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 on 13 February 2025 does not fully comply with the requirements of 37 CFR 1.98 because: it lacks a legible copy of each foreign patent and each publication or that portion which caused it to be listed (e.g., FPD Cite No 7). Since the submission appears to be bona fide, applicant is given ONE (1) MONTH from the date of this notice to supply the above mentioned omissions or corrections in the information disclosure statement. NO EXTENSION OF THIS TIME LIMIT MAY BE GRANTED UNDER EITHER 37 CFR 1.136(a) OR (b). Failure to timely comply with this notice will result in the above mentioned information disclosure statement being placed in the application file with the noncomplying information not being considered. See 37 CFR 1.97(i).
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant's cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Objections
Claim(s) 11 is/are objected to because of the following informalities: there appears to be insufficient antecedent basis for a plurality of limitations in claim 11. Appropriate correction is required.
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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 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.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding claims 1, 6, and 11, the phrase “in a case” renders the claims indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention.
Claim 12 recites the limitation “the lens” in line 8. The antecedent basis is unclear.
Claim(s) dependent on the claim(s) discussed above is/are also indefinite for the same reasons.
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 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 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.
Claim(s) 1-10 is/are rejected under U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bowen et al. (US 2018/0119139).
In regard to claim 1 in so far as understood, Bowen et al. disclose an illumination chip for a microscopic imaging apparatus, comprising:
(a) an illumination array structure comprising a substrate and a plurality of illumination units periodically distributed on the substrate (e.g., “… substrate body 102 may be formed from one or more stacked layers. In the illustrated embodiment, the substrate body 102 includes a base layer 112 and a cavity layer 114. The base layer 112 may be, for example, a glass (SiO2) wafer … each of the reaction cavities 106 includes a plurality of nanostructures 116. However, it should be understood that alternative embodiments may include only a single nanostructure … adjacent nanostructures 116 may have a distance 128 therebetween that is configured amplify electromagnetic energy that is confined therebetween. In some embodiments, the resulting amplification in light emissions may be due to a combination of localized surface plasmon resonance and resonant energy transfer processes …” in paragraphs 108, 112, and 115); and
(b) an illumination well disposed on a surface, extending along the plurality of illumination units, of the illumination array structure, wherein the illumination well is divided into a plurality of placement units which are configured to place samples, and each of the plurality of placement units is disposed above a corresponding one of the plurality of illumination units (e.g., “… plurality of reaction sites 106 form a dense array of reaction sites 106 such that the interstitial regions 118 are separated … center-tocenter spacing 119 between adjacent reaction sites 106 may be less than 1000 nm … reaction sites 106 may be part of an array of reaction sites that may include hundreds, thousands, or millions of reaction sites … reaction cavity need not pass completely through one or more layers … cavity layer 114 …” in paragraphs 103, 104, 106, and 108),
wherein each of said illumination units is configured for illumination by a light source to generate surface plasmon structured light to excite fluorescent dyes of samples in corresponding one of said placement units for generating a fluorescence signal (e.g., “… may be illuminated simultaneously, concurrently, or during the same imaging sequence such that a single image detects light emissions from the first ensemble amplifiers and the second ensemble amplifiers … reaction cavities 106 open to the active side 104 such that the reaction cavities 106 are accessible along the active side 104 … active side 104 may also receive an excitation light 108 from a light source (not shown) and/or face an optical component (not shown), such as an objective lens, that detects light emissions 110 from the reaction cavities … excitation light 108 that propagates from an exterior environment and into a reaction cavity 106, wherein the excitation light is absorbed by an emitter (e.g., fluorophore) that is associated with a biological substance … During a protocol in which light emissions are detected by a detector, the light emissions may be generated in response to the excitation light 108 …” in paragraphs 102, 107, 113, and 122).
In regard to claim 2 which is dependent on claim 1, Bowen et al. also disclose a substrate layer disposed on the substrate, wherein the plurality of illumination units are separately disposed in the substrate layer, and the illumination well is disposed on a surface, extending along the plurality of illumination units, of the substrate layer (e.g., “… nanostructures 116 may be distributed evenly or uniformly along the base layer 112 …” in paragraph 110).
In regard to claim 3 which is dependent on claim 2, Bowen et al. also disclose that the substrate layer comprises: a first substrate layer in which the plurality of illumination units are disposed; and a second substrate layer configured to be disposed between an upper surface of the plurality of illumination units extending along the plurality of illumination units and a lower surface of the illumination well in contact with the substrate layer (e.g., “… substrate body 102 may be formed from one or more stacked layers. In the illustrated embodiment, the substrate body 102 includes a base layer 112 and a cavity layer 114. The base layer 112 may be, for example, a glass (SiO2) wafer … each layer may be formed form multiple sub-layers of the same or different materials. Moreover, each layer may include one or more features of different materials located therein or extending therethrough …” in paragraphs 108 and 109).
In regard to claim 4 which is dependent on claim 2, Bowen et al. also disclose that material of the substrate layer comprises silicon dioxide (e.g., “… base layer 112 may be, for example, a glass (SiO2) wafer …” in paragraph 108).
In regard to claim 5 which is dependent on claim 1 and claim 6 which is dependent on claim 5 in so far as understood, Bowen et al. also disclose that at least every two of the plurality of placement units are distributed on two sides of a corresponding one of the plurality of illumination units, respectively, and wherein one of the plurality of placement units is distributed in a symmetrical manner on a left side or a right side of the corresponding one of the plurality of illumination units; wherein in a case where a respective illumination unit of the plurality of illumination units is illuminated by the light source at symmetrical illumination angles, the respective illumination unit is configured to generate the surface plasmon structured light to excite fluorescent dyes of samples in placement units disposed on the left side and the right side of the respective illumination unit (e.g., “… In other embodiments, however, the nanostructures 116 are distributed such that one or more of the nanostructures 116 are located within the interstitial regions 118 (as indicated by phantom lines) …” in paragraph 110).
In regard to claim 7 which is dependent on claim 1, Bowen et al. also disclose that the plurality of illumination units are periodically distributed on the substrate and form regular polygons (e.g., “… only a single nanostructure … square-shaped …” in paragraphs 112 and 157).
In regard to claims 8 and 9 which are dependent on claim 1, Bowen et al. also disclose that each of the plurality of illumination units comprises an illumination pillar, wherein the illumination pillar comprises an illumination cylinder (e.g., “… nanostructures 432 are posts that may be cylindrical …” in paragraph 108).
In regard to claim 10 which is dependent on claim 1, Bowen et al. also disclose that material of the substrate comprises light-transmissive material; and/or material of the plurality of illumination units comprises metal material; and/or material of the illumination well comprises opaque material (e.g., “… nanostructures can comprise any material suitable for use in the methods and compositions described herein, for example, any type of material exhibiting surface plasmon resonance (SPR). In certain preferred embodiments, the nanoparticle comprises a plasmon resonant material. Examples include, but are not limited to, metal nanostructures …” in paragraph 93).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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) 11 and 15-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bowen et al. (US 2018/0119139) in view of Triener et al. (US 2013/0261028) and Chen et al. (Surface plasmon-coupled emission imaging for biological applications, Analytical and Bioanalytical Chemistry Vol. 412 (Published online: April 2020), pp. 6085-6100).
In regard to claim 11 in so far as understood, Bowen et al. disclose a microscopic imaging apparatus, comprising:
(a) the illumination chip for the microscopic imaging apparatus (the cited prior art is applied as in claim 1 above);
(b) a light source configured to illuminate light to the illumination chip (e.g., “… reaction cavities 106 open to the active side 104 such that the reaction cavities 106 are accessible along the active side 104 … active side 104 may also receive an excitation light 108 from a light source (not shown) and/or face an optical component (not shown), such as an objective lens … excitation light 108 that propagates from an exterior environment and into a reaction cavity 106, wherein the excitation light is absorbed by an emitter (e.g., fluorophore) that is associated with a biological substance …” in paragraphs 107 and 113); and
(c) an imaging processing device configured to generate at least two original images according to fluorescence signals generated on the illumination chip by the light (e.g., “… may be illuminated simultaneously, concurrently, or during the same imaging sequence such that a single image detects light emissions from the first ensemble amplifiers and the second ensemble amplifiers … active side 104 may also … face an optical component (not shown), such as an objective lens, that detects light emissions 110 from the reaction cavities … During a protocol in which light emissions are detected by a detector, the light emissions may be generated in response to the excitation light 108 …” in paragraphs 102, 107, and 122),
wherein the illumination chip for the microscopic imaging apparatus comprises:
(d) an illumination array structure comprising a substrate and a plurality of illumination units periodically distributed on the substrate (e.g., “… substrate body 102 may be formed from one or more stacked layers. In the illustrated embodiment, the substrate body 102 includes a base layer 112 and a cavity layer 114. The base layer 112 may be, for example, a glass (SiO2) wafer … each of the reaction cavities 106 includes a plurality of nanostructures 116. However, it should be understood that alternative embodiments may include only a single nanostructure … adjacent nanostructures 116 may have a distance 128 therebetween that is configured amplify electromagnetic energy that is confined therebetween. In some embodiments, the resulting amplification in light emissions may be due to a combination of localized surface plasmon resonance and resonant energy transfer processes …” in paragraphs 108, 112, and 115); and
(e) an illumination well disposed on a surface, extending along the plurality of illumination units, of the illumination array structure, wherein the illumination well is divided into a plurality of placement units which are configured to place samples, and each of the plurality of placement units is disposed above a corresponding one of the plurality of illumination units (e.g., “… plurality of reaction sites 106 form a dense array of reaction sites 106 such that the interstitial regions 118 are separated … center-tocenter spacing 119 between adjacent reaction sites 106 may be less than 1000 nm … reaction sites 106 may be part of an array of reaction sites that may include hundreds, thousands, or millions of reaction sites … reaction cavity need not pass completely through one or more layers … cavity layer 114 …” in paragraphs 103, 104, 106, and 108),
wherein each of said illumination units is configured for illumination by the light source to generate surface plasmon structured light to excite fluorescent dyes of samples in corresponding one of said placement units for generating the fluorescence signals (e.g., “… may be illuminated simultaneously, concurrently, or during the same imaging sequence such that a single image detects light emissions from the first ensemble amplifiers and the second ensemble amplifiers … reaction cavities 106 open to the active side 104 such that the reaction cavities 106 are accessible along the active side 104 … active side 104 may also receive an excitation light 108 from a light source (not shown) and/or face an optical component (not shown), such as an objective lens, that detects light emissions 110 from the reaction cavities … excitation light 108 that propagates from an exterior environment and into a reaction cavity 106, wherein the excitation light is absorbed by an emitter (e.g., fluorophore) that is associated with a biological substance … During a protocol in which light emissions are detected by a detector, the light emissions may be generated in response to the excitation light 108 …” in paragraphs 102, 107, 113, and 122).
Bowen et al. also disclose (paragraph 80) that “… Exemplary systems capable of detecting light emissions from the structured substrates set forth herein are described in U.S. Appl. Publ. Nos. 2012/0270305 A1 and 2013/0261028 A1, each of which is incorporated herein by reference in its entirety …” and thus 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 beam angle control device configured to adjust an illumination angle of the light from the light source to the illumination chip of Bowen et al. (e.g., see “… FIG. 36 illustrates different techniques 701-703 for providing incident light onto a sample 712 … different scan regions 704 and 706 may be spatially offset from each other a distance along a focal plane FP of the objective lens 715 … After illuminating the portion with the first excitation light source, the objective lens and the sample 712 may move relative to one another so that the second excitation light source may illuminate the portion of the sample 712 from the start position to the stop position …” in “incorporated herein by reference in its entirety” “U.S. Appl. Publ. Nos.” “2013/0261028 A1” paragraphs 185 and 188). The apparatus of Bowen et al. lacks an explicit description of details of the “… imaging sequence …” such as superimposition processing on two images generated at different illumination angles to generate a microscopic image. However, “… imaging sequence …” details are known to one of ordinary skill in the art (e.g., see “… surface plasmon-coupled emission (SPCE) … Several reviews and book chapters have discussed the theories, properties, and applications of SPCE [16–21]. In this review, we will focus on the optical imaging techniques based on SPCE … Surface plasmon-coupled emission microscopy (SPCEM), first proposed by Tang et al. [31], is another kind of SPCEi system based on the high-NA objective … Fluorescence emission difference (FED) has been employed in confocal microscopy to improve imaging resolution [61–63]. In FED, a sharp PSF can be achieved by simple subtraction of two images obtained with a solid and hollow illumination pattern, respectively. Therefore, the lateral resolution beyond the diffraction limit could be realized. Interestingly, the PSF of conventional SPCEM is donut-shaped and can be tuned to a solid one with several methods …” on pp. 6085, 6089, and 6090 and “X-Y scanning galvanometer” in “Schematic diagram of the FED-applied confocal SPCEM (reprinted with permission from ref. [66]” Fig. 6a of Chen 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 imaging sequence (e.g., comprising details such as “Fluorescence emission difference (FED)”, in order to achieve “lateral resolution beyond the diffraction limit” “by simple subtraction of two images”) for the unspecified imaging sequence of Bowen et al. 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 imaging sequence (e.g., comprising details such as an imaging processing device configured to generate at least two original images according to fluorescence signals generated on the illumination chip by the light at different illumination angles and perform superimposition processing on the at least two original images to generate a microscopic image) as the unspecified imaging sequence of Bowen et al.
In regard to claim 15 which is dependent on claim 11, the apparatus of Bowen et al. lacks an explicit description of details of the “… imaging sequence …” such as a scanning galvanometer. However, “… imaging sequence …” details are known to one of ordinary skill in the art (e.g., see “… surface plasmon-coupled emission (SPCE) … Several reviews and book chapters have discussed the theories, properties, and applications of SPCE [16–21]. In this review, we will focus on the optical imaging techniques based on SPCE … Surface plasmon-coupled emission microscopy (SPCEM), first proposed by Tang et al. [31], is another kind of SPCEi system based on the high-NA objective … Fluorescence emission difference (FED) has been employed in confocal microscopy to improve imaging resolution [61–63]. In FED, a sharp PSF can be achieved by simple subtraction of two images obtained with a solid and hollow illumination pattern, respectively. Therefore, the lateral resolution beyond the diffraction limit could be realized. Interestingly, the PSF of conventional SPCEM is donut-shaped and can be tuned to a solid one with several methods …” on pp. 6085, 6089, and 6090 and “X-Y scanning galvanometer” in “Schematic diagram of the FED-applied confocal SPCEM (reprinted with permission from ref. [66]” Fig. 6a of Chen 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 imaging sequence (e.g., comprising details such as “Fluorescence emission difference (FED)”, in order to achieve “lateral resolution beyond the diffraction limit” “by simple subtraction of two images”) for the unspecified imaging sequence of Bowen et al. 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 imaging sequence (e.g., comprising details such as a scanning galvanometer) as the unspecified imaging sequence of Bowen et al.
In regard to claim 16 which is dependent on claim 11, Bowen et al. also disclose that the light source comprises any one or more of a laser light source, a light-emitting diode (LED) light source, or a mercury-vapor lamp (e.g., “… Two excitation sources are shown, including a green LED (LEDG) and a red LED (LEDR) …” in paragraph 228).
In regard to claim 17, the cited prior art is applied as in claim 1 above. Bowen et al. disclose a microscopic imaging method, comprising acquiring at least two original images, wherein the at least two original images are generated through fluorescent signals generated by illuminating the illumination chip (e.g., “… may be illuminated simultaneously, concurrently, or during the same imaging sequence such that a single image detects light emissions from the first ensemble amplifiers and the second ensemble amplifiers … active side 104 may also … face an optical component (not shown), such as an objective lens, that detects light emissions 110 from the reaction cavities … During a protocol in which light emissions are detected by a detector, the light emissions may be generated in response to the excitation light 108 …” in paragraphs 102, 107, and 122). The method of Bowen et al. lacks an explicit description of details of the “… imaging sequence …” such as superimposition processing on two images generated at different illumination angles to generate a microscopic image. However, “… imaging sequence …” details are known to one of ordinary skill in the art (e.g., see “… surface plasmon-coupled emission (SPCE) … Several reviews and book chapters have discussed the theories, properties, and applications of SPCE [16–21]. In this review, we will focus on the optical imaging techniques based on SPCE … Surface plasmon-coupled emission microscopy (SPCEM), first proposed by Tang et al. [31], is another kind of SPCEi system based on the high-NA objective … Fluorescence emission difference (FED) has been employed in confocal microscopy to improve imaging resolution [61–63]. In FED, a sharp PSF can be achieved by simple subtraction of two images obtained with a solid and hollow illumination pattern, respectively. Therefore, the lateral resolution beyond the diffraction limit could be realized. Interestingly, the PSF of conventional SPCEM is donut-shaped and can be tuned to a solid one with several methods …” on pp. 6085, 6089, and 6090 of Chen 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 imaging sequence (e.g., comprising details such as “Fluorescence emission difference (FED)”, in order to achieve “lateral resolution beyond the diffraction limit” “by simple subtraction of two images”) for the unspecified imaging sequence of Bowen et al. 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 imaging sequence (e.g., comprising details such the at least two original images are generated through fluorescent signals generated by illuminating the illumination chip at different illumination angles, and performing superimposition processing on the at least two original images to generate a microscopic image) as the unspecified imaging sequence of Bowen et al.
In regard to claim 18, the cited prior art is applied as in claim 17 above. Bowen et al. also disclose (paragraph 80) that “… Exemplary systems capable of detecting light emissions from the structured substrates set forth herein are described in U.S. Appl. Publ. Nos. 2012/0270305 A1 and 2013/0261028 A1, each of which is incorporated herein by reference in its entirety …” and thus it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide an electronic device, comprising a memory, a processor, and a computer program stored in the memory and executable by the processor, wherein the processor, when executing the computer program, performs the microscopic imaging method of Bowen et al. (e.g., see “… system controller 102 executes a set of instructions that are stored in one or more storage elements, memories, or modules in order to at least one of obtain and analyze detection data …” in “incorporated herein by reference in its entirety” “U.S. Appl. Publ. Nos.” “2013/0261028 A1” paragraph 104).
In regard to claim 19, the cited prior art is applied as in claim 17 above. Bowen et al. also disclose (paragraph 80) that “… Exemplary systems capable of detecting light emissions from the structured substrates set forth herein are described in U.S. Appl. Publ. Nos. 2012/0270305 A1 and 2013/0261028 A1, each of which is incorporated herein by reference in its entirety …” and thus 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 non-transitory computer-readable medium storing computer instructions which, when executed by a processor, cause the processor to perform the microscopic imaging method of Bowen et al. (e.g., see “… system controller 102 executes a set of instructions that are stored in one or more storage elements, memories, or modules in order to at least one of obtain and analyze detection data …” in “incorporated herein by reference in its entirety” “U.S. Appl. Publ. Nos.” “2013/0261028 A1” paragraph 104).
In regard to claim 20 which is dependent on claim 11, Bowen et al. also disclose that the illumination chip further comprises a substrate layer disposed on the substrate, wherein the plurality of illumination units are separately disposed in the substrate layer, and the illumination well is disposed on a surface, extending along the plurality of illumination units, of the substrate layer (e.g., “… nanostructures 116 may be distributed evenly or uniformly along the base layer 112 …” in paragraph 110).
Claim(s) 12 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bowen et al. in view of Triener et al. and Chen et al. as applied to claim(s) 11 above, and further in view of Sasaki et al. (US 2010/0294949).
In regard to claim 12 which is dependent on claim 11 in so far as understood, Bowen et al. also disclose a collimating lens, a reflector, a dichroic mirror, an objective lens, and a tube lens, wherein the collimating lens is configured to receive the light illuminated by the light source and emit collimated light to the reflector, the reflector is configured to reflect the collimated light, the dichroic mirror is configured to reflect the received light to the objective lens, the objective lens is configured to illuminate emergent light at a third angle of emergence to the illumination chip to generate the fluorescence signals, the objective lens is further configured to collect the fluorescence signals generated on the illumination chip and transmit the fluorescence signals to the tube lens through the dichroic mirror, and the tube lens is configured to converge the received fluorescence signals onto the imaging processing device (e.g., “… Excitation light from each passes through a green LED collector lens (L6) … LED fold mirror (M1) reflects the green excitation radiation … excitation/ emission dichroic (F4) which reflects the green excitation radiation through a stationary objective lens group (L3) and a translating objective lens group (L4) to the surface of a flow cell (FC) … Emission from the flow cell (FC) surface passes back through the translating objective lens group (L4), and then through the stationary objective lens group (L3) to the excitation/emission dichroic (F4) which passes the emission radiation to the emission projection les group (L1) through to the emission filter and then to the CMOS image sensor (S1) …” in paragraph 228). The apparatus of Bowen et al. lacks an explicit description of details of the “… imaging sequence …” such as the beam angle control device is configured to receive the light from the reflector and emit emergent light at a first angle of emergence to a lens; the lens is configured to emit converging light to the dichroic mirror. However, “… imaging sequence …” details are known to one of ordinary skill in the art (e.g., see “… pupil projection lens 16 that focuses the laser light reflected by the X-Y galvanometer mirror 14 … nondescan-detection excitation DM 56 reflects the laser light from the image forming lens 52 so as to cause the laser light to enter the objective lens 92, and transmits the fluorescence from the sample 1 so as to separate the laser light and the fluorescence from each other …” in paragraphs 63 and 66 of Sasaki 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 imaging sequence (e.g., comprising details such as “pupil projection lens 16 that focuses the laser light reflected by the X-Y galvanometer mirror 14” onto “nondescan-detection excitation DM 56”, in order “to separate the laser light and the fluorescence from each other”) for the unspecified imaging sequence of Bowen et al. 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 imaging sequence (e.g., comprising details such the beam angle control device is configured to receive the light from the reflector and emit emergent light at a first angle of emergence to a lens; the lens is configured to emit converging light to the dichroic mirror) as the unspecified imaging sequence of Bowen et al.
In regard to claim 13 which is dependent on claim 11, Bowen et al. also disclose that further comprising a collimating lens, a first reflector, an objective lens, and a tube lens, wherein the collimating lens is configured to receive the light illuminated by the light source and emit collimated light to the first reflector, the first reflector is configured to reflect the light, the objective lens is configured to collect the fluorescence signals generated on the illumination chip, and the tube lens is configured to converge the fluorescence signals collected by the objective lens onto the imaging processing device (e.g., “… Excitation light from each passes through a green LED collector lens (L6) … LED fold mirror (M1) reflects the green excitation radiation … excitation/ emission dichroic (F4) which reflects the green excitation radiation through a stationary objective lens group (L3) and a translating objective lens group (L4) to the surface of a flow cell (FC) … Emission from the flow cell (FC) surface passes back through the translating objective lens group (L4), and then through the stationary objective lens group (L3) to the excitation/emission dichroic (F4) which passes the emission radiation to the emission projection les group (L1) through to the emission filter and then to the CMOS image sensor (S1) …” in paragraph 228). The apparatus of Bowen et al. lacks an explicit description of details of the “… imaging sequence …” such as beam angle control device configured to receive the light from the first reflector and emit emergent light at a first angle of emergence to a first converging lens, a second reflector is configured to reflect converging light converged by the first converging lens to a second converging lens, the second converging lens is configured to illuminate emergent light at a second angle of emergence to the illumination chip. However, “… imaging sequence …” details are known to one of ordinary skill in the art (e.g., see “… pupil projection lens 16 that focuses the laser light reflected by the X-Y galvanometer mirror 14 … nondescan-detection excitation DM 56 reflects the laser light from the image forming lens 52 so as to cause the laser light to enter the objective lens 92, and transmits the fluorescence from the sample 1 so as to separate the laser light and the fluorescence from each other … transmission observation optical system 190 … Sections having the same configuration as those in the scanning microscope device 100 according to the first embodiment and the modification thereof will be given the same reference numerals, and descriptions of those sections will be omitted …” in paragraphs 63, 66, 111, and 112 of Sasaki 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 imaging sequence (e.g., comprising details such as “pupil projection lens 16 that focuses the laser light reflected by the X-Y galvanometer mirror 14” onto “nondescan-detection excitation DM 56”, in order “to separate the laser light and the fluorescence from each other” in a “transmission observation” configuration) for the unspecified imaging sequence of Bowen et al. 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 imaging sequence (e.g., comprising details such beam angle control device configured to receive the light from the first reflector and emit emergent light at a first angle of emergence to a first converging lens, a second reflector is configured to reflect converging light converged by the first converging lens to a second converging lens, the second converging lens is configured to illuminate emergent light at a second angle of emergence to the illumination chip) as the unspecified imaging sequence of Bowen et al.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bowen et al. in view of Triener et al. and Chen et al. as applied to claim(s) 11 above, and further in view of Feng et al. (US 2009/0272914).
In regard to claim 14 which is dependent on claim 11, Bowen et al. also disclose (paragraph 240) that “… selectively directing radiation to multiple surfaces of a vessel (e.g. a flow cell) are described, for example, in US Pat. App. Pub. No. 2009/0272914 A1 or U.S. Pat. No. 8,039,817, each of which is incorporated herein by reference …” and thus 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 beam angle control device configured with a <1 ms switching time to set an illumination angle of the light from the light source to the illumination chip of Bowen et al. (e.g., see “… system will typically form and direct excitation and returned radiation simultaneously for imaging … retrobeam will appear on the detector 36 at different points depending on the field angle of the original excitation spot in the objective lens … retrobeam of emitted radiation is at a different wavelength from the excitation beam. Alternatively or additionally, emission signals may be collected sequentially following sequential excitation at different wavelengths … Depending upon the particular application of the invention, faster rates can also be used including, for example, in terms of the area scanned or otherwise detected, a rate of at least about 0.02 mm2/sec, 0.05 mm2/sec, 0.1 mm2/sec, 1 mm2/sec, 1.5 mm2/sec, 5 mm2/sec, 10 mm2/sec, 50 mm2/sec, 100 mm2/sec, or faster …” in “incorporated herein by reference” “US Pat. App. Pub. No. 2009/0272914 A1” paragraphs 57 and 58).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 2017/0089835 teaches a sensor element for photoluminescence measurements.
US 2018/0122092 teaches a method for image recording.
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