/UZMA ALAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2884 DETAILED ACTION
National Stage Application
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 6 October 2025 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.97(c) because it lacks the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(p). It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered.
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.
The specification (e.g., see “… color-time signature sl(t) is a function of the signature of the mean fluorescence lifetime τl(t), the excitation spectral signature el(λ), and the emission spectral signature ml(λ) of the probe … the different species/probes in the sample are excited with a different probability, which depends on their excitation spectra (el(λ) with l = 1, …, L). …” in the last paragraph on pg. 11 and the first paragraph on pg. 15) serves as a glossary (MPEP § 2111.01) for the claim terms “the excitation spectrum”, “the emission spectrum”, and “[[the]] a fluorescence decay curve”.
For the “Embodiment with a discrete emission spectrum encoder” disclosed on pp. 15-16, the specification (e.g., see “… fluorescence signal is split by a series of dichroic mirrors into spectral windows K ([λemj, λemj+1] with j = 1, …, K+1). Each window is capable of containing different portions of the probes' fluorescence according to their emission spectra (ml(λ) with l = 1, …, L) …” in the last paragraph on pg. 15) serves as a glossary (MPEP § 2111.01) for the claim term “division means configured to divide said fluorescence signal into a plurality of spectral windows”, the specification (e.g., see “… different components are guided through optical paths with different lengths (for example, an optical delay line) to introduce specific time delays …” in the last paragraph on pg. 15) serves as a glossary (MPEP § 2111.01) for the claim term “delay means”, and the specification (e.g., see “… all components are recombined by a second set of dichroic mirrors …” in the last paragraph on pg. 15) serves as a glossary (MPEP § 2111.01) for the claim term “recombination means”.
For the “Embodiment with a continuous emission spectrum encoder” disclosed on pp. 16-17, the specification (e.g., see “… spatially separated by a prism, grating, or other similar device. Each component of the emission spectrum (continuous) follows a different path (with linearly increasing length) so as to introduce a different delay as a function of wavelength …” in the last complete paragraph on pg. 16) serves as a glossary (MPEP § 2111.01) for the claim term “division means configured to spatially separate the emission spectral components from the fluorescence signal and impose a respective temporal delay to each of said emission spectral components”, and the specification (e.g., see “… all components are spatially recombined …” in the last paragraph on pg. 15) serves as a glossary (MPEP § 2111.01) for the claim term “recombination means”.
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 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.
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 at the time any inventions covered therein were effectively filed 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 at the time a later invention was effectively filed 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.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 4, 6, and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gillispie (US 2002/0158211) in view of Tsai et al. (Rapid measurement of fluorescence lifetimes using SiPM detection and waveform sampling, 2016 IEEE Nuclear Science Symposium, Medical Imaging Conference and Room-Temperature Semiconductor Detector Workshop (NSS/MIC/RTSD), October-November 2016, 3 pages).
In regard to claim 1, Gillispie discloses a laser scanning microscope configured to illuminate a sample with a plurality of pulsed excitation light beams comprising different spectral components, hereinafter excitation spectral components, said sample containing a plurality of fluorescent species, wherein the laser scanning microscope comprises:
(a) a detector configured to detect a fluorescence signal emitted by the sample, said fluorescence signal comprising different spectral components, hereinafter emission spectral components (e.g., “… Excitation wavelength-selector 208b receives the photons at the multiple wavelengths from excitation wavelength-converter 206b and serves to restrict the output to one wavelength (λexcutation) at a time in beam 104 … Beam 104 irradiates sample 108, which contains … mixture of fluorescence compounds … fluorescence decay curves for at least two emission wavelengths … fluorescence decay curves for at least two excitation wavelengths …” in paragraphs 46, 48, 60, and 62);
(b) an first encoder configured to impose a respective temporal delay to each of the excitation spectral components in such a way that each of the excitation spectral components illuminates the sample at a different time relative to others of the excitation spectral components (e.g., “… Excitation wavelength-selector 208b receives the photons at the multiple wavelengths from excitation wavelength-converter 206b and serves to restrict the output to one wavelength (λexcutation) at a time in beam 104 …” in paragraph 46);
(c) a second encoder configured to impose a respective temporal delay to each of the emission spectral components in such a way that each of the emission spectral components reaches the detector at a different time relative to others of the emission spectral components (e.g., “… Each of optical fibers 5181 to 518N has a different length in order to temporally separate the arrival of photon signals 120j at photodetector 126. For example, photon signal 120, reaches the photodetector 126 earlier in time than photon signal 1202 because optical fiber 5181 is shorter than optical fiber 5182. It is in this way that the fluorescence wavelength is selected …” in paragraph 57);
(d) a data acquisition system configured to acquire a measurement signal provided by the detector and provide a time-resolved image of the sample, said time-resolved image comprising, for each pixel or voxel in the image, a histogram of a photon arrival time of the emission spectral components to the detector (e.g., “… use of the invention is to rapidly assess a surface for the presence of contamination, which could be oil and grease, food residue, microbiological species, etc., to examine growths on skin for evidence of cancer, to assess the surface of fruits and vegetables for ripeness or other quality indicators, etc. Just as in the microplate reading application, the sample whose surface is to be assessed could be moved in order to position various portions of the surface in the excitation light beam. Alternatively, the excitation light beam could be swept or scanned with a mirror arrangement over the surface … Photodetector 126 converts beam 120j into time-dependent analog electrical signal 128j and outputs time-dependent analog electrical signal 128j … fluorescence decay curves for at least two emission wavelengths …” in paragraphs 33, 58, and 60); and
(e) a multi-species decoder configured to decode a species excitation spectrum, a species emission spectrum, and a fluorescence decay curve for each of said fluorescent species, based on said time-resolved image of the sample (e.g., “… sample contains multiple emitting species with different lifetimes and different excitation and emission spectra … mathematical data processing techniques, including deconvolution, are readily generalized to account for multiple emitting species … second-order data in the form of a wavelength-time matrix (WTM). A WTM in its simplest incarnation consists of fluorescence decay curves measured at a series of emission or excitation wavelengths … Analyzer 140 of signal processor 130 receives the wavelength-time matrix from the recorder and outputs a numerical value for the contribution of at least one fluorescent component to the data contained within the wavelengthtime matrix (excitation or emission). In one embodiment, analyzer 140 is a computer program, e.g., MATLAB, that implements an algorithm, e.g., the SIMPLEX algorithm, to interpret the data contained within the wavelength-time matrix (excitation or emission) …” in paragraphs 11, 27, and 65).
The microscope of Gillispie lacks an explicit description of details of the “… photodetector …” such as single-photon detector array. However, “… photodetector …” details are known to one of ordinary skill in the art (e.g., see “… fluorescence lifetime measurements using analog off-the-shelf silicon photomultipliers (SiPMs)[4] … SiPM (S10931-050P Hamamatsu) …” in the last section I paragraph and the first section II paragraph of Tsai et al.). It should be noted that “when a patent claims a structure already known in the prior art that is altered by the mere substitution of one element for another known in the field, the combination must do more than yield a predictable results”. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 at 416, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) at 1395 (citing United States v. Adams, 383 U.S. 39, 40 [148 USPQ 479] (1966)). See MPEP § 2143. In this case, one of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted a known conventional photodetector (e.g., comprising details such as “SiPM (S10931-050P Hamamatsu)”, in order to achieve “fluorescence lifetime measurements using analog off-the-shelf silicon photomultipliers (SiPMs)[4]”) for the unspecified photodetector of Gillispie and the results of the substitution would have been predictable. Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a known conventional photodetector (e.g., comprising details such as single-photon detector array) as the unspecified photodetector of Gillispie.
In regard to claim 3 which is dependent on claim 1, Gillispie also discloses that the data acquisition system is synchronized with said pulsed excitation light beams (e.g., “… Each of optical fibers 5181 to 518N has a different length in order to temporally separate the arrival of photon signals 120j at photodetector 126. For example, photon signal 120, reaches the photodetector 126 earlier in time than photon signal 1202 because optical fiber 5181 is shorter than optical fiber 5182. It is in this way that the fluorescence wavelength is selected …” in paragraph 57). Alternatively it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the fluorescence wavelengths are selected by the synchronized photodetector.
In regard to claim 4 which is dependent on claim 1, Gillispie also discloses that the excitation spectrum encoder is configured to implement a sequence of excitation pulses periodically repeated with a pre-determined frequency, each of said excitation pulses corresponding to one of said excitation spectral components (e.g., “… Excitation wavelength-converter 206 can be a dye laser, a solid-state vibronic laser, an optical parametric oscillator, or the like. Input pulsed laser 202a can be a single-mode pulsed laser, e.g., the passively Q-switched, solid-state Nd: YAG laser manufactured by Litton Airtran Synoptics (Model ML-00024) … Excitation wavelength-selector 208b receives the photons at the multiple wavelengths from excitation wavelength-converter 206b and serves to restrict the output to one wavelength (λexcutation) at a time in beam 104 …” in paragraph 46). Alternatively it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the passively Q-switched frequency is pre-determined by the laser cavity’s dimensions.
In regard to claim 6 which is dependent on claim 4, Gillispie also discloses that the second encoder comprises division means configured to spatially separate the emission spectral components from the fluorescence signal and impose a respective temporal delay to each of said emission spectral components and recombination means configured to recombine said emission spectral components into recombined emission spectral components and send the recombined emission spectral components to the detector (e.g., “… spectrograph 518 and optical fibers 5181 to 518N … to photodetector 126 …” in paragraph 56).
In regard to claim 7, Gillispie discloses a method of laser scanning microscopy, comprising:
(a) illuminating a sample with a plurality of pulsed excitation light beams comprising different spectral components, hereinafter excitation spectral components, said sample containing a plurality of fluorescent species, wherein illuminating the sample comprises imposing a respective temporal delay to each of the excitation spectral components, in such a way that each of the excitation spectral components illuminates the sample at a different time relative to others of the excitation spectral components (e.g., “… Excitation wavelength-selector 208b receives the photons at the multiple wavelengths from excitation wavelength-converter 206b and serves to restrict the output to one wavelength (λexcutation) at a time in beam 104 … Beam 104 irradiates sample 108, which contains … mixture of fluorescence compounds … fluorescence decay curves for at least two excitation wavelengths …” in paragraphs 46, 48, and 62);
(b) detecting a fluorescence signal emitted by the sample with a detector, said fluorescence signal comprising different spectral components, hereinafter emission spectral components, wherein detecting the fluorescence signal comprises imposing a respective temporal delay to each of the emission spectral components, in such a way that each of the emission spectral components reaches the detector at a different time relative to others of the emission spectral components (e.g., “… Each of optical fibers 5181 to 518N has a different length in order to temporally separate the arrival of photon signals 120j at photodetector 126. For example, photon signal 120, reaches the photodetector 126 earlier in time than photon signal 1202 because optical fiber 5181 is shorter than optical fiber 5182. It is in this way that the fluorescence wavelength is selected …” in paragraph 57);
(c) acquiring a measurement signal provided by the detector and providing a time-resolved image of the sample, said time-resolved image comprising, for each pixel or voxel in the image, a histogram of a photon arrival time of the emission spectral components to the single-photon detector array (e.g., “… use of the invention is to rapidly assess a surface for the presence of contamination, which could be oil and grease, food residue, microbiological species, etc., to examine growths on skin for evidence of cancer, to assess the surface of fruits and vegetables for ripeness or other quality indicators, etc. Just as in the microplate reading application, the sample whose surface is to be assessed could be moved in order to position various portions of the surface in the excitation light beam. Alternatively, the excitation light beam could be swept or scanned with a mirror arrangement over the surface … Photodetector 126 converts beam 120j into time-dependent analog electrical signal 128j and outputs time-dependent analog electrical signal 128j … fluorescence decay curves for at least two emission wavelengths …” in paragraphs 33, 58, and 60); and
(d) decoding a species excitation spectrum, a species emission spectrum, and a fluorescence decay curve for each of said fluorescent species, based on said time-resolved image of the sample (e.g., “… sample contains multiple emitting species with different lifetimes and different excitation and emission spectra … mathematical data processing techniques, including deconvolution, are readily generalized to account for multiple emitting species … second-order data in the form of a wavelength-time matrix (WTM). A WTM in its simplest incarnation consists of fluorescence decay curves measured at a series of emission or excitation wavelengths … Analyzer 140 of signal processor 130 receives the wavelength-time matrix from the recorder and outputs a numerical value for the contribution of at least one fluorescent component to the data contained within the wavelengthtime matrix (excitation or emission). In one embodiment, analyzer 140 is a computer program, e.g., MATLAB, that implements an algorithm, e.g., the SIMPLEX algorithm, to interpret the data contained within the wavelength-time matrix (excitation or emission) …” in paragraphs 11, 27, and 65).
The method of Gillispie lacks an explicit description of details of the “… photodetector …” such as single-photon detector array. However, “… photodetector …” details are known to one of ordinary skill in the art (e.g., see “… fluorescence lifetime measurements using analog off-the-shelf silicon photomultipliers (SiPMs)[4] … SiPM (S10931-050P Hamamatsu) …” in the last section I paragraph and the first section II paragraph of Tsai et al.). It should be noted that “when a patent claims a structure already known in the prior art that is altered by the mere substitution of one element for another known in the field, the combination must do more than yield a predictable results”. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 at 416, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) at 1395 (citing United States v. Adams, 383 U.S. 39, 40 [148 USPQ 479] (1966)). See MPEP § 2143. In this case, one of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted a known conventional photodetector (e.g., comprising details such as “SiPM (S10931-050P Hamamatsu)”, in order to achieve “fluorescence lifetime measurements using analog off-the-shelf silicon photomultipliers (SiPMs)[4]”) for the unspecified photodetector of Gillispie and the results of the substitution would have been predictable. Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a known conventional photodetector (e.g., comprising details such as single-photon detector array) as the unspecified photodetector of Gillispie.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gillispie in view of Tsai et al. as applied to claim(s) 1 above, and further in view of Castello et al. (A robust and versatile platform for image scanning microscopy enabling super-resolution FLIM, Nature Methods Vol 16 (February 2019), pp. 175–178, 35 pages).
In regard to claim 2 which is dependent on claim 1, the microscope of Gillispie lacks an explicit description of details of the “… mathematical data processing techniques …” such as fusing together the time-resolved images provided by the responsive elements to produce a super-resolved image of the sample. However, “… mathematical data processing techniques …” details are known to one of ordinary skill in the art (e.g., see “… opening the pinhole(typically to 1 Airy unit (AU)) to collect most of the fluorescence light. The elements of the detector array generate a series of ‘confocal’ scanned images that differ in information content and are shifted with respect to one another. To form an ISM image, one can use the so-called pixel-reassignment (PR) method3,4, in which all the scanned images are added together after each image is shifted by a vector (shift vector) that in the ideal case depicts the relative position of the corresponding detector element, properly scaled by a PR factor. In alternative methods, the scanned images are fused together by more advanced methods5,6 … reconstruction of super-resolution images …” in the second paragraph on pg. 175 and the last paragraph on pg. 177 of Castello et al.). It should be noted that “when a patent claims a structure already known in the prior art that is altered by the mere substitution of one element for another known in the field, the combination must do more than yield a predictable results”. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 at 416, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) at 1395 (citing United States v. Adams, 383 U.S. 39, 40 [148 USPQ 479] (1966)). See MPEP § 2143. In this case, one of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted a known conventional data processing (e.g., comprising details such as “scanned images are fused together”, in order to achieve “reconstruction of super-resolution images”) for the unspecified data processing of Gillispie and the results of the substitution would have been predictable. Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a known conventional data processing (e.g., comprising details such as said single-photon detector array comprises an array of elements responsive to the fluorescence signal emitted by the sample, each of said responsive elements being capable of providing a respective time-resolved image of the sample, and wherein the data acquisition system is configured to fuse together the time-resolved images provided by the responsive elements, by a restoration algorithm, to produce a super-resolved image of the sample) as the unspecified data processing of Gillispie.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gillispie in view of Tsai et al. as applied to claim(s) 4 above, and further in view of Babin (US 2016/0139036).
In regard to claim 5 which is dependent on claim 4, Gillispie also discloses that the second encoder comprises delay means configured to impose a respective temporal delay to each of said emission spectral components (e.g., “… Each of optical fibers 5181 to 518N has a different length in order to temporally separate the arrival of photon signals 120j at photodetector 126. For example, photon signal 120, reaches the photodetector 126 earlier in time than photon signal 1202 because optical fiber 5181 is shorter than optical fiber 5182. It is in this way that the fluorescence wavelength is selected …” in paragraph 57). The microscope of Gillispie lacks an explicit description of details of the “… photodetector …” such as division means configured to divide said fluorescence signal into a plurality of spectral windows, each of said spectral windows containing one of said emission spectral components and recombination means configured to recombine said emission spectral components into recombined emission spectral components and send the recombined emission spectral components to the single-photon detector array. However, “… photodetector …” details are known to one of ordinary skill in the art (e.g., see “… beam combiner 260 combines the first and second measurement pulses into an optical link which is connected to the second dichroic beam splitter. The second dichroic beam splitter 262 lets the first and second measurement pulses propagating therethrough and filters the residual excitation pulse so that it does not generate fluorescence or other emissions in the optical link 264 so that it does not interfere with the measurement. The first and second measurement pulses then propagates in the optical fiber 264 up to the optical filtering unit 240 and the photon counting detector 242 …” in paragraph 129 Babin). It should be noted that “when a patent claims a structure already known in the prior art that is altered by the mere substitution of one element for another known in the field, the combination must do more than yield a predictable results”. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 at 416, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) at 1395 (citing United States v. Adams, 383 U.S. 39, 40 [148 USPQ 479] (1966)). See MPEP § 2143. In this case, one of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted a known conventional photodetector (e.g., comprising details such as “dichroic beam splitter 262” and “beam combiner 260”, in order for “first and second measurement pulses then propagates in the optical fiber 264 up to the optical filtering unit 240 and the photon counting detector 242”) for the unspecified photodetector of Gillispie and the results of the substitution would have been predictable. Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a known conventional photodetector (e.g., comprising details such as division means configured to divide said fluorescence signal into a plurality of spectral windows, each of said spectral windows containing one of said emission spectral components and recombination means configured to recombine said emission spectral components and send the emission spectral components to the single-photon detector array) as the unspecified photodetector of Gillispie.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the amended claims have been fully considered but some are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection. Applicant's remaining arguments filed 5 March 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Gillispie fails to teach or suggest a laser scanning microscope comprising “an excitation spectrum encoder configured to impose a respective temporal delay to each of said excitation spectral components in such a way that each of said excitation spectral components illuminates the sample at a different time relative to s of said excitation spectral components” as recited in amended independent claim 1 because only one excitation wavelength is sent to the sample. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Gillispie states (paragraph 32) that “… various embodiments of our invention, which include an apparatus and method, have the common features that are now enumerated … Such digitized fluorescence decay curves are rapidly generated and stored in the memory of the data recorder in the form of a wavelength-time matrix (WTM), the WTM consisting of a plurality of fluorescence decay curves acquired for various fluorescence emission or fluorescence excitation wavelengths …”. It is important to noted that various “fluorescence excitation wavelengths” are sent to the sample to obtain a WTM. Thus, Gillispie teach or suggest a laser scanning microscope comprising an excitation spectrum encoder configured to impose a respective temporal delay to each of said excitation spectral components (e.g., see “… Excitation wavelength-selector 208b receives the photons at the multiple wavelengths from excitation wavelength-converter 206b and serves to restrict the output to one wavelength (λexcutation) at a time in beam 104 … Beam 104 irradiates sample 108, which contains … mixture of fluorescence compounds … fluorescence decay curves for at least two excitation wavelengths …” in paragraphs 46, 48, and 62) in such a way that each of said excitation spectral components illuminates the sample at a different time relative to the others of said excitation spectral components (e.g., see “at a time” in “… Excitation wavelength-selector 208b receives the photons at the multiple wavelengths from excitation wavelength-converter 206b and serves to restrict the output to one wavelength (λexcutation) at a time in beam 104 … Beam 104 irradiates sample 108, which contains … mixture of fluorescence compounds … fluorescence decay curves for at least two excitation wavelengths …” in paragraphs 46, 48, and 62). Therefore, the cited prior art teaches or suggests all limitations as arranged in the claims.
Applicant argues that Gillispie fails to teach or suggest a laser scanning microscope comprising “a data acquisition system configured to acquire a measurement signal provided by the single-photon detector array and provide a time-resolved image of the sample, said time-resolved image comprising, for each pixel or voxel in the image, a histogram of a photon arrival time of the emission spectral components to the single-photon detector array” as recited in amended independent claim 1 because a photon arrival time histogram is a data plot that maps the frequency of detected photons against their arrival time relative to a trigger and has nothing to do with a “time-dependent analog electrical signal” as taught by Gillispie. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Gillispie states (paragraph 64) that “… Plot 138, shown in FIGS. 1 and 6, is a graphical representation of an exemplary set of wavelength-time matrices …” and wherein it is important to noted that “Decay time (ns)” in
PNG
media_image1.png
1416
2160
media_image1.png
Greyscale
of Gillispie can be labeled as “a photon arrival time of the emission spectral components” and “138” in Fig. 6 of Gillispie (or “fluorescence decay curves for at least two emission wavelengths” as discussed above) can be labeled as “histogram of a photon arrival time of the emission spectral components”. Therefore, the cited prior art teaches or suggests all limitations as arranged in the claims.
Applicant argues that the proposed combination and modification of the cited prior art is simply not plausible and is in no way obvious because Gillispie's system is not structured to utilize spatially resolved photon detection because Gillispie relies on spectral separation to isolate wavelength-dependent signals prior to detection and Gillispie's signal processing pipeline do not use spatial photon distribution as an informationbearing parameter. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of applicant’s invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., use spatial photon distribution as an informationbearing parameter) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). In this case, it is important to recognize scanning in “laser scanning microscopy” as recited by the independent claims 1 and 7. Therefore, applicant's arguments are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that claims 2-6 and independent claim 7 includes limitations similar to those of claim 1 discussed above and thus are correspondingly novel, non-obvious, and are hence allowable. Examiner respectfully disagrees for the reasons discussed above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 2004/0007675 teaches a fluorimeter.
US 200/90173892 teaches a fluorimeter.
US 2019/0361213 teaches a microscope.
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 Shun Lee whose telephone number is (571)272-2439. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday.
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.
/SL/
Examiner, Art Unit 2884
/UZMA ALAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2884
Prosecution Insights