the light detector includes at least a photodetector (fig. 1; col. 7 ln. 7-12; charge-coupled device camera 50 for signal analysis) and a connection (fig. 1; col. 7 ln. 7-12; an adapter 55).
However, Yeung 1994 does not explicitly disclose the connection is a connection optical fiber.
Zare, in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention, teaches the connection is a connection optical fiber (Zare col. 4 ln. 3-9; fig. 3; The fiber 49 has output focused on translucent section 32 of capillary 30. The fluorescence emanating from the fluid being transported through the detection volume is collected perpendicular to the excitation beam by fiber 51. Thus, the fiber 51 is described by Zare as the connection optical fiber leading to the light detection unit (col. 4 ln. 9-17; the filter 53, the monochromator 54, the photomultiplier 55, the line 56 and the stripchart recorder 57)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Yeung 1994 to incorporate the teachings of Zare to include the connection is a connection optical fiber, for the advantage of adapting with increased sensitivity (Yeung 1994 col. 2 ln. 34-36).
PNG
media_image3.png
925
694
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Zare Fig. 3
As to claim 6, Yeung 1994 teaches the capillary electrophoresis device according to claim 3, wherein the light detector further includes an imaging optical system that forms an image of light emitted from an emitting end of the detection optical fiber on an incoming end of the connection (col. 9 ln. 9-15; fig. 1; “The emitted fluorescent light that passes through the capillary wall 104 is detected by a charge transfer device imaging system 50 through coupling with a microscope 60”. Col. 6 ln. 66 – col. 7 ln. 1; “The laser 40 and the microscope objective 45 are positioned so that the laser beam, represented by arrow 47, is focused onto the ends 42 of the optical fibers 15”. Thus, the device imaging system forms an image of light emitted is from the ends 42 of the fibers 15 on the incoming end of the adapter 55).
However, Yeung 1994 does not explicitly disclose the connection is a connection optical fiber.
Zare, in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention, teaches the connection is a connection optical fiber (Zare col. 4 ln. 3-9; fig. 3; The fiber 49 has output focused on translucent section 32 of capillary 30. The fluorescence emanating from the fluid being transported through the detection volume is collected perpendicular to the excitation beam by fiber 51. Thus, the fiber 51 is described by Zare as the connection optical fiber leading to the light detection unit (col. 4 ln. 9-17; the filter 53, the monochromator 54, the photomultiplier 55, the line 56 and the stripchart recorder 57)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Yeung 1994 to incorporate the teachings of Zare to include the connection is a connection optical fiber, for the advantage of adapting with increased sensitivity (Yeung 1994 col. 2 ln. 34-36).
As to claim 7, Yeung 1994 teaches the capillary electrophoresis device according to claim 3.
Yeung 1994 in view of Zare does not explicitly disclose wherein the connection optical fiber has a core diameter smaller than a core diameter of the detection optical fiber.
However, applicant has not provided criticality for wherein the connection optical fiber has a core diameter smaller than a core diameter of the detection optical fiber. Applicant discloses merely that “For example, the core diameter of the connection optical fiber 402 may be set equal to or larger than the core diameter of the detection optical fiber 104” (Specification [0056]) and “As an example, the connection optical fiber may have a core diameter smaller than the core diameter of the detection optical fiber” (Specification [0074]). Furthermore, a mere change in size or design choice of a component is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Yeung 1994 in view of Zare to incorporate wherein the connection optical fiber has a core diameter smaller than a core diameter of the detection optical fiber; for the advantage of managing signal dispersion and attenuation.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yeung 1994 in view of Yeung et al. (US5582705A), hereinafter Yeung 1996.
As to claim 4, Yeung 1994 teaches the capillary electrophoresis device according to claim 1, wherein the light detector includes at least an imaging device (col. 9 ln. 9-15; fig. 1; a charge transfer device imaging system 50; the camera 50).
However, Yeung 1994 does not explicitly disclose the light detector includes a signal processor; and the signal processor processes light in a central portion of the detection optical fiber selectively, among light detected by the imaging device.
Yeung 1996, in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention, teaches the light detector includes a signal processor (Yeung 1996 col. 17 ln. 11-15; The method includes processing the signal produced by the selected pixel. Col. 34 ln. 31-34; For example, the camera controller comprises a 68000 processor);
and the signal processor processes light in a central portion of the detection optical fiber selectively, among light detected by the imaging device (Yeung 1996 fig. 1; col. 18 ln. 61-65; The optical fibers are inserted into the capillary. The processed signal is of the light in a central portion of the capillary array 2 with capillaries 1, at the transparent portion 4, among light detected by the optical detector 16).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Yeung 1994 to incorporate the teachings of Yeung 1996 to include the light detector includes a signal processor; and the signal processor processes light in a central portion of the detection optical fiber selectively, among light detected by the imaging device; for the advantage of improving speed and decreasing effort for data processing (Yeung 1996 col. 46 ln. 5-15).
PNG
media_image4.png
1227
726
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Yeung 1996 Fig. 1
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yeung 1994.
As to claim 9, Yeung 1994 teaches the capillary electrophoresis device according to claim 1, wherein the light detector selectively detects only light in an area of a radius r or less from a center at an emitting end of the detection optical fiber (col. 7 ln. 1-7; fig. 1; “The capillaries 20 with optical fibers 15 inserted at the outflow ends 33 of the capillaries 20 are arranged in an array 102, which is held in a fixed position on a stage 52 under an objective 65 of a microscope 60. The capillaries 20 as well as the optical fibers 15 are held firmly in place in an array 102 by guides (not shown)”. Thus, the light is only detected in an area of an implicit radius from an implicit center of the light captured by the microscope 60 from the array 102 on the fixed position on the stage 52).
Yeung 1994 does not explicitly disclose r is given by a following mathematical expression:
PNG
media_image5.png
234
573
media_image5.png
Greyscale
NA is a numerical aperture of the detection optical fiber, c is a core diameter of the detection optical fiber, p is an interval between the plurality of capillaries, Dout is an outer diameter of the capillary, and d is a distance from a surface of the capillary to an incoming end of the corresponding detection optical fiber.
However, applicant has not provided criticality for r is given by a following mathematical expression:
PNG
media_image5.png
234
573
media_image5.png
Greyscale
NA is a numerical aperture of the detection optical fiber, c is a core diameter of the detection optical fiber, p is an interval between the plurality of capillaries, Dout is an outer diameter of the capillary, and d is a distance from a surface of the capillary to an incoming end of the corresponding detection optical fiber.
Applicant discloses merely in Specification pages 19-26 how the mathematical expressions were derived from Snell’s Law, rather than the criticality. Furthermore, it has been held that finding the optimal or working ranges of a variable involves only routine skill in the art (MPEP 2144.05). In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). Peterson, 315 F.3d at 1330, 65 USPQ2d at 1382.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Yeung 1994 to incorporate r is given by a following mathematical expression:
PNG
media_image5.png
234
573
media_image5.png
Greyscale
NA is a numerical aperture of the detection optical fiber, c is a core diameter of the detection optical fiber, p is an interval between the plurality of capillaries, Dout is an outer diameter of the capillary, and d is a distance from a surface of the capillary to an incoming end of the corresponding detection optical fiber, for the advantage of increased data analysis.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yeung 1994 in view of Xu et al. (US 20130324858 A1), hereinafter Xu.
As to claim 10, Yeung 1994 teaches the capillary electrophoresis device according to claim 1.
However, Yeung 1994 does not explicitly disclose wherein the light detector is capable of changing at least one of an area or a shape of a selectively detected area of the detection optical fiber.
Xu, in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention, teaches wherein the light detector is capable of changing at least one of an area or a shape of a selectively detected area of the detection optical fiber (Xu [0088]; [0092]; [0095]-[0096]; The microscope can be a three element compound microscope with multi-magnification, such as a low magnification with a large field of view and a high magnification with high-resolution. Thus, the detected area (of the fiber 15 of Yeung 1994) can be changed by changing the objective lens of the compound microscope).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Yeung 1994 to incorporate the teachings of Xu to include wherein the light detector is capable of changing at least one of an area or a shape of a selectively detected area of the detection optical fiber; for the advantage of fine focus adjustments for enhanced detection (Xu [0122]).
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 KEMAYA NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-9078. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 8:30 am - 5:00pm ET.
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, Tarifur Chowdhury can be reached on (571) 272-2287. 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.
/KEMAYA NGUYEN/Examiner, Art Unit 2877
/TARIFUR R CHOWDHURY/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2877
Prosecution Insights