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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “automated switching module” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required:
“automated switching module” in in claims 1-7, 9-13, and 15-17.
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 limitations are:
“automated switching module” in claims 1-7, 9-13, and 15-17. Here, module is a generic placeholder (prong 1), modified by the function “configured to receive a signal that induces the automated switching module to switch between (i) a first state that directs emissions from the interrogation site to the first optical pathway or a second state that directs emissions from the interrogation site to the second optical pathway and (ii) the other of the first state and the second state” (prong 2) and not modified by sufficient structure to perform the claimed function (prong 3). Specifically, the claimed section which are not sufficient structure to perform the function of switching emissions between two optical pathways. The automated switching module is a combination of the switching element 230 ([0027]) and the controller 250 ([0029]).
“switching mechanism” in claim 7. Here, mechanism is a generic placeholder (prong 1), modified by the function “the switching mechanism is configured to: direct emissions to the second detector via the second optical pathway and away from the first detector when the automated switching module is in the second state; and to direct emissions to the first detector via the first optical pathway and away from the second detector when the automated switching module is in the first state” (prong 2) and not modified by sufficient structure to perform the claimed function (prong 3). Specifically, the claimed section which are not sufficient structure to perform the function of switching emissions between two optical pathways. The switching mechanism is a mirror, a Pockels cell, a beam splitter, or a dual focus diffractive optical element ([0076]).
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 § 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.
Claims 1, 4-10, 13-17, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sharpe et al. (US Pub 2019/0360912 A1)(hereinafter, “Sharpe”) in view of Marks et al. (US Pub 2018/0038784 A1)(hereinafter, “Marks”).
Regarding claim 1, Sharpe teaches a light detection system (discloses particle processing systems 100i and 100i′ with detection electronics 900 and detector arrays 800, [0179]), comprising:
a first optical pathway configured to direct emissions from an interrogation site(155, “the signal 505 emanating from interrogation site 155a”, [0179]) to a first detector(teaches multiple optical pathways can direct emissions to different detectors depending on which microfluidic channel is being interrogated, [0168], “a single detector associated one-to-one with an interrogation site or microfluidic flow channel”, [0174]);
a second optical pathway configured to direct emissions from the interrogation site(155a) to a second detector(teaches multiple optical pathways can direct emissions to different detectors depending on which microfluidic channel is being interrogated, [0168], “secondary signals 505′ from the detection plane 150 may be detected by a secondary detector 810b”, [0175]); and
a switching module (detection switch 845, pulse generator 340 and modulation controller 930) configured to receive a signal that induces the switching module to switch between (i) a first state that directs emissions from the interrogation site to the first optical pathway or a second state that directs emissions from the interrogation site to the second optical pathway (discloses the pulse generator 340 and the modulation controller 930 work together to control when the emissions are sent to the detectors and which interrogation site is illuminated at specific times based on the timing of the pulses, “a pulse generator 340 controls the triggering pulses supplied to the radiation sources 210a, 210b, 201c, etc. and also controls pulses that switch that activates the detection electronics 900”, [0179]) and (ii) the other of the first state(MI1 pulse) and the second state (MI2 pulse, “the modulation controller 930 modulates the radiation beam 215 at a single frequency f1 for all interrogation sites…The trigger delay between an interrogation beam 215 illuminating the first channel and then an interrogation beam 215 illuminating the second channel is shown as Δt′,” [0168]).
Sharpe dose not explicitly disclose automated optical switching elements.
Marks teaches the automated optical switching elements (discloses the use of Pockels cells, beam dumps, shutters to dynamically control the direction of light, [0601]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date to integrate the automated optical switching elements of Marks to Sharpe to enhance real-time control over the light paths, improving system efficiency and accuracy([0779]).
Regarding claim 4, Sharpe teaches wherein the switching module (detection switch 845, pulse generator 340 and modulation controller 930) switches between one of the first and second state and the other of the first state and the second state in accordance with a schedule (discloses uses a pulse generator to control the timing of pulses sent to both the radiation sources and the detection electronics, the timing of the pulses inherently determines when each detector is activated or gated, [0179]).
Sharpe dose not explicitly disclose automated optical switching elements.
Marks teaches the automated optical switching elements (discloses the use of Pockels cells, beam dumps, shutters to dynamically control the direction of light, [0601]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date to integrate the automated optical switching elements of Marks to Sharpe to enhance real-time control over the light paths, improving system efficiency and accuracy([0779]).
Regarding claim 5, Sharpe teaches wherein the schedule comprises a predefined time interval (the pulse generator inherently implements a scheduled, time based switching of detectors, “a pulse generator 340 controls the triggering pulses supplied to the radiation sources 210a, 210b, 201c, etc. and also controls pulses that switch that activates the detection electronics 900”, [0179]), and the switching module (detection switch 845, pulse generator 340 and modulation controller 930) is configured to switch between one of the first and second state and the other of the first state and the second state upon expiration of the predefined time interval (discloses uses a pulse generator to control the timing of pulses sent to both the radiation sources and the detection electronics, the timing of the pulses inherently determines when each detector is activated or gated,[0179]]).
Sharpe dose not explicitly disclose automated optical switching elements.
Marks teaches the automated optical switching elements (discloses the use of Pockels cells, beam dumps, shutters to dynamically control the direction of light, [0601]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date to integrate the automated optical switching elements of Marks to Sharpe to enhance real-time control over the light paths, improving system efficiency and accuracy([0779]).
Regarding claim 6, Sharpe fails to teach further comprising a scatter detector configured to detect scattered light from the interrogation site, and wherein the automated switching module switches between one of the first and second state and the other of the first state and the second state in response to a level of scattered light detected by the scatter detector.
Marks teaches the automated optical switching elements (discloses the use of Pockels cells, beam dumps, shutters to dynamically control the direction of light, [0601]) and further comprising a scatter detector(5218, [0601]) configured to detect scattered light from the interrogation site (the analysis area 5210, analyte detectors that measure fluorescence inherently detect forward and/or side scattered light, [0601]), and wherein the automated switching module switches between one of the first and second state and the other of the first state and the second state in response to a level of scattered light detected by the scatter detector(discloses the computing devices 5220 a/b control shutters/Pockels cells based on detector signals, [0601]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date to integrate the automated optical switching elements and a scatter detector of Marks to Sharpe to enhance real-time control over the light paths, improving system efficiency and accuracy([0779]).
Regarding claim 7, Sharpe teaches wherein the switching module (detection switch 845, pulse generator 340 and modulation controller 930), two detectors (multiple detectors, [0180]) and the first state (MI1 pulse) and the second state (MI2 pulse, “the modulation controller 930 modulates the radiation beam 215 at a single frequency f1 for all interrogation sites…The trigger delay between an interrogation beam 215 illuminating the first channel and then an interrogation beam 215 illuminating the second channel is shown as Δt′,” [0168]).
Sharpe fails to disclose a switching mechanism is configured to : direct emissions to the optical pathway and away from the detector; and to direct emissions to the detector via the optical pathway and away from the detector when the automated switching module is in the first state.
Marks teaches the automated optical switching elements (discloses the use of Pockels cells, beam dumps, shutters to dynamically control the direction of light, [0601]) is configured to: direct emissions to the optical pathway and away from the detector; and to direct emissions to the detector via the optical pathway and away from the detector when the automated switching module is in the first state. (discloses optical elements that can route light along certain paths while blocking other, [0601]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date to integrate the Pockels cells of Marks to Sharpe to enhance real-time control over the light paths, improving system efficiency and accuracy([0779]).
Regarding claim 8, Sharpe fails to disclose wherein the switching mechanism further comprises a mirror, a Pockels cell, a beam splitter, or a dual focus diffractive optical element.
Marks teaches wherein the switching mechanism further comprises a mirror, a Pockels cell (discloses the use of Pockels cells, beam dumps, shutters to dynamically control the direction of light, [0601]), a beam splitter, or a dual focus diffractive optical element.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date to integrate the Pockels cells of Marks to Sharpe to enhance real-time control over the light paths, improving system efficiency and accuracy([0779]).
Regarding claim 9, Sharpe teaches wherein the switching module (detection switch 845, pulse generator 340 and modulation controller 930) is further configured to cause the first detector to collect emissions during the first state(MI1 pulse, discloses the pulse generator 340 sends a pulse to radiation source 210a and simultaneously the detection switch 845 gates the corresponding detector,[0179]), and to cause the second detector to collect emissions during the second state (MI2 pulse, [0179-0180]).
Sharpe dose not explicitly disclose automated optical switching elements.
Marks teaches the automated optical switching elements (discloses the use of Pockels cells, beam dumps, shutters to dynamically control the direction of light, [0601]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date to integrate the automated optical switching elements of Marks to Sharpe to enhance real-time control over the light paths, improving system efficiency and accuracy([0779]).
Regarding claim 10, Sharpe teaches a light detection system (discloses particle processing systems 100i and 100i′ with detection electronics 900 and detector arrays 800, [0179]), comprising:
a first optical pathway configured to direct emissions from an interrogation site (155, “the signal 505 emanating from interrogation site 155a”, [0179]) to a first detector(teaches multiple optical pathways can direct emissions to different detectors depending on which microfluidic channel is being interrogated, [0168], “a single detector associated one-to-one with an interrogation site or microfluidic flow channel”, [0174]);
a second optical pathway configured to direct emissions from the interrogation site (155a) to a second detector (teaches multiple optical pathways can direct emissions to different detectors depending on which microfluidic channel is being interrogated, [0168], “secondary signals 505′ from the detection plane 150 may be detected by a secondary detector 810b”, [0175]); and
a switching module (detection switch 845, pulse generator 340 and modulation controller 930) configured to receive a signal that induces the switching module to switch between (i) a first state in which the first detector collects emissions and the second detector does not collect emissions (MI1 pulse, discloses the pulse generator 340 sends a pulse to radiation source 210a and simultaneously the detection switch 845 gates the corresponding detector,[0179]) or a second state in the second detector collects emissions and the first detector does not collect emissions and (ii) the other of the first state (MI1 pulse) and the second state (MI2 pulse, “the modulation controller 930 modulates the radiation beam 215 at a single frequency f1 for all interrogation sites…The trigger delay between an interrogation beam 215 illuminating the first channel and then an interrogation beam 215 illuminating the second channel is shown as Δt′,” [0168]).
Sharpe dose not explicitly disclose automated optical switching elements.
Marks teaches the automated optical switching elements (discloses the use of Pockels cells, beam dumps, shutters to dynamically control the direction of light, [0601]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date to integrate the automated optical switching elements of Marks to Sharpe to enhance real-time control over the light paths, improving system efficiency and accuracy([0779]).
Regarding claim 13, Sharpe teaches wherein the switching module (detection switch 845, pulse generator 340 and modulation controller 930) switches between one of the first and second state and the other of the first state and the second state in accordance with a schedule(discloses uses a pulse generator to control the timing of pulses sent to both the radiation sources and the detection electronics, the timing of the pulses inherently determines when each detector is activated or gated, [0179]).
Sharpe dose not explicitly disclose automated optical switching elements.
Marks teaches the automated optical switching elements (discloses the use of Pockels cells, beam dumps, shutters to dynamically control the direction of light, [0601]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date to integrate the automated optical switching elements of Marks to Sharpe to enhance real-time control over the light paths, improving system efficiency and accuracy([0779]).
Regarding claim 14, Sharpe teaches wherein the schedule comprises a predefined time interval(the pulse generator inherently implements a scheduled, time based switching of detectors, “a pulse generator 340 controls the triggering pulses supplied to the radiation sources 210a, 210b, 201c, etc. and also controls pulses that switch that activates the detection electronics 900”, [0179]).
Sharpe dose not explicitly disclose automated optical switching elements.
Marks teaches the automated optical switching elements (discloses the use of Pockels cells, beam dumps, shutters to dynamically control the direction of light, [0601]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date to integrate the automated optical switching elements of Marks to Sharpe to enhance real-time control over the light paths, improving system efficiency and accuracy([0779]).
Regarding claim 15, Sharpe teaches wherein the switching module(detection switch 845, pulse generator 340 and modulation controller 930) is configured to switch between one of the first and second state and the other of the first state and the second state upon expiration of the predefined time interval (discloses uses a pulse generator to control the timing of pulses sent to both the radiation sources and the detection electronics, the timing of the pulses inherently determines when each detector is activated or gated,[0179]]).
Sharpe dose not explicitly disclose automated optical switching elements.
Marks teaches the automated optical switching elements (discloses the use of Pockels cells, beam dumps, shutters to dynamically control the direction of light, [0601]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date to integrate the automated optical switching elements of Marks to Sharpe to enhance real-time control over the light paths, improving system efficiency and accuracy([0779]).
Regarding claim 16, Sharpe fails to teach further comprising a scatter detector configured to detect scattered light from the interrogation site, and wherein the automated switching module switches between one of the first and second state and the other of the first state and the second state in response to a level of scattered light detected by the scatter detector.
Marks teaches the automated optical switching elements (discloses the use of Pockels cells, beam dumps, shutters to dynamically control the direction of light, [0601]) and further comprising a scatter detector(5218, [0601]) configured to detect scattered light from the interrogation site (the analysis area 5210, analyte detectors that measure fluorescence inherently detect forward and/or side scattered light, [0601]), and wherein the automated switching module switches between one of the first and second state and the other of the first state and the second state in response to a level of scattered light detected by the scatter detector(discloses the computing devices 5220 a/b control shutters/Pockels cells based on detector signals, [0601]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date to integrate the automated optical switching elements and a scatter detector of Marks to Sharpe to enhance real-time control over the light paths, improving system efficiency and accuracy([0779]).
Regarding claim 17, Sharpe teaches a method, comprising:
causing a switching module (detection switch 845, pulse generator 340 and modulation controller 930) to switch between (i) a first state that directs emissions from an interrogation site along a first optical pathway to first detector or a second state that directs emissions from the interrogation site along a second optical pathway to a second detector (discloses the pulse generator 340 and the modulation controller 930 work together to control when the emissions are sent to the detectors and which interrogation site is illuminated at specific times based on the timing of the pulses, “a pulse generator 340 controls the triggering pulses supplied to the radiation sources 210a, 210b, 201c, etc. and also controls pulses that switch that activates the detection electronics 900”, [0179]) and (ii) the other of the first state (MI1 pulse) and the second state (MI2 pulse, “the modulation controller 930 modulates the radiation beam 215 at a single frequency f1 for all interrogation sites…The trigger delay between an interrogation beam 215 illuminating the first channel and then an interrogation beam 215 illuminating the second channel is shown as Δt′,” [0168]); and
collecting the emissions(discloses the pulse generator 340 sends a pulse to radiation source 210a and simultaneously the detection switch 845 gates the corresponding detector,[ [0179-0180]).
Sharpe dose not explicitly disclose automated optical switching elements.
Marks teaches the automated optical switching elements (discloses the use of Pockels cells, beam dumps, shutters to dynamically control the direction of light, [0601]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date to integrate the automated optical switching elements of Marks to Sharpe to enhance real-time control over the light paths, improving system efficiency and accuracy ([0779]).
Regarding claim 19, Sharpe fails to teach wherein the causing is in response to detection of a level of scattered light from the interrogation site.
Marks teaches wherein the causing is in response to detection of a level of scattered light (analyte detectors that measure fluorescence inherently detect forward and/or side scattered light, [0601]) from the interrogation site (the analysis area 5210, discloses the computing devices 5220 a/b control shutters/Pockels cells based on detector signals, [0601])..
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date to integrate the automated optical switching elements and a scatter detector of Marks to Sharpe to enhance real-time control over the light paths, improving system efficiency and accuracy([0779]).
Claims 2-3, 11-12, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sharpe et al. (US Pub 2019/0360912A1)(hereinafter, “Sharpe”) in view of Marks et al. (US Pub 2018/0038784 A1)(hereinafter, “Marks”), further in view of Mai et al. (“Flow cytometry visualization and real-time processing with a CMOS SPAD array and high-speed hardware implementation algorithm”, 2020)(hereinafter, “Mai”).
Regarding claim 2, Sharpe teaches wherein the switching module (detection switch 845, pulse generator 340 and modulation controller 930) switches between one of the first and second state and the other of the second state (“the modulation controller 930 modulates the radiation beam 215 at a single frequency f1 for all interrogation sites…The trigger delay between an interrogation beam 215 illuminating the first channel and then an interrogation beam 215 illuminating the second channel is shown as Δt′,” [0168]).
Marks teaches the automated optical switching elements (discloses the use of Pockels cells, beam dumps, shutters to dynamically control the direction of light, [0601]).
Sharpe in view of Marks fail to explicitly disclose at least one of the first and second detectors being in a readout mode (Sharpe uses pulsed interrogation beams and synchronizes the signal detection electronics with theses pulses, this indicates that detectors are activated only during the times when the interrogation beam is pulsed, [0179]).
Mai teaches at least one of the first and second detectors being in a readout mode (discloses the use of the SPAD array, [section 3.2]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date to incorporate the SPAD array of Mai to Sharpe in view of Marks to improve high-speed, high-resolution data collection and real-time processing, leading to increased throughput ([abstract]).
Regarding claim 3, Sharpe teaches wherein the switching module (detection switch 845, pulse generator 340 and modulation controller 930) is configured to switch to the second state when the first detector is in the readout mode or switch to the first state when the second detector is in the readout mode(uses pulsed interrogation beams and synchronizes the signal detection electronics with theses pulses, this indicates that detectors are activated only during the times when the interrogation beam is pulsed, [0179]).
Marks teaches the automated optical switching elements (discloses the use of Pockels cells, beam dumps, shutters to dynamically control the direction of light, [0601]).
Sharpe in view of Marks fail to explicitly disclose switch to the second state when the first detector is in the readout mode or switch to the first state when the second detector is in the readout mode (Sharpe uses pulsed interrogation beams and synchronizes the signal detection electronics with theses pulses, this indicates that detectors are activated only during the times when the interrogation beam is pulsed, [0179]).
Mai teaches at least one of the first and second detectors being in a readout mode (discloses the use of the SPAD array, [section 3.2]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date to incorporate the SPAD array of Mai to Sharpe in view of Marks to improve high-speed, high-resolution data collection and real-time processing, leading to increased throughput ([abstract]).
Regarding claim 11, Sharpe teaches wherein the switching module (detection switch 845, pulse generator 340 and modulation controller 930) switches between one of the first and second state (“the modulation controller 930 modulates the radiation beam 215 at a single frequency f1 for all interrogation sites…The trigger delay between an interrogation beam 215 illuminating the first channel and then an interrogation beam 215 illuminating the second channel is shown as Δt′,” [0168]).
Marks teaches the automated optical switching elements (discloses the use of Pockels cells, beam dumps, shutters to dynamically control the direction of light, [0601]).
Sharpe in view of Marks fail to explicitly disclose at least one of the first and second detectors being in a readout mode (Sharpe uses pulsed interrogation beams and synchronizes the signal detection electronics with theses pulses, this indicates that detectors are activated only during the times when the interrogation beam is pulsed, [0179]).
Mai teaches at least one of the first and second detectors being in a readout mode (discloses the use of the SPAD array, [section 3.2]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date to incorporate the SPAD array of Mai to Sharpe in view of Marks to improve high-speed, high-resolution data collection and real-time processing, leading to increased throughput ([abstract]).
Regarding claim 12, Sharpe teaches wherein the switching module (detection switch 845, pulse generator 340 and modulation controller 930) is configured to convert to the second state when the first detector is in the readout mode or convert to the first state when the second detector is in the readout mode(uses pulsed interrogation beams and synchronizes the signal detection electronics with theses pulses, this indicates that detectors are activated only during the times when the interrogation beam is pulsed, [0179]).
Marks teaches the automated optical switching elements (discloses the use of Pockels cells, beam dumps, shutters to dynamically control the direction of light, [0601]).
Sharpe in view of Marks fail to explicitly disclose switch to the second state when the first detector is in the readout mode or switch to the first state when the second detector is in the readout mode (Sharpe uses pulsed interrogation beams and synchronizes the signal detection electronics with theses pulses, this indicates that detectors are activated only during the times when the interrogation beam is pulsed, [0179]).
Mai teaches at least one of the first and second detectors being in a readout mode (discloses the use of the SPAD array, [section 3.2]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date to incorporate the SPAD array of Mai to Sharpe in view of Marks to improve high-speed, high-resolution data collection and real-time processing, leading to increased throughput ([abstract]).
Regarding claim 18, Sharpe in view of Marks teaches wherein the causing is in response to at least one of the first and second detectors being in a readout mode(uses pulsed interrogation beams and synchronizes the signal detection electronics with theses pulses, this indicates that detectors are activated only during the times when the interrogation beam is pulsed, [0179]).
Sharpe in view of Marks fail to explicitly disclose wherein the causing is in response to at least one of the first and second detectors being in a readout mode (Sharpe uses pulsed interrogation beams and synchronizes the signal detection electronics with theses pulses, this indicates that detectors are activated only during the times when the interrogation beam is pulsed, [0179]).
Mai teaches at least one of the first and second detectors being in a readout mode (discloses the use of the SPAD array, [section 3.2]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date to incorporate the SPAD array of Mai to Sharpe in view of Marks to improve high-speed, high-resolution data collection and real-time processing, leading to increased throughput ([abstract]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTINA XING whose telephone number is (571)270-7743. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9AM - 5 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, 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.
/CHRISTINA I XING/Examiner, Art Unit 2877
/Kara E. Geisel/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2877