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 .
Continued Examination under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 18 August 2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Page 7, filed 18 August 2026, with respect to claims 2 and 4-6 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the §112(d) rejections of claims 2 and 4-6 have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see Pages 7-9, filed 18 August 2026, with respect to claims 1-3 and 5-30 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the §103 rejections of claims 1-3 and 5-30 have been withdrawn. However, new grounds of rejection are made in view of newly-found art.
Ness discloses a wide-spectrum analysis system (70, Fig. 2), comprising:
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) is configured to detect ultraviolet, visible, and infrared light spanning a wavelength range from about 200 nm to 2000 nm (implicit since “the detection units may detect light of any suitable wavelength, such as ultraviolet radiation, visible light, and/or infrared radiation” [0056]), and wherein the detection module (86,88) includes a sensor comprising a silicon-based sensor (CMOS [0047]).
Ness is silent with respect to an antenna layer, associated with the silicon that allows the sensor to detect longer-wavelength light than the silicon alone.
Khodadad et al. (US 2019/0219498), however, in the same field of endeavor of EM wave emittance-based specimen analysis, disclose an optical analysis system (100, Fig. 1) comprising:
a detection module (120), wherein the detection module (120) includes a sensor comprising a silicon-based sensor (“the receivers 120 may include an imaging sensor with… complementary metal oxide semiconductor (CMOS) pixels” [0030]) and an antenna layer (“the receivers 120 may include any form of an antenna that receives the EM signals” [0030]), associated with the silicon that allows the sensor to detect longer-wavelength light than the silicon alone (inherent to function of antenna).
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 with an antenna layer for the purpose of obtaining highly accurate sensing with an increased range.
Claim Objections
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informality: In Line 2, the Examiner assumes that “the optical relay system” should actually be --the optical relay structure--. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1, 7-8, 10, 13, 17, 24, and 28-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ness et al. (US), hereinafter Ness, in view of Khodadad et al. (US 2019/0219498), hereinafter Khodadad.
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];
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], the illumination module (78) including at least two distinct light sources (82,84) [0046] and producing illumination light in the ultraviolet, visible, and infrared [0044];
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)0056]), and wherein the detection module (86,88) includes a sensor comprising a silicon-based sensor (CMOS [0047]); 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] and 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]).
Ness does not explicitly disclose the optical relay structure including a lens capable of transmitting light having wavelengths between about 200 nm and 2000 nm.
However, Ness does disclose wherein “[i]lluminations optics 85 and collection optics 90 each may include one or more optical elements that transmit light from each light source to channel 76 (for optics 85) or from the channel to each detector (for optics 90)” [0048] and wherein “[e]xemplary optical elements include lenses” [0049].
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’ optical relay structure with a lens capable of transmitting light having wavelengths between about 200 nm and 2000 nm for the purpose of “selectively blocking undesired light” (Ness [0076]).
Ness is silent with respect to an antenna layer, associated with the silicon that allows the sensor to detect longer-wavelength light than the silicon alone.
Khodadad, however, in the same field of endeavor of EM wave emittance-based specimen analysis, disclose an optical analysis system (100, Fig. 1) comprising:
a detection module (120), wherein the detection module (120) includes a sensor comprising a silicon-based sensor (“the receivers 120 may include an imaging sensor with… complementary metal oxide semiconductor (CMOS) pixels” [0030]) and an antenna layer (“the receivers 120 may include any form of an antenna that receives the EM signals” [0030]), associated with the silicon that allows the sensor to detect longer-wavelength light than the silicon alone (inherent to function of antenna).
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 with an antenna layer for the purpose of obtaining highly accurate sensing with an increased range. It is evident that Ness’ modified detection module allows the sensor to detect longer-wavelength light than the silicon alone (functional language, inherent result from antenna usage).
Claim 7: Ness further discloses wherein portions of the optical relay structure (85/90) 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 (spatial overlap is evident from figure).
Claim 8: Ness does not explicitly disclose wherein the optical relay structure includes a filter to separate illumination light and output light.
However, Ness does disclose wherein “[i]lluminations optics 85 and collection optics 90 each may include one or more optical elements that transmit light from each light source to channel 76 (for optics 85) or from the channel to each detector (for optics 90)” [0048] and wherein “[e]xemplary optical elements include… filters” [0049].
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’ optical relay structure with a filter to separate illumination light and output light for the purpose of “selectively blocking undesired light” (Ness [0076]).
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 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 28: Ness further discloses wherein the sample is stationary while the detection module (86,88) detects the output light (the sample is instantaneously stationary, evident from figure).
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 14-16 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ness, in view of Khodadad as applied to claims 1 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.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ness, in view of Khodadad as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Stumbo et al. (US 2001/0033381), hereinafter Stumbo.
Claim 21: Ness discloses wherein the sample is fluorescent [0055], but is silent with respect to the sample being chemiluminescent.
However, the sample is not a claimed element of the wide-spectrum analysis system, but is merely an object being worked up. Language in an apparatus or product claim directed to the function, operation, intended use, and materials upon which the components of the structure work that does not structurally limit the components or patentably differentiate the claimed apparatus or product from an otherwise identical prior art structure will not support patentability. See, e.g., In re Rishoi, 197 F.2d 342, 344-45 (CCPA 1952); In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 939-40 (CCPA 1963); In re Ludtke, 441 F.2d 660, 663-64 (CCPA 1971); In re Yanush, 477 F.2d 958, 959 (CCPA 1973). Stumbo, furthermore, in the same field of endeavor of optical sample detection, discloses wherein a sample (420) is chemiluminescent, and the output light is chemiluminescence, wherein “[t]he sample and sample holder are analogous to those used in photoluminescence assays” [0079]. The Examiner notes that fluorescence is inherently a type of photoluminescence.
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’ sample to be chemiluminescent for the purpose of increasing the utility of the wide-spectrum analysis system to fully interrogate chemical samples.
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ness, in view of Khodadad as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Rulison et al. (US 2006/0227325), hereinafter Rulison.
Claim 23: Ness is silent with respect to the material of which the lens is comprised.
Rulison, however, in the same field of endeavor of optical microfluidics systems, discloses a wide-spectrum analysis system (100, Fig. 1), comprising:
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]) and to direct illumination light from the illumination module (110) to the examination region [0031],
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],
wherein the lens (160) comprises UV fused silica [0026].
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’ lens to comprise UV fused silica for the purpose of using a robust, high-efficiency lens that has a lower cost than similar lenses.
Claims 25-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ness, in view of Khodadad 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
Prosecution Insights