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 Objections
Claims 1, 6, 8, 9, and 15-20 are objected to because of the following informalities: the claims have periods after “a”, “b”, etc., and “i", “ii”, etc. Where a claim sets forth a plurality of elements or steps, each element or step of the claim should be separated by a line indentation, 37 CFR 1.75(i). MPEP 608.01(m).
Appropriate correction is required
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:
“a sample-retaining component (505), configured to accept one or more fluid samples or a vessel comprising one or more fluid sample… the sample-retaining component (505) places or can be configured to place the one or more fluid samples in optical alignment with at least one emitter's radiation, such that the radiation will pass through the one or more samples” in claim 8.
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 3, 8-14, and 17-20 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.
The term “narrow angular range” in claims 3 and 17-20 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “narrow angular range” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The Specification does not define a “narrow angular range”. For examination purposes, the claim will be interpreted as substantially collimated.
The term “durably aligns” in claim 8 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “durably” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The Specification does not define a “durably”. For examination purposes, the claim will be interpreted as substantially aligns.
Claims 9-14 are rejected based upon their dependency on claim 8
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-7 and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1),(a)(2) as being anticipated by Haguet (US 2019/0145887 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Haguet discloses a solid-state quasi-collimation stack (abstract, Figs. 1, 15-16, 22), comprising:
a. a base layer (Fig. 1, ref 50, paragraph [0086]);
b. one or more electromagnetic emitters (200) in fixed positions on the base layer (ref 40, paragraph [0086]);
c. a first electromagnetic radiation reflection and selection layer (102) covering the one or more emitters (200), comprising a material containing one or more electromagnetically transparent pinholes (113) in alignment with each emitter to form an emitter-pinhole pairing (Fig. 15, refs 70, 100, 105, paragraphs [0210], [0219]-[0222]);
d. a spacing layer (103) covering the first selection layer, comprising an optically absorbent or black body material and containing, for each emitter-pinhole pairing, a channel in optical alignment therewith (ref 105, paragraphs [0210], [0219]-[0222]);
e. a second electromagnetic radiation reflection and selection layer (104) configured to cover the spacing layer (103), comprising a material containing, for each channel in the spacing layer, an electromagnetically transparent pinhole (110) in optical alignment therewith (refs 205, 220, paragraphs [0210], [0219]-[0222]); and,
f. a top layer (105) (ref 35, paragraph [0287]).
Regarding claim 2, Haguet discloses wherein each of the one or more electromagnetic emitters is operable to transmit electromagnetic radiation at one or more wavelengths in the infrared, visible, or ultraviolet spectrum (paragraphs [0100]-[0103]).
Regarding claim 3, Haguet discloses wherein the emissions exiting the stack are confined to a narrow angular range via reflection and absorption of rays outside of that range (paragraphs [0431]-[0433]).
Regarding claim 4, Haguet discloses wherein the emissions exiting the stack are near-parallel to one another (paragraph [0432], “radiation R is collimated between the focusing device 55 and the well”).
Regarding claim 5, Haguet discloses wherein there are the same number of emitters, first selection layer pinholes, spacing layer, second selection layer pinholes, and optical receptors (Fig 1, etc. shows a 1 to 1 correspondence).
Regarding claim 6, Haguet discloses g. an absorption layer (101) located between the base layer and the first selection layer (102) and containing an absorption column for each emitter present, each column being configured to circumscribe the corresponding emitter (ref 65, paragraph [0134]-[0139]).
Regarding claim 7, Haguet discloses wherein the pinholes of the first and second electromagnetic reflection and selection layers are less than or equal to two millimeters in diameter and the thickness of the selection layers is less than or equal to five hundred micrometers (paragraphs [0180], [0215]-[0218], [0252], [0255], [0262]).
Regarding claim 15, Haguet discloses a method for the optical measurement of a fluid sample by passing collimated electromagnetic (EM) radiation through a well containing the fluid sample (abstract, Figs. 1, 15, 16, 22), the method, comprising:
a. beamforming EM radiation using a quasi-collimation stack (refs 70, 120, paragraphs [0209]-[0225], [0431]-[0433]);
b. directing the beamformed radiation to pass through the fluid sample contained in the well (refs 30, 185, paragraphs [0337]-[0343]).
Regarding claim 16, Haguet discloses c. detecting the radiation after passing through the sample via an optical receptor (ref 185, paragraphs [0337]-[0343]).
Regarding claim 17, Haguet discloses wherein the beamforming, comprises the steps of:
i. passing electromagnetic radiation from an emitter through a first pinhole (Fig. 15, refs 70, 100, 105, paragraphs [0210], [0219]-[0222]);
ii. passing the resulting radiation through a spacing layer (ref 105, paragraphs [0210], [0219]-[0222]); and,
iii. passing the resulting radiation through a second pinhole (refs 205, 220, paragraphs [0210], [0219]-[0222]);
wherein the beamformed radiation is confined to a narrow angular range via reflection and absorption of rays outside of that range (paragraphs [0431]-[0433]).
Regarding claim 18, Haguet discloses wherein the beamforming, comprises the steps of:
i. passing electromagnetic radiation from an emitter through a first pinhole (Fig. 15, refs 70, 100, 105, paragraphs [0210], [0219]-[0222]);
ii. passing the resulting radiation through a spacing layer (ref 105, paragraphs [0210], [0219]-[0222]); and,
iii. passing the resulting radiation through a second pinhole (refs 205, 220, paragraphs [0210], [0219]-[0222]);
wherein the beamformed radiation is confined to a narrow angular range via reflection and absorption of rays outside of that range (paragraphs [0431]-[0433]).
Regarding claim 19, Haguet discloses wherein the beamforming, comprises the steps of:
i. passing electromagnetic radiation from an emitter through an absorptive beam emitter separation layer (refs 65, 75, paragraph [0134]-[0139]);
ii. passing the resulting radiation from an emitter through a first pinhole (Fig. 15, refs 70, 100, 105, paragraphs [0210], [0219]-[0222]);
iii. passing the resulting radiation through a spacing layer (ref 105, paragraphs [0210], [0219]-[0222]); and,
iv. passing the resulting radiation through a second pinhole (refs 205, 220, paragraphs [0210], [0219]-[0222]);
wherein the beamformed radiation is confined to a narrow angular range via reflection and absorption of rays outside of that range (paragraphs [0431]-[0433]).
Regarding claim 20, Haguet discloses wherein the beamforming, comprises the steps of:
i. passing electromagnetic radiation from an emitter through an absorptive beam emitter separation layer (refs 65, 75, paragraph [0134]-[0139]);
ii. passing the resulting radiation from an emitter through a first pinhole (Fig. 15, refs 70, 100, 105, paragraphs [0210], [0219]-[0222]);
iii. passing the resulting radiation through a spacing layer (ref 105, paragraphs [0210], [0219]-[0222]); and,
iv. passing the resulting radiation through a second pinhole (refs 205, 220, paragraphs [0210], [0219]-[0222]);
wherein the beamformed radiation is confined to a narrow angular range via reflection and absorption of rays outside of that range (paragraphs [0431]-[0433]).
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.
Claims 8-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haguet, and further in view of Seitter et al. (US 2022/0362776 A9), hereinafter “Seitter”.
Regarding claim 8, Haguet teaches a solid-state system for optical measurement of fluid samples (abstract, Figs. 1, 15-16, 22), comprising:
a. a quasi-collimation stack (Fig 1, ref 25, paragraphs [0084]-[0086], [0098]), comprising:
i. a base layer (Fig. 1, ref 50, paragraph [0086]);
ii. one or more electromagnetic emitters (200) in fixed positions on the base layer (ref 40, paragraph [0086]);
iii. a first electromagnetic radiation reflection and selection layer (102) covering the one or more emitters (200), comprising a material containing one or more electromagnetically transparent pinholes (113) in alignment with each emitter to form an emitter-pinhole pairing (Fig. 15, refs 70, 100, 105, paragraphs [0210], [0219]-[0222]);
iv. a spacing layer (103) covering the first selection layer, comprising an optically absorbent or black body material and containing, for each emitter-pinhole pairing, a channel in optical alignment therewith (ref 105, paragraphs [0210], [0219]-[0222]);
v. a second electromagnetic radiation reflection and selection layer (104) configured to cover the spacing layer (103), comprising a material containing, for each channel in the spacing layer, an electromagnetically transparent pinhole (110) in optical alignment therewith (refs 205, 220, paragraphs [0210], [0219]-[0222]); and,
vi. a top layer (105) (ref 35, paragraph [0287]);
b. a sample-retaining component (505), configured to accept one or more fluid samples or a vessel comprising one or more fluid samples (ref 20, paragraphs [0389]-[0392]);
c. an optical detection system (300), comprising one or more optical receptors (301) (ref 185, paragraphs [0338]-[0346]); and,
d. an emitter-detector coupling assembly (500) (Fig. 1, paragraphs [0337]-[0343]);
wherein:
each receptor (301) is operable to detect the electromagnetic radiation from at least one of the emitters (200) (paragraphs [0343]-[0348]);
the sample-retaining component (505) places or can be configured to place the one or more fluid samples in optical alignment with at least one emitter's radiation, such that the radiation will pass through the one or more samples (as shown in Fig. 1, paragraphs [0337]-[0348]); and,
the coupling assembly (500) durably aligns, temporarily or permanently, the quasi-collimation stack, sample-retaining component, (505) and optical detection system, such that at least one of the emitter's emissions is in optical alignment with at least one sample and whose emissions pass through the sample to at least one the receptor (as shown in Fig. 1, paragraphs [0343]-[0348]);.
Haguet is silent regarding the emitter-detector coupling assembly (500) comprising a rigid frame or a series of interlocking or semi-permanently coupled parts
However, Seitter teaches a well-plate reader (abstract, Figs 1, 2, 5, 6) including a emitter-detector coupling assembly (500) comprising a rigid frame or a series of interlocking or semi-permanently coupled parts (paragraphs [0043], [0047]-[0054]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the device of Haguet with the teaching of Seitter by including emitter-detector coupling assembly (500) comprising a rigid frame or a series of interlocking or semi-permanently coupled parts in order to prevent misalignment of the elements, paragraphs [0056]-[0057].
Regarding claim 9, Haguet teaches wherein the quasi-collimation stack, further comprises: vii. an absorption layer (101) located between the base layer and the first selection layer (102) and containing an absorption column for each emitter present, each column being configured to circumscribe the corresponding emitter (refs 65,75 paragraph [0134]-[0139]).
Regarding claim 10, Haguet teaches wherein there are the same number of emitters, first selection layer pinholes, spacing layer, second selection layer pinholes, and optical receptors (Fig 1, etc. shows a 1 to 1 correspondence).
Regarding claim 11, Haguet teaches wherein the pinholes of the first and second electromagnetic reflection and selection layers are less than or equal to two millimeters in diameter and the thickness of the selection layers is less than or equal to five hundred micrometers (paragraphs [0180], [0215]-[0218], [0252], [0255], [0262]).
Regarding claim 12, Haguet is silent regarding wherein the coupling assembly (500) comprises a single rigid case configured to block interfering electromagnetic emissions from outside of the frame or coupled parts, but which contains an opening for a sample or samples to be inserted.
However, Seitter teaches wherein the coupling assembly (500) comprises a single rigid case configured to block interfering electromagnetic emissions from outside of the frame or coupled parts, but which contains an opening for a sample or samples to be inserted (paragraphs [0043], [0047]-[0054]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the device of Haguet with the teaching of Seitter by including wherein the coupling assembly (500) comprises a single rigid case configured to block interfering electromagnetic emissions from outside of the frame or coupled parts, but which contains an opening for a sample or samples to be inserted in order to prevent misalignment of the elements, paragraphs [0056]-[0057].
Regarding claim 13, Haguet is silent regarding wherein the coupling assembly comprises two rigid cases configured to couple and decouple with each other such that the one or more emitters and one or more optical receptors are in optical alignment when the cases are coupled.
However, Seitter teaches wherein the coupling assembly comprises two rigid cases configured to couple and decouple with each other such that the one or more emitters and one or more optical receptors are in optical alignment when the cases are coupled (Figs, 1, 2A-B, 4, 6A-B, Refs 4, 5, 6, 10, paragraphs [0043], [0047]-[0054]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the device of Haguet with the teaching of Seitter by including wherein the coupling assembly comprises two rigid cases configured to couple and decouple with each other such that the one or more emitters and one or more optical receptors are in optical alignment when the cases are coupled in order to prevent misalignment of the elements, paragraphs [0056]-[0057].
Regarding claim 14, Haguet is silent regarding wherein one case contains the quasi-collimation stack and one case contains the optical detection system and when coupled they define the sample-retaining component (505).
However, Seitter teaches wherein one case contains the quasi-collimation stack and one case contains the optical detection system and when coupled they define the sample-retaining component (505). (Figs, 1, 2A-B, 4, 6A-B, Refs 4, 5, 6, 10, paragraphs [0043], [0051]-[0057]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the device of Haguet with the teaching of Seitter by including wherein one case contains the quasi-collimation stack and one case contains the optical detection system and when coupled they define the sample-retaining component (505) in order to prevent misalignment of the elements, paragraphs [0056]-[0057].
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Papin (US 9885652) teaches a conventional multi-well plate for optical analysis and appears to render obvious at least claim 1.
Acharya (US 2023/0273119) teaches a conventional multi-well plate for optical analysis and appears to render obvious at least claim 1.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DOMINIC J BOLOGNA whose telephone number is (571)272-9282. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30am-3:30pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Kara Geisel can be reached at (571) 272-2416. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/DOMINIC J BOLOGNA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2877