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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 8 September 2026 has been accepted and entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 8 September 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that LaPlante (US 2009/0201577) has been mischaracterized by the Examiner. No special definition has been provided in the present specification. Applicant cites paragraph [0032] as providing a definition in the phrase “optical elements of the optical layer 230 are holographic optical elements (HOE)…” This citation omits the introductory phrase, “In an exemplary embodiment…” Such language provides an example of a possible embodiment and does not directly define this language.
Applicant argues that the term “optical layer” has a commonly understood meaning to be “also known as optical thin films”. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The common dictionary definition of these terms (as retrieved from Merriam-Webster Dictionary at https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/optical) includes: “Optical - of or relating to the science of optics” and “(https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/layer) Layer - one thickness, course, or fold laid or lying over or under another”. Absent a special definition of these terms, LaPlante discloses a layer (200) of the device (comprising elements positioned between LED module 16 and microscope 204) which is includes optical elements (including lenses, which are optical elements, par. [0037]). The words of a claim are given their plain meaning unless such meaning is inconsistent with the specification. (MPEP 2111.01(I)) As such, the Examiner has interpreted this term given its plain meaning, wherein LaPlante employs an “optical layer” having at least one “optical area” which is configurated to convert the at least one fluorescent light beam to at least one focused focusing beam and to direct the at least one focusing beam to at least one target area of the microfluidic device (LaPlante discloses an optics module that collimates a beam into an excitation beam which is provided to a microscope for illuminating a sample, par. [0037]).
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 4-7, and 9-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LaPlante et al. (US 2009/0201577 A1, previously cited by Applicant), in view of Bishop et al. (US 2018/0353957 A1, previously cited by Applicant).
With respect to claim 1, LaPlante discloses: an illumination apparatus (and associated method of use) (abstract) for illuminating a specimen arranged in a receiving area (sample area of microscope, 28), the illumination apparatus comprising: a carrier element (glass slide, 3, par. [0039]), a fluorescent layer having at least one fluorescent region (phosphor, 4, par. [0039]) configured to emit at least one fluorescent light beam excited by an excitation light beam (excited by LED output light, 5, par. [0039]), wherein the carrier element is configured to be transparent to a wavelength of the at least one fluorescent light beam (slide 3 is made from glass, par. [0039]), an optical layer arranged on a side of the carrier element opposite the fluorescent layer, the optical layer having at least one optical area configured to convert at least one fluorescent light beam to at least one focusing beam and to direct at least one focusing beam to at least one target area of the sample (optics module, 200, Fig. 1).
LaPlante does not directly specify that the sample is a microfluidic device. Bishop, from the same field of endeavor (illumination of a sample for optical analysis) discloses a microfluidic analysis system (abstract) including a light source for illuminating a sample and detecting a radiation therefrom (par. [0206]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date to employ the illumination system of LaPlante with the device of Bishop, in order to provide a variety of possible different illumination wavelengths, selectable by a user, depending on the optical characteristics of the sample (LaPlante, par. [0022]).
With respect to claim 4, Bishop discloses optical components which may include at least one holographic optical element (par. [0075]).
With respect to claim 5, LaPlante does not directly disclose the claimed fluorescent layer configured to emit the at least one fluorescent light beam with a spectral half-width less than 100 nm. However, LaPlante does disclose interchangeable phosphor elements for use with different sample types (par. [0039]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date to select a phosphor element having desired emission characteristics, depending on the application and/or sample absorption characteristics, as it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
With respect to claims 6 and 7, LaPlante discloses a plurality of fluorescent regions configured to emit a plurality of different fluorescent light beams (232, 234, 236) at different wavelengths (par. [0045], Fig. 5), as well as a plurality of optical areas to covert multiple fluorescent light beams into further focusing beams (collimating optics, par. [0046]).
With respect to claim 9, LaPlante discloses an optical layer configured to direct (via objective lens, 27; Fig. 5) the first focusing beam and a further focusing beam to the same target area (sample, 28).
With respect to claims 10 and 11, LaPlante discloses a primary light source configured to emit and excitation light beam to excite a fluorescent layer (LED module, Fig. 1), wherein the primary light source is arranged on a side of the fluorescent layer (4, wherein optical components are downstream of the fluorescent layer; Fig. 1).
With respect to claim 12, Bishop, as applied in combination to claim 1 above, discloses an analyzer (504, Fig. 5) for analyzing a sample in a microfluidic device (502), the analyzer comprising: a receiving region configured to receive the microfluidic device (cartridge port, par. [0238]); and the illumination apparatus according to claim 1 (addressed above, illumination system generally described in Bishop par. [0047]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2, 3, and 8 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.
Claims 13 and 14 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
With respect to claim 2, the cited prior art does not appear to disclose or reasonably suggest the claimed arrangement wherein the optical layer is configured to pass the excitation light beam unfocused. LaPlante does disclose a dichroic thin film long-pass filter (par. [0043]) which reflects a wavelength of LED output light, or an optical configuration wherein a portion of LED output light may pass through the phosphor layer without being absorbed (par. [0041]).
With respect to claim 3, the cited prior art does not appear to disclose or reasonably suggest the claimed configuration wherein the optical layer is configured to focus the excitation light beam onto the at least one fluorescent region.
With respect to claim 8, LaPlante discloses directing multiple focusing beams to a singular sample area (see rejection of claim 9 above), but does not specify directing first and further focusing beams being directed to a target area and further target area, respectively.
With respect to claims 13 and 14, LaPlante does not appear to disclose or reasonably suggest the claimed optical layer that is arranged on a side of the carrier element opposite the fluorescent layer (or second side of the carrier unit).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARK R GAWORECKI whose telephone number is (571)272-8540. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8 AM-6 PM.
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, DAVID MAKIYA can be reached at 571-272-2273. 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.
/MARK R GAWORECKI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2884 7 October 2026
Prosecution Insights