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 Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “detection device for detecting”, in claim 1; “evaluation unit configured to classify”, in claim 1; “measuring head configured to emit”, in claim 8.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Objections
Claims 2-10 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 2-10 are objected since is insufficient antecedent basis. Claims 2-10 recites the limitation "Device according to claim 1" in line 1. This appears to be due to typographical error. Therefore, the limitation “Device according to claim 1” should be change to -The device according to claim 1-.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-10 and 12 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 Claim 1, line 1 the phrase "preferably" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). For purposes of examination, the limitations tied to the phrase "preferably” will not be considered as part of the claimed invention until this deficiency is cured.
Regarding Claims 2-10 and 12, the claims are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite since they are dependents of indefinite claim 1, and their limitations do not overcome the indefiniteness issues of their parent claim.
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.
Claims 1-3, 5 and 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Steiner et al. (US 2019/0383782 A1, included in IDS on 09/27/2024), hereafter Steiner in view of Shcheslavskiy, V. I., et al. "Multiparametric time-correlated single photon counting luminescence microscopy." Biochemistry (Moscow) 84.Suppl 1 (2019): 51-68, included in IDS on 09/27/2024),), hereafter Shcheslavskiy.
Regarding claims 1, 3 and 12, Steiner teaches a device (Fig. 1 element 30) for determining the presence of a characteristic of a sample, [0177], (Additionally the term " for determining the presence of a characteristic of a sample” in the preamble merely reciting a purpose AND/OR designates an intended use which does not carry enough weight so as to patentably distinguish from the cited prior See MPEP 2111.02, sec. II),, and preferably for determining the sex of a fertilized bird's egg, [0177]
a light source (Fig. 1 elements 3 and 13) for emitting pulsed excitation radiation, [0016, 0342];
a detection device (Fig. 1 elements 8 AND/OR 14, [0181, 0184]) for detecting autofluorescence radiation emitted by the sample (Fig. 1 element 1”egg”), [0184], (as shown in Fig. 5, [0203]; and
a computer-based evaluation unit (Fig. 1 element 19, [0186]),
wherein the detection device (8) is configured to detect the autofluorescence radiation of the sample (1) in a time-resolved manner at different wavelengths [0189, 0208], and to provide the evaluation unit (19) with two-dimensional data having a wavelength dimension and a time dimension, (the fluorescence intensity generated can be measured in a time-resolved manner and, from the time constant T of the decay curve for the time-resolved fluorescence intensity, a sex determination can be carried out, wherein a different time constant T.sub.male, T.sub.female, with T.sub.male≠T.sub.female, is respectively determined for male blood and for female blood from the fluorescence decay curve in order to determine the sex. [0118, 0342]
wherein the evaluation unit (19) is configured to classify the provided data into classes via a classifier, [0226-0227], wherein at least one class represents the characteristic of the sample, (male or female, [0284-0285]),
wherein the evaluation unit (19) is configured to identify specific wavelengths to be prioritized (Fig. 8 element 53) during the classification on the basis of features formed in the time dimension of the data, [0118, 0342], and wherein the evaluation unit is configured to take into consideration the data at the specific wavelengths (Fig. 8 element 53, [0306]) in a prioritized manner in order to determine the presence of the characteristic of the sample, (The device identify the specific wavelengths as shown in Fig. 8 indicated by element 53 “rectangle”, “redshifted to the excitation wavelength” that is prioritized from the recorded spectral intensity of the fluorescence radiation 51, 52 in a spectral range redshifted (53) of the excitation wavelength, [0306, 0328] . This range of the specific wavelengths (53) is prioritized since is used to perform determination of the sex “male or female” of the egg. Such as the sex-specific properties of the male blood and the female blood are contained in the intensity of the spectral profile of the recorded fluorescence radiation 51, 52 in the wavelength range 53, [0306, 0328] (“The rectangle 53 drawn in FIG. 8 represents the selected spectral range that is used in the stated classification example”, [0304]. “The fluorescence radiation 5, 51, 52 and the Raman scattered radiation 50 were recorded and sent to a spectrometer 20. The spectra in the spectral range of 600 cm.sup.−1 to 1500 cm.sup.−1 (rectangle 53) were fed to a linear discriminant analysis according to FIG. 8. 94% of the male embryos and 88% of the female embryos were classified correctly”. , Thus, indicate prioritizing a specific wavelength range during classification, [0350]).
Even though Steiner teaches the detection device configured to detect the autofluorescence radiation of the sample in a time-resolved manner at different wavelengths, [0189, 0208] and the device of Steiner comprises the equipment which measures the light intensity or the photon flow, such as photodiodes, avalanche photodiodes, or photomultipliers, [0150].
Steiner do not clearly teach:
(claim 1) detect the autofluorescence radiation of the sample in a time-resolved manner at different wavelengths via time-correlated single photon counting.
(claim 3) wherein the light source is configured to emit pulsed excitation radiation with a pulse repetition rate of > 10 MHz, and/or wherein the light source is configured to emit pulsed excitation radiation having a pulse length of < 500 ps, and/or wherein the light source is configured to emit pulsed excitation radiation having a pulse length of < 5 ns.
(claim 12) for determining a degree of aging of fuels and/or industrial operating materials, such as immersion baths, hydraulic oils and/or lubricants; for quality control, in particular of food and/or medicines; for determining a property of origin of the sample, in particular of food; for determining a degree of contamination of the sample, in particular of a surface; for detecting a falsification; and/or for detecting a change in the cell metabolism.
However, Shcheslavskiy related to fluorescence detection and thus from the same field of endeavor teaches:
(claim 1) detect the autofluorescence radiation of the sample in a time-resolved manner at different wavelengths via time-correlated single photon counting, [page 56, first and second paragraphs].
(claim 3) wherein the light source is configured to emit pulsed excitation radiation with a pulse repetition rate of > 10 MHz, and/or wherein the light source is configured to emit pulsed excitation radiation having a pulse length of < 500 ps, and/or wherein the light source is configured to emit pulsed excitation radiation having a pulse length of < 5 ns, [femtosecond Ti;Sa laser (850 nm), [page 65, “Fig 4. Captions”].
( claim 12) for determining a degree of aging of fuels and/or industrial operating materials, such as immersion baths, hydraulic oils and/or lubricants; for quality control, in particular of food and/or medicines; for determining a property of origin of the sample, in particular of food; for determining a degree of contamination of the sample, in particular of a surface; for detecting a falsification; and/or for detecting a change in the cell metabolism, [page S57, left-hand column, paragraph 1]. Additionally, the term " for determining a degree of aging of fuels and/or industrial operating materials, such as immersion baths, hydraulic oils and/or lubricants; for quality control, in particular of food and/or medicines; for determining a property of origin of the sample, in particular of food; for determining a degree of contamination of the sample, in particular of a surface; for detecting a falsification; and/or for detecting a change in the cell metabolism, " in the claim merely designates an intended use which does not carry enough weight so as to patentably distinguish from the cited prior See MPEP 2111.02)
Therefore, it would been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Steiner by including detecting optical chirality, wherein the dielectric material is transparent incident circularly polarized light, wherein the light source is configured to emit pulsed excitation radiation with a pulse repetition rate of > 10 MHz, and/or wherein the light source is configured to emit pulsed excitation radiation having a pulse length of < 500 ps, and/or wherein the light source is configured to emit pulsed excitation radiation having a pulse length of < 5 ns, for determining a degree of aging of fuels and/or industrial operating materials, such as immersion baths, hydraulic oils and/or lubricants; for quality control, in particular of food and/or medicines; for determining a property of origin of the sample, in particular of food; for determining a degree of contamination of the sample, in particular of a surface; for detecting a falsification; and/or for detecting a change in the cell metabolism (as taught by Shcheslavskiy) for several advantages such as: TCSPC provides the highest time resolution and the most efficient use of photons emitted by the sample, such as from the point of view of biological studies, it is essential that the TCSPC based FLIM allows identification of curves with complex (multi-exponent) profiles of fluorescence decay, thus increase the device accuracy ([page 53, right column second paragraph], Shcheslavskiy).
Regarding claim 2, Steiner in the combination outlined above teaches the device according to claim 1.
Steiner further teaches wherein the light source (Fig. 1 elements 3 and 13, [0016]) is configured as a pulsed excitation laser system or as a pulsed LED, ([0118, 0342]).
Regarding claim 5, Steiner in the combination outlined above teaches the device according to claim 1.
Steiner further teaches wherein the detection device for detecting the autofluorescence radiation at different wavelengths comprises a monochromator, a spectrograph, a beam splitter with a plurality of interference filters and/or a spectrometer, and/or wherein the detection device comprises as detector element a hybrid photomultiplier and/or a multichannel plate photomultiplier, [0149, 0296].
Regarding claim 10, Steiner in the combination outlined above teaches the device according to claim 1.
Steiner further teaches wherein the evaluation unit means (Fig. 1 element 19, [0186]) is configured to determine the sex of the fertilized bird's egg (Fig. 1 element 1) by taking into consideration the two-dimensional data, [0118, 0342].
Regarding claim 11, Steiner teaches a method, for in-ovo sex determination in a fertilized bird's egg, [0177] (Additionally the term " for determining the presence of a characteristic of a sample” in the preamble merely reciting a purpose AND/OR designates an intended use which does not carry enough weight so as to patentably distinguish from the cited prior See MPEP 2111.02, sec. II), the method comprising the steps of:
emitting pulsed excitation radiation for excitation of autofluorescence in an area in the interior of the bird's egg (Fig. 1 element 2 “hole in the egg element 1), [0164, 0185] , on an egg membrane of the bird's egg and/or on the egg shell of the bird's egg by-means of via a light source (Fig. 1 elements 3 and 13)
PNG
media_image1.png
33
7
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
5
13
media_image2.png
Greyscale
time-resolved detection of the autofluorescence radiation emitted from the area inside, from the egg membrane and/or from the egg shell of the bird's egg e-2-) by-means-of via a detection device (Fig. 1 elements 8 AND/OR 14, [0181, 0184]) at different wavelengths [0189, 0208] by time-correlated single photon counting;
PNG
media_image3.png
2
9
media_image3.png
Greyscale
providing an evaluation device (Fig. 1 element 19, [0186]), with two-dimensional data with a wavelength dimension and a time dimension by the detection device determining the sex of the fertilized bird's egg from the provided two dimensional data [0226-0227], by-means via the evaluation device by classifying the provided data by-means-of via a classifier into two classes (male or female, [0284-0285]),, wherein a first class represents a male sex of the fertilized bird's egg and a second class represents a female sex of the fertilized bird's egg, (the fluorescence intensity generated can be measured in a time-resolved manner and, from the time constant T of the decay curve for the time-resolved fluorescence intensity, a sex determination can be carried out, wherein a different time constant T.sub.male, T.sub.female, with T.sub.male≠T.sub.female, is respectively determined for male blood and for female blood from the fluorescence decay curve in order to determine the sex. [0118, 0342]
wherein specific wavelengths to be prioritized are identified in the classification on the basis of features formed in the time dimension of the data (Fig. 8 element 53, [0306]), [0118, 0342]; and sex determination of the bird's egg by prioritized consideration of the data at the specific wavelengths, (The device identify the specific wavelengths as shown in Fig. 8 indicated by element 53 “rectangle”, “redshifted to the excitation wavelength” that is prioritized from the recorded spectral intensity of the fluorescence radiation 51, 52 in a spectral range redshifted (53) of the excitation wavelength, [0306, 0328] . This range of the specific wavelengths (53) is prioritized since is used to perform determination of the sex “male or female” of the egg. Such as the sex-specific properties of the male blood and the female blood are contained in the intensity of the spectral profile of the recorded fluorescence radiation 51, 52 in the wavelength range 53, [0306, 0328] (“The rectangle 53 drawn in FIG. 8 represents the selected spectral range that is used in the stated classification example”, [0304]. “The fluorescence radiation 5, 51, 52 and the Raman scattered radiation 50 were recorded and sent to a spectrometer 20. The spectra in the spectral range of 600 cm.sup.−1 to 1500 cm.sup.−1 (rectangle 53) were fed to a linear discriminant analysis according to FIG. 8. 94% of the male embryos and 88% of the female embryos were classified correctly”. , Thus, indicate prioritizing a specific wavelength range during classification, [0350]).
Even though Steiner teaches the detection device configured to detect the autofluorescence radiation of the sample in a time-resolved manner at different wavelengths, [0189, 0208] and the device of Steiner comprises de equipment which measures the light intensity or the photon flow, such as photodiodes, avalanche photodiodes, or photomultipliers, [0150]. Still, Steiner do not clearly teach detect the autofluorescence radiation of the sample in a time-resolved manner at different wavelengths via time-correlated single photon counting.
However, Shcheslavskiy related to fluorescence detection and thus from the same field of endeavor teaches detect the autofluorescence radiation of the sample in a time-resolved manner at different wavelengths via time-correlated single photon counting, [page 56, first and second paragraphs].
Therefore, it would been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Steiner by including detecting optical chirality, wherein the dielectric material is transparent incident circularly polarized light (as taught by Shcheslavskiy) for several advantages such as: TCSPC provides the highest time resolution and the most efficient use of photons emitted by the sample, such as from the point of view of biological studies, it is essential that the TCSPC based FLIM allows identification of curves with complex (multi-exponent) profiles of fluorescence decay, thus increase the device accuracy ([page 53, right column second paragraph], Shcheslavskiy).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Steiner in view of Shcheslavskiy and further in view of Pedersen et al. (US 20190376012 A1), hereafter Pedersen.
Regarding claim 4, Steiner in the combination outlined above teaches the device according to claim 1.
The modified device of Steiner do not clearly teach wherein the device comprises an optical attenuator in the beam path between the light source and the sample for adjusting an energy of the excitation radiation.
However, Pedersen related to fluorescence detection and thus from the same field of endeavor teaches wherein the device comprises an optical attenuator (Fig. 4 element 104) in the beam path between the light source (Fig. element 100) and the sample (Fig. 4 element 2) for adjusting an energy of the excitation radiation, [0204].
Therefore, it would been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the modified device of Steiner by including wherein the device comprises an optical attenuator in the beam path between the light source and the sample for adjusting an energy of the excitation radiation (as taught by Pedersen) for several advantages such as: the neutral density filter is used to attenuate the light levels allowing to maintain single photon statistics at the detector, thus increase the device accuracy, ([0204], Pedersen).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Steiner in view of Shcheslavskiy and further in view of Kato et al. (US 2015/0082465 A1), hereafter Kato.
Regarding claim 6, Steiner in the combination outlined above teaches the device according to claim 1.
Even though Steiner teaches wherein the device (Fig. 1 element 30) comprises a filter (Fig. 1 elements 9 AND/OR 15, [0139, 0187]) in the beam path between the sample (Fig. 1 element 1) and the detection device (Fig. 1 elements 8 AND/OR 14, [0181]) for filtering a wavelength of the excitation radiation, [0151, 0197]. The modified device of Steiner fail to teach a wherein the device comprises a long-pass edge filter.
However, Kato related to fluorescence detection and thus from the same field of endeavor teaches wherein the device comprises a long-pass edge filter, [0040].
Therefore, it would been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the modified device of Steiner by including wherein the device comprises a long-pass edge filter, (as taught by Kato) for several advantages such as: it allow to increase transmission efficiency of longer wavelengths by blocking unwanted shorter wavelength light, thus increase device accuracy.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Steiner in view of Shcheslavskiy and further in view of Green et al. (US 2020/0110068 A1), hereafter Green.
Regarding claim 7, Steiner in the combination outlined above teaches the device according to claim 1.
Steiner further teaches wherein the device (Fig. 1 element 30) is configured to irradiate the sample (Fig. 1 element 1) in free space with the excitation radiation, , (The irradiation can be transmitted by means of mirror or by means of fiber optics, [0133, 0193]. The irradiation transmitted by mirror is interpreted as “free space” based on how the term “free space” is defined in the Specification, [page 14, lines 1-10]) and is configured such that the autofluorescence radiation is directed in the free space onto the detection device (Fig. 1 elements 8 AND/OR 14), [0197-0198].
Steiner fail to teach the autofluorescence radiation emitted at an angle not equal to zero to the excitation radiation, is directed in the free space onto the detection device.
Green related to fluorescence detection and thus from the same field of endeavor teaches the autofluorescence radiation emitted at an angle not equal to zero to the excitation radiation, ( as shown in Fig. 5), is directed in the free space onto the detection device, (excitation light 103 generated by the egg 104 is directed to the detection device 106 by lens Fig. 1 element 105 “free space”, [0173-0174]).
Therefore, it would been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the modified device of Steiner by including the autofluorescence radiation emitted at an angle not equal to zero to the excitation radiation, is directed in the free space onto the detection device. (as taught by Green) for several advantages such as: multiple measurements are made of each egg at various inspection angles allowing to obtain information for tomographic analysis, thus increase the device versatility, ([0074], Green).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Steiner in view of Shcheslavskiy and further in view of Galli et al. (US 2017/0205353 A1), hereafter Galli.
Regarding claim 8, Steiner in the combination outlined above teaches the device according to claim 1, wherein the device (Fig. 1 element 30) comprises a measuring head, (“Fluorescence radiation measurements are conducted using optical systems such as lenses or microscope objective lenses or a fiber probe”, [0143]).
The modified device of Steiner fail to teach wherein a. the measuring head is configured to emit the excitation radiation into and/or onto the sample, or b. the measuring head is configured to receive the autofluorescence radiation out of and/or from the sample, or c. the measuring head is configured to transmit the excitation radiation into and/or onto the sample and to receive the autofluorescence radiation out of and/or from the sample.
However, Galli related to fluorescence detection and thus from the same field of endeavor teaches wherein a. the measuring head is configured to emit the excitation radiation into and/or onto the sample, or b. the measuring head is configured to receive the autofluorescence radiation out of and/or from the sample,, [0240] or c. the measuring head is configured to transmit the excitation radiation into and/or onto the sample and to receive the autofluorescence radiation out of and/or from the sample.
Therefore, it would been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the modified device of Steiner by including wherein a. the measuring head is configured to emit the excitation radiation into and/or onto the sample, or b. the measuring head is configured to receive the autofluorescence radiation out of and/or from the sample, or c. the measuring head is configured to transmit the excitation radiation into and/or onto the sample and to receive the autofluorescence radiation out of and/or from the sample (as taught by Galli) for several advantages such as: the fiber probe allows for highly precise, non-contact or low-force contact, and localized measurements in tight, harsh, or otherwise inaccessible spaces, thus increase the device efficiency.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Steiner in view of Shcheslavskiy and further in view of Hurlin et al. (US 2024/0069000 A1), hereafter Hurlin.
Regarding claim 9, Steiner in the combination outlined above teaches the device according to claim 1.
Even though Steiner teaches the evaluation unit means (Fig. 1 element 19) is configured to identify the specific wavelengths, [0311-0312]. The modified device of Steiner do not clearly teach identify the specific wavelengths by-means-of via machine learning.
However, Hurlin related to fluorescence detection and thus from the same field of endeavor teaches identify the specific wavelengths by-means-of via machine learning, [0037].
Therefore, it would been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the modified device of Steiner by including identify the specific wavelengths by-means-of via machine learning. (as taught by Hurling) for several advantages such as: enable high-speed, accurate, and automated processing of data, thus increase the device efficiency and accuracy.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Sanchez et al. (US 20220328188 A1), discloses microscopy methods for determining embryo viability, obtain a hyperspectral representation of autofluorescence associated with the biological material. Time-correlated single photon counting (TCSPC) FLIM includes the use of pulsed illumination, as depicted in FIG. 3 Each pulse may excite a single fluorophore. A short time period (i.e., picoseconds to nanoseconds) after the pulse, the molecule's emitted fluorescence photon is detected by a single photon counting detector, and fast-functioning electronics can register a precise arrival time of the fluorescence photon. This significant reduction in excitation is demonstrated in FIG. 4.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CARLOS G PEREZ-GUZMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-3904. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30 am - 5:00 pm ET.
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 at (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 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.
/TARIFUR R CHOWDHURY/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2877
/CARLOS PEREZ-GUZMAN/ Examiner, Art Unit 2877