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 Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over El-Hage et al. (US 2003/0127609) hereinafter known as El-Hage.
With regards to claim 1, El-Hage discloses a method [0006] of evenly illuminating [0142] a tissue sample [0147] within Fluorescence Lifetime (FLT) Microscopy [0553]([0594] teaches of a wide area detection device), comprising:
positioning a slide ([0549]; The systems may be used with … microscope slides,…”) containing the tissue sample ([0147]; FIG. 3;123) within the wide field Fluorescence Lifetime (FLT) device ([0032]; FIG. 3; optical analyzer) such that a focal point of an objective lens (FIG. 3; top optics 112a;[0153] [1058]) of the Fluorescence Lifetime (FLT) device is within the tissue sample contained within the slide [0164][0174];
illuminating a top surface of the slide with an excitation light source [0140][0141];
illuminating a bottom surface of the slide with the excitation light source [0140][0141]; and
capturing an image of a portion of the tissue sample from the top surface of the slide and an image of a portion of the tissue sample from the bottom surface of the slide for diagnosis [0155][0167][0181][0578][0682].
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wilson et al. (US 2007/0057198) hereinafter known as Wilson, and further in view of Ozcan et al. (US 2023/0030424) hereinafter known as Ozcan.
With regards to claim 2, Wilson discloses a method of measuring fluorescence lifetime ([0001]; fluorescence lifetime imaging measurement (FLIM)) that includes illuminating a sample (Abstract) and utilizing a scanning microscope [0044], comprising:
positioning a specimen ([0044]; specimen 14) containing the specimen sample [0056] within the wide field FLIM device such that a focal point of an objective lens (FIG. 1; objective 12) of the wide field FLIM device is within the sample contained within the specimen [0044],
illuminating a top surface of the specimen with an excitation light source emitting a square wave [0017][0048][0059]; and
capturing an image of a portion of the specimen from the top surface of the slide [0001][0046][0074].
Wilson teaches that the specimen may include two or more fluorophores [0056], however, the reference does not specifically disclose the use of a slide, tissue samples and performing a diagnosis.
In the same field of endeavor, Ozcan discloses the use of a FLIM microscope [0055]. The reference further teaches of tissue samples disposed on a glass or plastic slide and the samples includes one or more naturally occurring or endogenous fluorophores [0047]. Finally, the reference teaches that the system utilizes computer software and a trained, deep neural network to perform disease diagnosis on the tissue samples [0051][0079].
In view of Ozcan, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill within the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the method of Wilson perform disease diagnostics on tissue samples that are being analyzed by the FLIM device. The motivation is to diagnose diseases by observing the lifetime fluorescence of the excited/illuminated fluorophore in the tissue sample.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Neilson et al. (US 2023/0256435)
Zhao et al. (US 2023/0160806)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HUGH H MAUPIN whose telephone number is (571)270-1495. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30 - 5:00 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, David J. Makiya can be reached at 571-272-2273. 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.
/HUGH MAUPIN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2884
Prosecution Insights