Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1-2 and 4-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Joseph et al. (US 2010/0233696).
Regarding claim 1, Joseph discloses a device configured to detect signals indicative of a binding event in an assay of interest; the device comprising:
a beam manipulator (series of objectives and mirrors that direct a beam of light to a test site) configured to modify an incident beam to form a beam with a sharp-edged intensity cut-off (this limitation does not further structurally limit the instant claim because there are no structures associated with providing a sharp edge cut off);
wherein the sharp-edged intensity cut-off beam has a significantly sharper intensity cut-off than a Gaussian beam (this limitation does not further structurally limit the instant claim because there are no structures associated with providing a sharp edge cut off);
a test site having immobilized thereon at least one component of the assay of interest (para 140);
wherein the device is configured so that the sharp-edged intensity cut-off beam produced by the beam manipulator is incident, in use, on the test site at such an angle to facilitate Total Internal Reflection (TIR) (this limitation does not further structurally limit the instant claim because there are no structures associated with providing a sharp edge cut off. Further the instant claim does not positively recite a light source or a structure that can perform Total internal reflection, i.e. a waveguide for example);
wherein the device is configured so that the sharp-edged intensity cut-off beam produced by the beam manipulator substantially conforms to the shape and size of the test site (this limitation does not further structurally limit the instant claim because there are no structures associated with providing a sharp edge cut off or a light source for providing a beam of light. The beam manipulator is recited but broadly interpreted as just a set of mirrors/objectives); and
a detector (TIRF para 89; or cool snapHQ fig. 17) configured to receive a signal indicative of a binding event in the assay of interest (this limitation does not further structurally limit the instant claim because a light source is not positively recited that is directed to the test site in order for a binding event to occur and a detector to detect a produced signal);
wherein the test site is located within a microfluidic channel (see fig. 1-2; 7-9, and
wherein the test site has a rectilinear geometry (the microfluidic device has a rectangular channel where the test site is located, see fig. 7 ref. 2).
Regarding claim 2, the device according to claim 1, wherein the beam manipulator comprises an optical element with an aperture (see fig. 17, objectives are aperture based), wherein the beam manipulator is configured to modify the amplitude of the incident beam to form a beam with a sharp-edged intensity cut-off at the test site.
Regarding claim 4, the device according to claim 2, wherein the aperture is a hard aperture (the objectives have apertures. The limitation of “hard” does not further structurally limit the claim).
Regarding claim 5, the device according to claim 2, wherein the aperture is a soft aperture (the objectives have apertures. The limitation of “soft” does not further structurally limit the claim).
Regarding claim 6, the device according to claim 1, wherein the beam manipulator is configured to modify the phase of the incident beam to form a beam with a sharp-edged intensity cut-off at the test site (this limitation does not further structurally limit the instant claim because there are no structures associated with providing a sharp edge cut off).
Regarding claim 7, the device according to claim 6, wherein the beam manipulator comprises one or more refractive optical elements (mirrors as shown in fig. 17).
Regarding claim 8, the device according to claim 6, wherein the beam manipulator comprises one or more reflective optical elements (mirrors as shown in fig. 17).
Regarding claim 9, the device according to claim 6, wherein the beam manipulator comprises one or more diffractive optical elements (fig. 17, mirror and objective lens).
Regarding claim 10, the device according to claim 1, wherein the beam manipulator comprises an optical element configured to transform the incident beam into an airy disc and a focusing lens or mirror configured to produce a sharp-edged intensity cut off beam at the test site (this limitation does not further structurally limit the instant claim because there are no structures associated with providing a sharp edge cut off).
Regarding claim 11, the device according to claim 10, wherein the beam manipulator further comprises a phase element (fig. 17, mirrors and objectives).
Regarding Claim 12, the device according to claim 1, wherein the beam manipulator further comprises a multimode optical waveguide and a lens adjacent to the output face of the waveguide (para 146).
Regarding claim 13, the device according to claim 1, wherein the beam manipulator is further configured to modify the incident beam to form a beam with a reduced speckle pattern; and wherein the device is configured so that the beam with the reduced speckle pattern produced by the beam manipulator is incident, in use, on the test site at such an angle to facilitate Total Internal Reflection (TIR) (the limitations above are drawn to functional/intended used limitation which do not further structurally limit the claim. Applicant is urged to claim structures that perform the above functions rather than simply claim the intended use).
Regarding claim 14, the device according to claim 13, wherein the reduced speckle pattern is created using a variable phase adjustment that varies across the beam (the limitations above are drawn to functional/intended used limitation which do not further structurally limit the claim. Applicant is urged to claim structures that perform the above functions rather than simply claim the intended use).
Regarding claim 15, the device according to claim 1, wherein the beam manipulator comprises a vibrating plate (para 14).
Regarding claim 16, the device according to claim 1, wherein the beam manipulator comprises a dynamic mode scrambler (para 14).
Regarding claim 17, the device according to claim 1, wherein the beam manipulator comprises a rotating diffuser (para 14).
Regarding claim 18, the device according to claim 1, wherein the beam manipulator further comprises a multimode optical waveguide and a lens to couple the light into the multimode waveguide (para 146).
Regarding claim 19, the device according to claim 6, wherein the lens is continuously perturbed to form a beam with a reduced speckle pattern (the light source is not positively claimed. Further the limitations above are drawn to a process of continuously perturbed but there is not structure that associates the function claimed above).
Regarding Claim 20, the device according to claim 1, wherein the beam manipulator further comprises a diffuser plate (TIR, para 149) which is continuously perturbed to form a beam with a reduced speckle pattern.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SAMUEL P SIEFKE whose telephone number is (571)272-1262. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8-5.
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, Maris Kessel can be reached at 571-270-7698. 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.
/SAMUEL P SIEFKE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1758
Prosecution Insights