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 .
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 1-30 are 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 claims 1-3, 14, and 18, the phrase "can" renders the claims indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). Therefore, for purposes of examination, the Examiner is interpreting “the detection module can detect” in each of these claims as --the detection module detects--.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the camera" in Line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Therefore, for purposes of examination, the Examiner assumes that “the camera” should actually be --the sensor--.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 5-6, 9-13, 17, 24, and 29-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ness et al. (US), hereinafter Ness.
Claim 1: Ness discloses a wide-spectrum analysis system (70, Fig. 2), comprising:
a stage (channel 76) configured to support a sample holder [0044] at an examination region (92) [0051];
a detection module (86,88) configured to detect output light produced by a sample (74) positioned in the sample holder [0047] at the examination region (92) [0051], wherein the detection module (86,88) detects light having wavelengths between about 200 nm and about 2000 nm [0056]; and
an optical relay structure (85,90) configured to direct the output light from the examination region (92) to the detection module (86,88) [0047].
Claim 2: Ness further discloses wherein the detection module (86,88) detects light having wavelengths between about 400 nm and about 1400 nm (detection of visible and infrared light [0056]).
Claim 3: Ness further discloses wherein the detection module (86,88) detects light having wavelengths between about 400 nm and about 1300 nm (detection of visible and infrared light [0056]).
Claim 5: Ness further discloses an illumination module (78) configured to produce illumination light for irradiating a sample (74) positioned in the sample holder at the examination region (92) [0046].
Claim 6: Ness further discloses wherein the optical relay structure (85) is further configured to direct illumination light from the illumination module (78) to the examination region (95) (“Light from each light source may be transmitted to channel 76 via illumination optics 85” [0046]).
Claim 9: Ness further discloses wherein the illumination module (78) includes at least two distinct light sources (82,84) [0046].
Claim 10: Ness further discloses wherein the illumination module (78) includes at least one of an LED light source and a laser light source (“Exemplary light sources include light-emitting diodes (LEDs), lasers” [0046]).
Claim 11: Ness further discloses wherein the illumination module (78) produces illumination light in at least two of the ultraviolet, visible, and infrared [0044].
Claim 12: Ness further discloses wherein the illumination module (78) produces illumination light in the ultraviolet, visible, and infrared [0044].
Claim 13: Ness further discloses wherein the sample (74) is fluorescent (“the droplets may include an absorbing or fluorescent dye” [0056]), and the output light is fluorescence (“The signature (i.e., color) of the resulting fluorescence will depend upon which target or combination of targets was present in the droplet” [0055]).
Claim 17: Ness further discloses wherein the sample (74) is colorimetric (“FAM and VIC dyes could be used as labels for "two-color" assays in droplets” [0065]), and the output light is reflected, scattered, and/or transmitted by the sample (74) (“These mechanisms may include optical techniques (e.g., measuring absorbance, transmission, reflection, scattering…)” [0043]).
Claim 24: Ness further discloses wherein the detection module (86,88) is configured to form an image of one or more samples (74) in the sample holder (“Detection generally may be performed using… fluorescence imaging” [0043]; “each detector may be a point detector or an imaging detector” [0047]).
Claim 29: Ness further discloses wherein the sample [0074] moves while the detection module (86,88) detects the output light [0052].
Claim 30: Ness further discloses a processor (126, Fig. 3) configured to analyze the output light detected by the detection module (86,88) (“The controller may include one or more processors… for data processing” [0061]) (“FIG. 3 shows an exemplary detection system 120 including detection unit 70 of FIG. 2” [0058]).
Claims 1, 5-8, and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Dan Chin Yu et al. (US 2023/0213449), hereinafter Dan Chin Yu.
Claim 1: Dan Chin Yu discloses a wide-spectrum analysis system (10, Fig. 1), comprising:
a stage (15) configured to support a sample holder at an examination region [0039];
a detection module (17) configured to detect output light produced by a sample positioned in the sample holder at the examination region [0039], wherein the detection module (17) detects light having wavelengths between about 200 nm and about 2000 nm (inherent since the detection module is a camera); and
an optical relay structure (14/16) configured to direct the output light from the examination region to the detection module (17) [0039].
Claim 5: Dan Chin Yu further discloses an illumination module (12) configured to produce illumination light for irradiating a sample positioned in the sample holder at the examination region [0039].
Claim 6: Dan Chin Yu further discloses wherein the optical relay structure (14/16) is further configured to direct illumination light from the illumination module (12) to the examination region [0039].
Claim 7: Dan Chin Yu further discloses wherein portions of the optical relay system (14/16) that are used to direct illumination light to the examination region and portions that are used to direct output light from the examination region overlap (evident from figure) [0039].
Claim 8: Dan Chin Yu further discloses wherein the optical relay structure (14/16) includes a filter (16) to separate illumination light and output light [0039].
Claim 28: Dan Chin Yu further discloses wherein the sample is stationary while the detection module (17) detects the output light (evident from figure) [0039].
Claims 1 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Stumbo et al. (US 2001/0033381), hereinafter Stumbo.
Claim 1: Stumbo discloses a wide-spectrum analysis system (Fig. 9), comprising:
a stage (423) configured to support a sample holder (426) at an examination region [0060];
a detection module (460) configured to detect output light produced by a sample (420) positioned in the sample holder (426) at the examination region [0084], wherein the detection module (460) detects light having wavelengths between about 200 nm and about 2000 nm (“This detector may be selected to optimize detection of blue/green light” [0084]); and
an optical relay structure (450/452/453/456) configured to direct the output light from the examination region to the detection module [0080-0082].
Claim 21: Stumbo further discloses wherein the sample (426) is chemiluminescent, and the output light is chemiluminescence [0079].
Claims 1 and 22-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Rulison et al. (US 2006/0227325), hereinafter Rulison.
Claim 1: Rulison discloses a wide-spectrum analysis system (100, Fig. 1), comprising:
a stage (165) configured to support a sample holder at an examination region [0020];
a detection module (195) configured to detect output light produced by a sample positioned in the sample holder at the examination region [0020], wherein the detection module (195) detects light having wavelengths between about 200 nm and about 2000 nm (evident since the detection module 195 is a CCD array and the sample is irradiation by an LED light source [0020]); and
an optical relay structure (150/160/170/180/190) configured to direct the output light from the examination region to the detection module (195) [0020] (also shown in Fig. 3, [0031]).
Claim 22: Rulison further discloses wherein the optical relay structure (150/160/170/180/190) includes a lens (160) capable of transmitting light having wavelengths between about 200 nm and 2000 nm [0026].
Claim 23: Rulison further discloses wherein the lens (160) comprises UV fused silica [0026].
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ness as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Pohl et al. (US 2021/0303813), hereinafter Pohl.
Claim 4: Ness is silent with respect to the specific configuration of the detection module.
Pohl, however, although not in the same field of endeavor, is nevertheless concerned with the same problem of providing highly-accurate sensing. Pohl discloses a detection module that includes a sensor comprising a silicon-based sensor and an antenna layer, associated with the silicon (“coupling… a silicon-based area sensor to an antenna” [0084]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Ness’ detection module to include a sensor comprising a silicon-based sensor and an antenna for the purpose of highly accurate sensing with an increased range.
It is evident that, in Ness’ modified detection module, that allows the sensor to detect longer-wavelength light than the silicon alone (functional language, inherent result from antenna usage).
Claims 14-16 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ness as applied to claims 13 and 17 above, and further in view of Butte et al. (US 2021/0015350), hereinafter Butte.
Claims 14-16: Ness discloses a sample (74) disposed in the sample holder [0044], wherein the sample (74) is labeled with dyes that produce output light in the infrared range [0056], and wherein the detection module (86,88) detects the output light (“the detection units may detect light of any suitable wavelength, such as ultraviolet radiation, visible light, and/or infrared radiation” [0056]).
Ness does not explicitly disclose also producing output light in one or both of the ultraviolet and visible ranges.
Butte, however, in the same field of endeavor of fluorescence imaging, discloses wherein a sample is labeled with at least four dyes that produce output light in the ultraviolet, visible, and infrared [0094].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Ness’s sample with dyes that produce output light in the ultraviolet, visible, and infrared ranges for the purpose of fully characterizing the properties of the sample.
Claims 18-20: Ness discloses a sample (74) disposed in the sample holder [0044], wherein the sample (74) is labeled with dyes that produce output light in the infrared range [0056], and wherein the detection module (86,88) detects the output light (“the detection units may detect light of any suitable wavelength, such as ultraviolet radiation, visible light, and/or infrared radiation” [0056]).
Ness does not explicitly disclose also producing output light in one or both of the ultraviolet and visible ranges.
Butte, however, in the same field of endeavor of fluorescence imaging, discloses wherein a sample is labeled with at least four dyes that produce output light in the ultraviolet, visible, and infrared [0094].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Ness’s sample with dyes that produce output light in the ultraviolet, visible, and infrared ranges for the purpose of fully characterizing the properties of the sample.
Claims 25-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ness as applied to claim 24 above, and further in view of Che et al. (US 2018/0209908), hereinafter Che.
Claim 25: Ness is silent with respect to the detection module forming a first image corresponding to output light of a first wavelength range and a second image corresponding to output light of a second wavelength range.
Che, however, in the same field of endeavor of optical imaging, discloses an analysis system comprising a detection module configured to form a first image of a sample corresponding to output light of a first wavelength range (“an LED emitting light at 520 nm” [0102]) and a second image of the sample corresponding to output light of a second wavelength range (“a second laser emitting light at 785 nm” [0102]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Ness’ detection module to image the sample in various wavelength ranges for the purpose of better characterizing the properties of the sample.
Claim 26: Ness, in view of Che, further discloses wherein the system combines the first image and the second image to form a composite image (“The captured images for each of the three excitation wavelengths were combined into a single composite image” [0102]).
Claim 27: Ness, in view of Che, further discloses wherein the first image corresponds to visible output light (520-nm light is in the visible range) and the second image corresponds to infrared output light (785-nm light is in the infrared range).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to HINA F AYUB whose telephone number is (571)270-3171. The Examiner can normally be reached on 9am-5pm ET Mon-Fri.
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, Tarifur Chowdhury can be reached on 571-272-2287. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Hina F Ayub/
Primary Patent Examiner
Art Unit 2877