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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 17-20 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 6/23/2026..
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I, claims 1-16 in the reply filed on 6/23/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that there is no serious
burden to exam all the alleged groups together. This is not found persuasive because there would still be a serious examination burden, as Groups I and II are in different statutory categories, and would require search in separate classification categories as well.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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.
Claim(s) 1 and 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Howell et al (US PGPub 20170113225).
Regarding Claim 1, Howell et al teaches a sample testing device (referred to as chemical and/or biochemical apparatus 10) comprising: a sensor mounting assembly having a base plate (referred to as thermal mount 14 with a region 34 forming a base) (see Figures 1 and 3 and [0204]-[0205] and [0213]) and, wherein the base plate comprises a waveguide-heatsink assembly opening (where the waveguide-heatsink assembly (the combination of waveguide 38 or 60 and heatsink 18 (or 20) (which are combined together in receptable 12) is inserted into well 26 (see abstract, [0210], [0213] and [0216]) and an image sensor assembly opening (wherein image sensor 52 and excitation light source 62 is inserted through another one of wells 26) (see abstract, [0224]-[0226]); and an optical fiber array assembly (i.e. optical fibers 38, arranged in an array) (see Figure 3 and [0225]), wherein the sensor mounting assembly (i.e. thermal mount 14) is secured to the optical fiber array assembly (38) (see Figure 3).
Regarding Claim 2, Howell et al teaches that a waveguide-heatsink assembly, the combination of waveguide 38 or 60 and heatsink 18 (or 20) (which are combined together in receptable 12) is secured in the waveguide-heatsink assembly opening (i.e. well 26) of the base plate of the sensor mounting assembly, wherein an image sensor assembly (52) is secured in the image sensor assembly opening of the base plate (another of the wells 26) (see Figure 3 and [0224]-[0227]).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 3-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Howell et al as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Snyder et al (US PGPub 2004/006186).
Regarding Claim 3, Howell et al teaches that the waveguide-heatsink assembly (i.e. the combination of waveguide 38 or 60 and heatsink 18 (or 20), which are combined together in receptable 12) comprises a waveguide sensor (referred to as excitation light sensor 120) (see Figs. 1 and 13 and [0213], [0224], [0233]-[0234] and [0265]) , wherein the image sensor assembly comprises an image sensor (such as light sensor 52) (see [0224]-[0227] and [0233]).
In addition, Howell et al teaches a collimation lens 64, which efficiently collects and collimates the light, which is then directed through the filter 100 adjacent to the lens 64, and hence into the ends of the waveguides 60 adjacent to the filter 100 (see [0267]).
Furthermore, Howell et al teaches an optical fiber array assembly (i.e. optical fibers 38, arranged in an array) (see Figure 3 and [0225])
However, Howell et al does not disclose that the optical fiber assembly includes an optical fiber coupler.
However, in the analogous art of methods/apparatus for measuring wavelengths of an input light beam, Snyder et al teaches the use of a fiber optic coupler arrangement including a fiber optic coupler 501, wherein incoming light (not shown) is directed through an input fiber 504 into two output fibers 505, 507 of lengths differing by 2.33 mm to provide essentially the same splitting of power and introduction of delay as the above arrangement (see [0037]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the optical fiber assembly of Howell et al by further incorporating a fiber optic coupler (as taught by Snyder et al) as part of the optical fiber assembly (such as in place of collimation lens 64) for the benefit of provide efficient splitting of power and delay introduction.
Regarding Claim 4, the combination of Howell et al and Snyder et al teaches that the optical fiber coupler (placed where the collimation lens 64 of Howell et al resides), the waveguide sensor (i.e. sensor 120 of Howell et al), and the image sensor (i.e. sensor 52 of Howell et al) are aligned with one another (see Figures 1 and 13 of Howell et al, as well and [0210], [0228] and [0233] of Howell et al).
Regarding Claim 5, the combination of Howell et al and Snyder et al teaches that the base plate (i.e. thermal mount 14 with a region 34 forming a base plate) defines a baseline axis (see Figure 1 of Howell et al), wherein the optical fiber coupler (placed where the collimation lens 64 of Howell et al resides) and the waveguide sensor (i.e. sensor 120) are aligned with the baseline axis, wherein an imaging sensing surface of the image sensor (i.e. sensor 52) is perpendicular to the baseline axis (see Figures 1-3).
Furthermore, In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) and In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975)(see MPEP 2144.04) teaches the rearrangement of part, such that it would be obvious to one ordinary skill to rearrange the positions of the optic coupler, image sensor and waveguide sensor for aesthetic design reasons and to ensure that light is directed efficiently to the waveguide and image sensors.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Howell et al as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hiddessen et al (US PGPub 2020/0086312).
Regarding Claim 6, Howell et al teaches the use of thermoelectric modules that can be used to provide heating and cooling (see [0009]), as well as one or more heating elements, such heating elements 48 (see [0045] and [0238]-[0239]).
Howell et al does not teach that the sample testing device further comprises a plurality of injection valve fluid tubes, wherein each of the plurality of injection valve fluid tubes is connected to at least one of a plurality of ports of an injection valve; and a plurality of heating coils coupled to the plurality of injection valve fluid tubes and receiving electric current.
However, in the analogous art of methods and devices are detecting target molecules, Hiddessen et al teaches an exemplary system 1460 for transport of reacted emulsions 1462 from an array to a detection channel 1464, for serial droplet detection. System may include an autosampler 1466 and an injection valve 1468 that serially load emulsions 1462 into detection channel 1464, for flow past a viewing window 1470 that is operatively disposed with respect to a detector 1470 (see [0342]). In addition, Hiddessen et al teaches the use of a heater assembly which includes a plurality of coils, wherein each coil thermally couples to each of a plurality of temperature-controlled zones (see [0813]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device of Howell et al by utilizing a plurality of heating coils coupled to a plurality of injection valve tubes (as taught by Hiddessen et al) for the benefit of ensuring the desired fluid selectively flows through the channels/tubing of the device at the correct temperature.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7-16 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding Claims 7-8, none of the prior art teaches or fairly suggests a sample testing device which additionally comprises a waveguide sensor comprising an input port and an output port, wherein an injection valve fluid tube of the plurality of injection valve fluid tubes is connected to the input port; and a waste fluid tube connected to the output port of the waveguide sensor.
In addition, regarding claims 9-13, none of the prior art teaches or fairly suggests a sample testing device which further comprises a ribbed nitride waveguide layer comprising a plurality of effective optical sensing areas; and a plurality of silicon dioxide cover coatings disposed on the plurality of effective optical sensing areas of the ribbed nitride waveguide layer.
Furthermore, regarding claims 14-16, none of the prior art teaches or fairly suggests a sample testing device which further comprises a waveguide sensor comprising a metal layer; an inductive coil disposed under the waveguide sensor, wherein the inductive coil causes the metal layer to generate heat through inductive heating.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Sun et al (US PGPub 2022/0074859) discloses a system for analyzing biological samples. The system includes an optical waveguide. The optical waveguide includes a first end and a second end. The optical waveguide is configured to receive an excitation light at the first end. The optical waveguide further includes a first light-guiding layer disposed between the first end and the second end. The first light-guiding layer is configured to direct, at least in part, the received excitation light toward the second end of the optical waveguide along a longitudinal direction of the optical waveguide. The optical waveguide further includes a fluidic reaction channel bounded in part by the first light-guiding layer of the optical waveguide, which delivers the excitation light to biological samples disposed in the fluidic reaction channel. The system further includes a backside illumination based image sensor.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JENNIFER WECKER whose telephone number is (571)270-1109. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30AM - 6 PM EST M-F.
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, Lyle Alexander can be reached at 571-272-1254. 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.
/JENNIFER WECKER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1797
Prosecution Insights