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 .
Status of Claims
The examiner acknowledges the preliminary amendment to the claims. Claims 1-2, 5-7, 11-12, 14, 16, 18, 20-22, 24-25, 31-32, 34, and 36-37 remain pending in the application. Claims 3-4, 8-10, 13, 15, 17, 19, 23, 26-30, 33, 35, and 38 are cancelled.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The listing of references in the specification is not a proper information disclosure statement. 37 CFR 1.98(b) requires a list of all patents, publications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office, and MPEP § 609.04(a) states, "the list may not be incorporated into the specification but must be submitted in a separate paper." Therefore, unless the references have been cited by the examiner on form PTO-892, they have not been considered.
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 23 February 2024 and 10 December 2025 was filed in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements have been considered by the examiner. However, the provided translation of WO 2020/054562 A1 is illegible. The examiner has attached a translated version of WO 2020/054562 A1 for examination purposes.
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
Claims 1-2, 5-7, 11-12, 14, 16, 18, 20-22, 24-25, 31-32, 34, and 36-37 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 1, line 2 recites the limitation “the system” which should be amended to recite “the screening system” to provide proper antecedence in the claim. Claims 2, 5-7, 11-12, 14, 16, 18, and 20 depend on claim 1 and are therefore also objected to.
Regarding claims 2, 5-7, 11-12, 14, 16, 18, and 20, line 1 of each of the claims recites “The system of claim…” which should be amended to recite “The screening system of claim…” to provide proper antecedence in the claims.
Regarding claims 18 and 37, line 4 of each of these claims recites the limitation “to a suitable a detector” which should be amended to recite “to a suitable [[a]] detector” for grammatical purposes.
Regarding claim 21, line 2 recites the limitation “the system” which should be amended to recite “the screening system” to provide proper antecedence in the claim. Claims 22, 24-25, 31-32, 34, and 36-37 depend on claim 21 and are therefore also objected to.
Regarding claims 22, 24-25, 31-32, 34, and 36-37, line 1 of each of the claims recites “The system of claim…” which should be amended to recite “The screening system of claim…” to provide proper antecedence in the claims.
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 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 1-2, 5-7, 11-12, 14, 16, 18, 20-22, 24-25, 31-32, 34, and 36-37 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.
Regarding claim 1, line 18 and line 19 each recite the limitation “the system”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Line 1 of claim 1 recites “a screening system”, however, line 8 of claim 1 recites “a robotic system”. Thus, it is unclear whether “the system” on lines 18 and 19 are referring to the “screening system” or if the limitation is intended to refer to the “robotic system”. Therefore, claim 1 is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b). Claims 2, 5-7, 11-12, 14, 16, 18, and 20 depend on claim 1 and are therefore also rejected to under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b). The examiner assumes applicant intends for lines 18 and 19 of claim 1 to each instead recite ‘the screening system’. If this is applicant’s intent, please amend accordingly.
Further regarding claim 1, line 18 recites the limitation “… throughput of samples.”. However, claim 1 appears to include the additional limitation “wherein the screening system is arranged for operation in the first and second screening mode during incubating of the samples in the incubator.” on lines 19-20. Since line 18 ends in a period and lines 19-20 appear to recite an additional limitation of claim 1, and where line 20 also ends in a period, a skilled artisan cannot ascertain the metes and bounds of claim 1. Therefore, claim 1 is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b). Claims 2, 5-7, 11-12, 14, 16, 18, and 20 depend on claim 1 and are therefore also rejected to under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b). The examiner assumes applicant intends for line 18 of claim 1 to instead end in a comma, thus making line 18 recite ‘throughput of samples,’. If this is applicant’s intent, please amend accordingly.
Regarding claim 2, line 1 recites the limitation “wherein the system…”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Similar to the indefiniteness issues regarding claim 1 outlined above, it is unclear whether “the system” recited on line 1 of claim 2 is referring to the “screening system” or if the limitation is intended to refer to the “robotic system” of claim 1. Therefore, claim 2 is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b). The examiner assumes applicant intends for line 1 of claim 2 to instead recite ‘wherein the screening system’. If this is applicant’s intent, please amend accordingly.
Regarding claim 6, line 1-2 recite the limitation “wherein the system…”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Similar to the indefiniteness issues regarding claim 1 outlined above, it is unclear whether “the system” recited on lines 1-2 of claim 6 is referring to the “screening system” or if the limitation is intended to refer to the “robotic system” of claim 1. Therefore, claim 6 is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b). The examiner assumes applicant intends for lines 1-2 of claim 6 to instead recite ‘wherein the screening system’. If this is applicant’s intent, please amend accordingly.
Regarding claim 11, lines 2-3 recite the limitation “a light source for the fluorometric mode and a light source for the colorimetric mode”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Neither claim 11 nor claim 1, in which claim 11 depends on, previously recite ‘a fluorometric mode’ or ‘a colorimetric mode’. Claim 1 recites first and second screening modes, but it is unclear whether “the fluorometric mode” and “the colorimetric mode” are intended to refer to the first and second screening modes, or if they are intended to recite new screening modes that have not been previously referred to. Therefore, claim 11 is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b). The examiner assumes applicant intends for the limitation recited on lines 2-3 of claim 11 to instead recite ‘a light source for the first screening mode and a light source for the second screening mode’. If this is applicant’s intent, please amend accordingly.
Regarding claim 21, line 18 and line 19 each recite the limitation “the system”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Line 1 of claim 21 recites “a screening system”, however, line 8 of claim 21 recites “a robotic system”. Thus, it is unclear whether “the system” on lines 18 and 19 are referring to the “screening system” or if the limitation is intended to refer to the “robotic system”. Therefore, claim 21 is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b). Claims 22, 24-25, 31-32, 34, and 36-37 depend on claim 21 and are therefore also rejected to under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b). The examiner assumes applicant intends for lines 18 and 19 of claim 21 to each instead recite ‘the screening system’. If this is applicant’s intent, please amend accordingly.
Further regarding claim 21, line 18 recites the limitation “… throughput of samples.”. However, claim 21 appears to include the additional limitation “wherein the screening system is arranged for transferring between the first screening mode and the second screening mode by selecting at least one of the detection property of the detector and the illumination property of the source of electromagnetic radiation during incubation of the samples in the incubator.” on lines 19-22. Since line 18 ends in a period and lines 19-22 appear to recite an additional limitation of claim 21, and where line 22 also ends in a period, a skilled artisan cannot ascertain the metes and bounds of claim 21. Therefore, claim 21 is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b). Claims 22, 24-25, 31-32, 34, and 36-37 depend on claim 21 and are therefore also rejected to under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b). The examiner assumes applicant intends for line 18 of claim 21 to instead end in a comma, thus making line 18 recite ‘throughput of samples,’. If this is applicant’s intent, please amend accordingly.
Regarding claim 22, line 1 recites the limitation “wherein the system…”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Similar to the indefiniteness issues regarding claim 21 outlined above, it is unclear whether “the system” recited on line 1 of claim 22 is referring to the “screening system” or if the limitation is intended to refer to the “robotic system” of claim 21. Therefore, claim 22 is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b). The examiner assumes applicant intends for line 1 of claim 22 to instead recite ‘wherein the screening system’. If this is applicant’s intent, please amend accordingly.
Regarding claim 24, line 1 recites the limitation “wherein the system…”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Similar to the indefiniteness issues regarding claim 21 outlined above, it is unclear whether “the system” recited on line 1 of claim 24 is referring to the “screening system” or if the limitation is intended to refer to the “robotic system” of claim 21. Therefore, claim 24 is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b). The examiner assumes applicant intends for line 1 of claim 24 to instead recite ‘wherein the screening system’. If this is applicant’s intent, please amend accordingly.
Regarding claim 31, lines 3-4 recite the limitation “the fluorometric mode” and line 5 recites the limitation “the colorimetric mode”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. Neither claim 31 nor claim 21, in which claim 31 depends on, previously recite ‘a fluorometric mode’ or ‘a colorimetric mode’. Claim 21 recites first and second screening modes, but it is unclear whether “the fluorometric mode” and “the colorimetric mode” are intended to refer to the first and second screening modes, or if they are intended to recite new screening modes that have not been previously referred to. Therefore, claim 31 is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b). The examiner assumes applicant intends for “the fluorometric mode” on lines 3-4 of claim 31 to instead recite ‘the first screening mode’, and for “the colorimetric mode” on line 5 of claim 31 to instead recite ‘the second screening mode’. The examiner further assumes applicant intends for lines 5-6 of claim 31 to instead recite ‘transfer between the first screening mode and the second screening mode’. If this is applicant’s intent, please amend accordingly.
Further regarding claim 31, line 5 recites the limitation “wherein the system…”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Similar to the indefiniteness issues regarding claim 21 outlined above, it is unclear whether “the system” recited on line 5 of claim 31 is referring to the “screening system” or if the limitation is intended to refer to the “robotic system” of claim 21. Therefore, claim 31 is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b). The examiner assumes applicant intends for line 5 of claim 31 to instead recite ‘wherein the screening system’. If this is applicant’s intent, please amend accordingly.
Regarding claim 32, lines 3-4 recite the limitation “the fluorometric mode” and line 5 recites the limitation “the colorimetric mode”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. Neither claim 32 nor claim 21, in which claim 32 depends on, previously recite ‘a fluorometric mode’ or ‘a colorimetric mode’. Claim 21 recites first and second screening modes, but it is unclear whether “the fluorometric mode” and “the colorimetric mode” are intended to refer to the first and second screening modes, or if they are intended to recite new screening modes that have not been previously referred to. Therefore, claim 32 is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b). The examiner assumes applicant intends for “the fluorometric mode” on lines 3-4 of claim 32 to instead recite ‘the first screening mode’, and for “the colorimetric mode” on line 5 of claim 32 to instead recite ‘the second screening mode’. The examiner further assumes applicant intends for lines 5-7 to instead recite ‘transfer between the first screening mode and the second screening mode by transferring between illumination suitable for the second screening mode and illumination suitable for the first screening mode’. If this is applicant’s intent, please amend accordingly.
Further regarding claim 32, line 5 recites the limitation “wherein the system…”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Similar to the indefiniteness issues regarding claim 21 outlined above, it is unclear whether “the system” recited on line 5 of claim 32 is referring to the “screening system” or if the limitation is intended to refer to the “robotic system” of claim 21. Therefore, claim 32 is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b). The examiner assumes applicant intends for line 5 of claim 32 to instead recite ‘wherein the screening system’. If this is applicant’s intent, please amend accordingly.
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, 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.
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 1-2, 5-7, 11, 16, 21-22, 24-25, and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chu et al. (US 2016/0228876 A1, of record), hereinafter Chu, in view of Holmes et al. (WO 2014/127379 A1, of record), hereinafter Holmes.
Regarding claim 1, Chu teaches a screening system (abstract, Fig. 1-7) to identify pathogens or genetic differences (see paragraphs 0001 and 0107), wherein the screening system has a first and second screening mode (paragraph 0122) and comprises:
a source of electromagnetic radiation (paragraphs 0103-0104, 0117, Fig. 7 source 1402) for illuminating a plurality of samples (paragraphs 0103-0104, 0117), the source of electromagnetic radiation having a selectable illumination property (paragraphs 0103-0104, 0117-0122); and
a detector for detecting electromagnetic radiation (Fig. 7 detector 1408, paragraphs 0077, 0098-0099, 0117, 0129) transmitted through or emitted by the plurality of samples (paragraph 0104, 0117), the detector having a selectable detection property (paragraphs 0098-0099, 0333); and
an incubator for incubating the samples (paragraph 0074-0076, Fig. 1 elements for heating and cooling 116, Fig. 7 heated cover 110);
wherein the screening system is arranged for operation in the first and second screening mode (paragraph 0122) during incubating of the samples in the incubator (paragraph 0076-0077).
Chu does not teach a robotic system for loading and unloading of samples; wherein the system for screening of pathogens or genetic differences is arranged to identify if and when the screening and/or processing is completed for individual samples or groups of samples, and wherein the robotic system is arranged to: remove the individual samples or groups of samples from the incubator leaving vacant sample holders or groups of sample holders, wherein samples or groups of samples are being removed from locations surrounded by, or adjacent to, samples or groups of samples for which screening and/or processing is not completed; thereafter obtain fresh samples or groups of samples; and thereafter fill the vacant positions in the incubator with the fresh samples; whereby the screening system is suitable for continuous throughput of samples.
Holmes, which relates to systems for analyzing biological samples and is thus from the same field of endeavor as Chu, a robotic system for loading and unloading of samples (Holmes: paragraphs 0580-0582), wherein the system for screening of pathogens or genetic differences is arranged to identify if and when the screening and/or processing is completed for individual samples or groups of samples (Holmes: paragraphs 00507, 0472-0476 on pages 84-85), and wherein the robotic system is arranged to: remove the individual samples or groups of samples from the incubator (Holmes: paragraphs 00507, 0472-0476 on pages 84-85; see also paragraph 00294, 0580-0582) leaving vacant sample holders or groups of sample holders (Holmes: paragraphs 00507, 0472-0476 on pages 84-85), wherein samples or groups of samples are being removed from locations surrounded by, or adjacent to, samples or groups of samples for which screening and/or processing is not completed (Holmes: paragraphs 00507, 0472-0476 on pages 84-85); thereafter obtain fresh samples or groups of samples (Holmes: paragraphs 00507, 0472-0476 on pages 84-85); and thereafter fill the vacant positions in the incubator with the fresh samples (Holmes: paragraphs 00507, 0472-0476 on pages 84-85), whereby the screening system is suitable for continuous throughput of samples (Holmes: paragraphs 00507, 0472-0476 on pages 84-85).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the scanning system of Chu to include a robotic system for loading and unloading of samples; wherein the system for screening of pathogens or genetic differences is arranged to identify if and when the screening and/or processing is completed for individual samples or groups of samples, and wherein the robotic system is arranged to: remove the individual samples or groups of samples from the incubator leaving vacant sample holders or groups of sample holders, wherein samples or groups of samples are being removed from locations surrounded by, or adjacent to, samples or groups of samples for which screening and/or processing is not completed; thereafter obtain fresh samples or groups of samples; and thereafter fill the vacant positions in the incubator with the fresh samples; whereby the screening system is suitable for continuous throughput of samples, as taught by Holmes, for the benefit of enhancing the efficiency of sample loading and unloading through the automation provided by the robotic system of Holmes, thus enhancing sample throughput which is identified as a need in Chu (see Chu paragraph 0337-0338).
Regarding claim 2, Chu, as modified by Holmes, teaches the screening system of claim 1 as outlined above, and further teaches the screening system is arranged for concurrent or quasi-concurrent operation in the first and in the second mode (Chu: paragraph 0122).
Regarding claim 5, Chu, as modified by Holmes, teaches the screening system of claim 1, as outlined above, but does not teach the first screening mode is a fluorometric screening mode and the second screening mode is a second fluorometric screening mode or colorimetric screening mode.
Holmes teaches first and second screening modes in which the first screening mode is a fluorometric screening mode and the second screening mode is a second fluorometric screening mode or colorimetric screening mode (Holmes: paragraph 00268, 00429).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the first and second screening modes of Chu (as modified by Holmes) to have the first screening mode be a fluorometric screening mode and the second screening mode be a second fluorometric screening mode or colorimetric screening mode, as taught by Holmes, for the purposes of screening the biological samples using various detection methods, which beneficially improving the likelihood of identifying pathogens or genetic differences in the sample.
Regarding claim 6, Chu, as modified by Holmes, teaches the screening system of claim 1, as outlined above, and further teaches the screening system is arranged such that individual samples or individual groups of samples can be concurrently screened using different conditions (see Chu paragraph 0120-0122; see also Holmes paragraph 00268, 0487 on pg. 88).
Regarding claim 7, Chu, as modified by Holmes, teaches the screening system of claim 1, as outlined above, and further teaches the arrangement for the incubator comprises heaters and one or more controller enabling individual control of heating of individual samples or individual groups of samples (Chu: paragraphs 0074-0077).
Regarding claim 11, Chu, as modified by Holmes, teaches the screening system of claim 1, as outlined above, and further teaches the source of electromagnetic radiation comprises a light source for the first screening mode and a light source for the second screening mode (see Chu paragraph 0103, 0118).
Regarding claim 16, Chu, as modified by Holmes, teaches the screening system of claim 1, as outlined above, and further teaches the detector is one of a plurality of detectors (Chu: paragraph 0111, 0129).
Chu (as modified by Holmes) does not teach at least two detectors are monochrome detectors.
Holmes teaches the use of a plurality of detectors of which at least two detectors are monochrome detectors (Holmes: paragraph 01391 on pg. 274).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the plurality of detectors of Chu (as modified by Holmes) to have at least two detectors be monochrome detectors, as taught by Holmes, for the benefit of generating higher resolution images of the biological samples.
Regarding claim 21, Chu teaches a screening system (abstract, Fig. 1-7) to identify pathogens or genetic differences (see paragraphs 0001 and 0107), wherein the screening system has a first and second screening mode (paragraph 0122) and comprises:
a source of electromagnetic radiation (paragraphs 0103-0104, 0117, Fig. 7 source 1402) for illuminating a plurality of samples (paragraphs 0103-0104, 0117), the source of electromagnetic radiation having a selectable illumination property (paragraphs 0103-0104, 0117-0122); and
a detector for detecting electromagnetic radiation (Fig. 7 detector 1408, paragraphs 0077, 0098-0099, 0117, 0129) transmitted through or emitted by the plurality of samples (paragraph 0104, 0117), the detector having a selectable detection property (paragraphs 0098-0099, 0333); and
an incubator for incubating the samples (paragraph 0074-0076, Fig. 1 elements for heating and cooling 116, Fig. 7 heated cover 110);
wherein the screening system is arranged for transferring between the first screening mode and the second screening mode by selecting at least one of the detection property of the detector (paragraph 0239-0240; see also 0098-0099 and 0333) and the illumination property of the source of electromagnetic radiation (paragraphs 0103-0104, 0117-0122) during incubation of the samples in the incubator (paragraph 0076-0077).
Chu does not teach a robotic system for loading and unloading of samples; wherein the system for screening of pathogens or genetic differences is arranged to identify if and when the screening and/or processing is completed for individual samples or groups of samples, and wherein the robotic system is arranged to: remove the individual samples or groups of samples from the incubator leaving vacant sample holders or groups of sample holders, wherein samples or groups of samples are being removed from locations surrounded by, or adjacent to, samples or groups of samples for which screening and/or processing is not completed; thereafter obtain fresh samples or groups of samples; and thereafter fill the vacant positions in the incubator with the fresh samples; whereby the screening system is suitable for continuous throughput of samples.
Holmes, which relates to systems for analyzing biological samples and is thus from the same field of endeavor as Chu, a robotic system for loading and unloading of samples (Holmes: paragraphs 0580-0582), wherein the system for screening of pathogens or genetic differences is arranged to identify if and when the screening and/or processing is completed for individual samples or groups of samples (Holmes: paragraphs 00507, 0472-0476 on pages 84-85), and wherein the robotic system is arranged to: remove the individual samples or groups of samples from the incubator (Holmes: paragraphs 00507, 0472-0476 on pages 84-85; see also paragraph 00294, 0580-0582) leaving vacant sample holders or groups of sample holders (Holmes: paragraphs 00507, 0472-0476 on pages 84-85), wherein samples or groups of samples are being removed from locations surrounded by, or adjacent to, samples or groups of samples for which screening and/or processing is not completed (Holmes: paragraphs 00507, 0472-0476 on pages 84-85); thereafter obtain fresh samples or groups of samples (Holmes: paragraphs 00507, 0472-0476 on pages 84-85); and thereafter fill the vacant positions in the incubator with the fresh samples (Holmes: paragraphs 00507, 0472-0476 on pages 84-85), whereby the screening system is suitable for continuous throughput of samples (Holmes: paragraphs 00507, 0472-0476 on pages 84-85).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the scanning system of Chu to include a robotic system for loading and unloading of samples; wherein the system for screening of pathogens or genetic differences is arranged to identify if and when the screening and/or processing is completed for individual samples or groups of samples, and wherein the robotic system is arranged to: remove the individual samples or groups of samples from the incubator leaving vacant sample holders or groups of sample holders, wherein samples or groups of samples are being removed from locations surrounded by, or adjacent to, samples or groups of samples for which screening and/or processing is not completed; thereafter obtain fresh samples or groups of samples; and thereafter fill the vacant positions in the incubator with the fresh samples; whereby the screening system is suitable for continuous throughput of samples, as taught by Holmes, for the benefit of enhancing the efficiency of sample loading and unloading through the automation provided by the robotic system of Holmes, thus enhancing sample throughput which is identified as a need in Chu (see Chu paragraph 0337-0338).
Regarding claim 22, Chu, as modified by Holmes, teaches the screening system of claim 21, as outlined above, and further teaches the screening system enables operation in one of the first and second mode immediately after operation in the other one of the first and second mode (Chu: paragraph 0122 reciting sequential irradiation of different colored sources, yielding immediate changes between emission modes).
Regarding claim 24, Chu, as modified by Holmes, teaches the screening system of claim 21, as outlined above, and further teaches the screening system is arranged such that individual samples or individual groups of samples are screened using different conditions (see Chu paragraph 0120-0122; see also Holmes paragraph 00268, 0487 on pg. 88).
Regarding claim 25, Chu, as modified by Holmes, teaches the screening system of claim 21, as outlined above, and further teaches the arrangement for processing the samples comprises heaters and one or more controller enabling individual control of heating of individual samples or individual groups of samples (Chu: paragraphs 0074-0077).
Regarding claim 31, Chu, as modified by Holmes, teaches the screening system of claim 21, as outlined above, and further teaches the detector comprising first and second filters (Chu: Fig. 7 and 10 one or more emission filters 1435) and wherein the first filter allows transmission of electromagnetic radiation at a wavelengths range required for the first screening mode and the second filter allows transmission of electromagnetic radiation at a wavelengths range required for the second screening mode (Chu: paragraph 0128 reciting a correspondence between the emission filter 1435 used and the emission filter 1430 corresponding to the light source, which determines which screening mode is active) wherein the screening system is arranged for transfer between the first screening mode and the second screening mode by transferring between the first and second filter (Chu: paragraph 0128; since the screening mode used is determined by the emission of a corresponding source, the filters 1435 must be transferred between first and second filters depending on the active screening mode of Chu).
Chu (as modified by Holmes) does not teach the detector is a monochrome detector.
However, Holmes teaches the use of monochrome detectors (Holmes: paragraph 01391 on pg. 274).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the detector of Chu (as modified by Holmes) to be a monochrome detector, as taught by Holmes, for the benefit of generating higher resolution images of the biological samples.
Claims 12, 18, 34, and 37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chu in view of Holmes as applied to claims 1 and 21 above, and further in view of Ozcan et al. (WO 2021/021906 A1, of record), hereinafter Ozcan.
Regarding claims 12 and 34, Chu, as modified by Holmes, teaches the screening systems of claims 1 and 21, as outlined above, and further teaches the source of electromagnetic radiation comprises individual light elements with filters (Chu: paragraph 0103, 0122).
Chu, as modified by Holmes, does not teach the individual light elements are positioned at respective sample holders for direct illumination of the samples.
Ozcan, which relates to screening systems for biological samples, teaches a plurality of individual light sources (Ozcan: Fig. 1A light sources 20) positioned at respective sample holders for direct illumination of the samples (see Ozcan Fig. 1A, paragraph 0024).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the individual light sources of Chu (as modified by Holmes) to be positioned at respective sample holders for direct illumination of the samples, as taught by Ozcan, for the benefit of evenly illuminating each of the samples in the sample holders (see Ozcan paragraph 0024).
Regarding claims 18 and 37, Chu, as modified by Holmes, teaches the screening systems of claims 1 and 21, as outlined above, but does not teach optical fibres between the detector and each individual sample holder or group of the sample holders, wherein the optical fibres are positioned to receive radiation from the samples and direct the received radiation to a suitable a detector.
Ozcan teaches optical fibres between a detector and each individual sample holder or group of the sample holders (Ozcan: Fig. 1A-B see sample holders 16 for vessels 18, optical fiber bundle 24 comprising optical fibers 25, and camera 50; see also paragraphs 0023-0027), wherein the optical fibres are positioned to receive radiation from the samples and direct the received radiation to a suitable detector (see Ozcan Fig. 1A-B and paragraphs 0023-0027).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the screening system of Chu (as modified by Holmes) to comprise optical fibres between the detector and each individual sample holder or group of the sample holders, wherein the optical fibres are positioned to receive radiation from the samples and direct the received radiation to a suitable a detector, as taught by Ozcan, for the benefit of enhancing the collection and propagation control of light emitted from each individual sample holder.
Claims 14, 20, and 36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chu in view of Holmes as applied to claims 1 and 21 above, and further in view of Verhoef et al. (US Patent No. 12,000,848 B2), hereinafter Verhoef.
Regarding claims 14 and 36, Chu, as modified by Holmes, teaches the screening systems of claims 1 and 21, as outlined above, but does not teach optical fibres between the source of electromagnetic radiation and individual sample holders or groups of the sample holders and wherein the optical fibres are guided through portions of the arrangement for processing the samples to the individual sample holders or to groups of the sample holders.
Verhoef, which relates to screening systems for biological samples, teaches an optical fiber between a source of electromagnetic radiation and individual sample holders (Verhoef: col. 7 lines 39-43 “A flexible fiber optic may be optically coupled to the laser diode and configured to act as a light guide for propagation of light from the laser diode, through the fiber, to a light outlet above a microplate well to be imaged”; see also Fig. 3 waveguide 178 couples to source 62c and well 152), and wherein the optical fibres are guided through portions of the arrangement for processing the samples to the individual sample holders (Verhoef: col. 7 lines 39-43, col. 13 line 60-col. 14 line 7, see Fig. 3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the screening systems of Chu (as modified by Holmes) to have optical fibres between the source of electromagnetic radiation and individual sample holders or groups of the sample holders and wherein the optical fibres are guided through portions of the arrangement for processing the samples to the individual sample holders or to groups of the sample holders, as taught by Verhoef, for the benefit of enhancing the control of the illumination being emitted to samples in the sample holders.
Regarding claim 20, Chu as modified by Holmes, teaches the screening system of claim 1, as outlined above, but does not teach the detector is moveable to detect electromagnetic radiation at a location near an individual sample or group of individual samples and wherein movement of the detector is controlled by a controller.
Verhoef, which relates to screening systems for biological samples, teaches a detector (Verhoef: Fig. 3-4 image sensor 64) is moveable to detect electromagnetic radiation at a location near an individual sample or group of individual samples (Verhoef: col. 6 lines 44-51, col. 7 lines 12-20, col. 14 lines 57-67) and wherein movement of the detector is controlled by a controller (Verhoef: col. 6 lines 58-61, col. 7 lines 1-4, col. 17 lines 28-29).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the screening system of Chu (as modified by Holmes) to have the detector be moveable to detect electromagnetic radiation at a location near an individual sample or group of individual samples and wherein movement of the detector is controlled by a controller, as taught by Verhoef, for the purposes of enabling individual screening of each sample holder, which beneficially enhances the accuracy of pathogen/genetic difference detection for each sample being screened.
Claim 32 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chu in view of Holmes as applied to claim 21 above, and further in view of Kreimer et al. (US 2003/0227628 A1), hereinafter Kreimer.
Regarding claim 32, Chu, as modified by Holmes, teaches the screening system of claim 21, as outlined above, and further teaches the detector comprising a filter (Chu: Fig. 7 and 10 filters 1435) allowing transmission of electromagnetic radiation at a wavelengths range required for the first screening mode and transmission of electromagnetic radiation at a wavelengths range required for the second screening mode (Chu: paragraph 0128 reciting a correspondence between the emission filter 1435 used and the emission filter 1430 corresponding to the light source, which correlates to the active screening mode), and wherein the screening system is arranged for transfer between the first screening mode and the second screening mode by transferring between illumination suitable for the second screening mode and illumination suitable for the first screening mode (Chu: paragraphs 0103-0104, 0117-0122).
Chu (as modified by Holmes) does not teach the detector is a monochrome detector.
However, Holmes teaches the use of monochrome detectors (Holmes: paragraph 01391 on pg. 274).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the detector of Chu (as modified by Holmes) to be a monochrome detector, as taught by Holmes, for the benefit of generating higher resolution images of the biological samples.
Chu (as modified by Holmes) does not teach the filter is a multi-pass filter having pass-windows.
Kreimer, which relates to screening systems for biological samples, teaches a multi-pass filter having pass-windows (Kreimer: Fig. 6 set of filters 409 having filters 408, paragraph 0130).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the filter of Chu (as modified by Holmes) to be a multi-pass filter having pass-windows, as taught by Kreimer, for the purposes of eliminating the need to rotate the filter of Chu to different configurations depending on the screening mode used, beneficially increasing the efficiency at which the system is operated.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Lemmo et al. (US 2004/0252299 A9), Rockel et al. (US 2018/0080876 A1), Limbach et al. (US 2021/0156879 A1), Heffelfinger et al. (US Patent No. 5,784,152), and Blanchard (US Patent No. 12,098,358 B2) all relate to spectroscopic and/or screening systems for biological samples.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NOAH J HANEY whose telephone number is (571)270-1282. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-6pm eastern time.
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, Michelle Iacoletti can be reached at (571) 270-5789. 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.
/NOAH J. HANEY/Examiner, Art Unit 2877
/MICHELLE M IACOLETTI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2877