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 .
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 do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: anchoring component in claims 1-21.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend 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 avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 10-21 are 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.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the optical filter" in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Therefore, it’s unclear whether it is intended to refer to the optical filter in line 4 of claim 10 or to any optical filter. This lack of clarity causes the scope of the claim to be indefinite. For the sake of examination, it will be interpreted as referring to the optical filter in line 4.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the cartridge" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It’s unclear whether this and “a cartridge” in the second to last line refer to the same cartridge or different cartridges. This lack of clarity causes the scope of the claim to be indefinite. For the sake of examination, it will be interpreted as referring to the same cartridge.
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.
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.
Claims 1-2, 4-8, and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Castagna (US 20130004952 A1; cited by Applicant) in view of Misener (US 20160216284 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Castagna teaches a base comprising:
connecting a cartridge (1) to the base (figures 4-5; paragraph 42);
a detection component comprising:
a window (17) positioned to allow a light from a detection zone of the cartridge to enter the base when the cartridge is coupled to the base (paragraph 42; figures 4-5); and
a photodetector (32, 33) positioned to receive the light through the window (17) and configured to generate a signal based on the light received from the window (figures 4-5);
a plurality of light sources (30, 31) configured to emit one or more illumination lights onto the detection zone through the window when the cartridge is coupled to the base (paragraph 49); and
a controller (25, 26) communicatively coupled to the photodetector and the plurality of light sources (figure 6), the controller including logic that, when executed by the controller, causes the base to perform operations (paragraph 45) including:
illuminating the detection zone with the plurality of light sources (paragraphs 48 and 62-70); and
generating a detection signal with the photodetector based on the light received by the photodetector (paragraph 55).
PNG
media_image1.png
578
646
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
480
726
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
356
554
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Castagna doesn’t explicitly teach an anchoring component configured to secure a cartridge to the base. However, Castagna teaches inserting the cartridge(1) into the base (figures 4-5 and paragraph 42). Additionally, Misener is also directed to optical measurements of cartridges and teaches that when inserting a cartridge into a base, an anchoring component configured to secure a cartridge to the base provides the benefits of maintaining the cartridge in fixed position and alignment during the measurements (abstract and paragraph 89).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the above such that the base comprises an anchoring component configured to secure a cartridge to the base in order to maintain the cartridge in fixed position and alignment during the measurements.
Regarding claim 2, Castagna teaches the base further comprises an optical filter subcomponent (37, 38) positioned between the detection window and the photodetector to filter light received through the detection window (paragraph 51; figure 4).
Regarding claim 4, Castagna teaches the window defines a plane, and wherein the plurality of light sources are configured to emit the one or more illumination lights at a non- normal angle to the plane (figures 4-5).
Regarding claim 5, Castagna teaches the controller further includes logic that, when executed by the controller, causes the base to perform operations including: generating a detection result based, at least in part, on the signal (paragraph 55).
Regarding claim 6, Castagna teaches the photodetector is configured to generate the signal based on an intensity of light received from the window (paragraphs 54-55).
Regarding claim 7, Castagna teaches the photodetector is further configured to communicate the measured light intensity to the controller (paragraphs 54-55 and figure 6).
Regarding claim 8, Castagna teaches the base is configured to connect to one or more other cartridges in addition to the cartridge (paragraph 97).
Regarding claim 11, Castagna teaches a system configured to analyze a sample, the system comprising:
a base comprising (figures 4-5; paragraph 42):
connecting a cartridge (1) to the base (figures 4-5; paragraph 42);
a detection component comprising:
a window (17) positioned to allow a light from a detection zone of the cartridge to enter the base when the cartridge is coupled to the base (paragraph 42; figures 4-5);
a photodetector (32, 33), positioned to receive the light through the window (17) and configured to generate a signal based on the light received from the window (figures 4-5); and
an optical filter subcomponent (37, 38) positioned between the detection window and the photodetector to filter light received by the detection window (paragraph 51; figure 4);
a plurality of light sources (30, 31) configured to emit one or more illumination lights onto the detection zone through the window when the cartridge is coupled to the base (paragraph 49); and
a controller (25, 26) communicatively coupled to the photodetector and the plurality of light sources (figure 6) of the controller including logic that, when executed by the controller, causes the base to preform operations (paragraph 45), including:
illuminating the detection zone with the plurality of light sources (paragraphs 48 and 62-70); and
generating the detection signal with the photodetector based on the signal light received by the photodetector (paragraph 55); and
a cartridge (1) configured to hold a sample, comprising a transparent viewing field configured to be positioned in the detection zone when the cartridge is coupled to the base (paragraphs 34-36; figures 3 and 5).
Castagna doesn’t explicitly teach an anchoring component configured to secure a cartridge to the base. However, Castagna teaches inserting the cartridge (1) into the base (figures 4-5 and paragraph 42). Additionally, Misener is also directed to optical measurements of cartridges and teaches that when inserting a cartridge into a base, an anchoring component configured to secure a cartridge to the base provides the benefits of maintaining the cartridge in fixed position and alignment during the measurements (abstract and paragraph 89).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the above such that the base comprises an anchoring component configured to secure a cartridge to the base in order to maintain the cartridge in fixed position and alignment during the measurements.
Regarding claim 12, Castagna doesn’t explicitly teach the cartridge and the base are configured to form a light-tight seal when the cartridge is received by the base.
However, Castagna teaches the base serves as a housing/enclosure (figure 5 and paragraphs 43 and 48). Additionally, Official Notice is taken that it is well known that in the field of optical measurement and testing it is well known to form a light-tight seal around the measurement region using the enclosure/housing.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the above combination such that the cartridge and the base are configured to form a light-tight seal when the cartridge is received by the base in order to provide accurate measurements with a high signal to noise ratio by limiting ambient light from the measurement region.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Castagna and Misener as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Battrell (US 20120115214).
Regarding claim 3, Castagna implies the base further comprises a docking port configured to receive the cartridge (this is suggested by the description and figures both describing and illustrating the cartridge being docked in the base; since there is a port where the cartridge is docked, it is implied that this is a docking port configured to receive the cartridge). Additionally, Battrell is also directed to optical measurement devices comprising cartridges containing the sample and teaches a docking port configured to receive the cartridge (docking bay in paragraphs 23 and 78). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the base of the above combination comprise a docking port configured to receive the cartridge (as suggested by Castagna and taught by Battrell) in order to ensure that the cartridge and sample are correctly aligned in the measurement device and therefore have accurate measurements.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Castagna and Misener as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Redfern (US 20080253933 A1).
Regarding claim 9, Castagna doesn’t explicitly teach the base is configured to couple to one or more other bases.
However, in the field of optical measurements (where Castagna and the applicant are directed) it is known to have more one measurement device configured to couple to one or more other measurement devices; for example, Redfern provides a general teaching of having one measurement device coupled to one or more other measurement devices (paragraph 43). Furthermore, Redfern teaches this provides the benefit of measuring multiple samples simultaneously (paragraph 43).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the above combination such that the base is configured to couple to one or more other bases in order to be able to measure multiple samples simultaneously.
Claims 10, 13, and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Castagna and Misener as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, and further in view of Chu (US 20160228876 A1; cited by Applicant).
Regarding claim 10, Castagna teaches the controller is operatively coupled to the optical filter (37, 38), the photodetector, and the plurality of light sources, the controller including logic that, when executed by the controller, causes the base to perform operations including: having an optical filter of the optical filter component between the photodetector and the window; analyzing the signal with the processor; generating a detection result; and outputting the detection result (figure 6 and paragraphs 51-55).
Castagna doesn’t explicitly teach logic causing positioning the optical filter.
Like Castagna (and like Applicant), Chu is directed to an optical measurement system comprising optical filters and teaches positioning the optical filter (paragraphs 98-99 and 119). Additionally, Chu teaches this provides the benefit of facilitating the positioning of different filters (paragraph 119).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the above combination such that the logic causes positioning the optical filter in order to facilitate the positioning of different filters and thereby easily and quickly adapt the system for desired measurement wavelengths.
Regarding claim 13, Castagna teaches the controller includes logic that, when executed by the controller, causes the system to perform operations including: having an optical filter (37, 38) between the photodetector and the detection zone; analyzing the signal; generating a detection result; and outputting the detection result (figure 6 and paragraphs 51-55).
Castagna doesn’t explicitly teach logic causing positioning the optical filter.
Like Castagna (and like Applicant), Chu is directed to an optical measurement system comprising optical filters and teaches positioning the optical filter (paragraphs 98-99 and 119). Additionally, Chu teaches this provides the benefit of facilitating the positioning of different filters (paragraph 119).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the above combination such that the logic causes positioning the optical filter in order to facilitate the positioning of different filters and thereby easily and quickly adapt the system for desired measurement wavelengths.
Regarding claim 16, in the above combination the optical filter subcomponent comprises a plurality of optical filters disposed on a movable frame configured to allow different filters to be placed over the optical detection system (paragraphs 98-99 and 119 and 270).
Regarding claim 17, in the above combination wherein the identity signal generated is a filter identity signal, and wherein the controller includes logic that when executed by the controller, causes the base to position an optical filter of the plurality of optical filters in the detection zone based on the filter identity signal (paragraphs 98-99 and 119 and 270).
Claims 14-15 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Castagna and Misener as applied to claims 11 and 13 above, and further in view of Yantz (US 20120045826 A1; cited by Applicant).
Regarding claims 14-15, Castagna doesn’t explicitly teach wherein the cartridge further comprises an identifier indicative of an identity of the cartridge (claim 14); the base further includes a contactless reader configured to generate an identity signal based on the identifier, wherein the contactless reader is operatively coupled to the controller, the controller including logic that, when executed by the controller, causes the base to perform operations based on the identity signal (claim 15).
Like Castagna (and like Applicant), Yantz is directed to an optical measurement system and method comprising a base and cartridge and teaches wherein the cartridge further comprises an identifier indicative of an identity of the cartridge; and the base further includes a contactless reader configured to generate an identity signal based on the identifier, wherein the contactless reader is operatively coupled to the controller, the controller including logic that, when executed by the controller, causes the base to perform operations based on the identity signal (paragraph 210; figures 8 and 11.6). Additionally, Yantz teaches this provides the benefit of decreasing rates of error (paragraph 210).
PNG
media_image4.png
500
630
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
378
808
media_image5.png
Greyscale
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the above combination such that wherein the cartridge further comprises an identifier indicative of an identity of the cartridge; and the base further includes a contactless reader configured to generate an identity signal based on the identifier, wherein the contactless reader is operatively coupled to the controller, the controller including logic that, when executed by the controller, causes the base to perform operations based on the identity signal – in order to decrease rates of error by ensuring that the measurement results match the sample.
Regarding claim 21, Castagna suggests photodetector is a camera, a flatbed scanner, or a laser scanner with a single detector (suggests that 32 and 33 are cameras since they are described as imaging sensors which suggests cameras). Additionally, like Castagna (and like Applicant), Yantz is directed to an optical measurement system and method comprising a base and cartridge and teaches the photodetector is a camera, a flatbed scanner, or a laser scanner with a single detector (camera in paragraphs 9 and 58 and figure 23). Additionally, Yantz teaches the camera provides the benefit of large area detection (paragraph 58). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the photodetector of the above combination be a camera in order to achieve large area detection.
PNG
media_image6.png
712
994
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 18-20 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include 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: The prior art of record (taken alone or in combination) fails to anticipate or render obvious, “wherein the optical filter subcomponent comprises a plurality of optical filters disposed on a movable frame configured to allow different filters to be placed over the optical detection system, wherein the identity signal generated is a filter identity signal, and wherein the controller includes logic that when executed by the controller, causes the base to position an optical filter of the plurality of optical filters in the detection zone based on the filter identity signal, wherein the cartridge further comprises one or more pins configured to contact the movable filter frame,” in combination with the other claimed limitations.
Additional Prior Art
Nahm (US 20210318301 A1) reads, “[0039] In one embodiment of the present disclosure, the base frame 100 may comprise a cartridge fixing part 130 as fixing means for preventing a diagnostic cartridge from being unnecessarily shaken or detached when the diagnostic cartridge is inserted into the insertion space 120.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RUFUS L PHILLIPS whose telephone number is (571)270-7021. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th, 2 -10 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, Uzma Alam can be reached at (571) 272-3995. 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.
/RUFUS L PHILLIPS/ Examiner, Art Unit 2877