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 § 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)(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.
Claim 77 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being unpatentable over Ghorbani (2024/0200133)(earliest priority date July 21, 2021)
Regarding claim 77, Ghorbani disclsoes a method comprising:communicating fluid through a flow cell, the flow cell having a first side and a second side, the flow cell comprising a plurality of reaction sites, each reaction site containing a biological sample carried by the fluid, ;communicating excitation light toward the biological samples at the reaction sites, the reaction sites together being positioned along a curved plane, (Ghorbani, Figs. 52, 53, 54, items 4902, 4915, 5302) the excitation light being communicated through the first side of the flow cell to reach the biological samples at the reaction sites; and receiving light emitted from the reaction sites along the curved plane in response to the excitation light, the emitted light being received via an image sensor, the emitted light passing through the first side of the flow cell to be received via the image sensor. (Figs. 53A, 53B, etc., operation apparent)
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) 1-8, 19, 21, 23,25-27, 30-31, and 76 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maher (2014/0248693) in view of Hatakeyama (9,800,811).
Regarding claim 1, Maher teaches an apparatus, comprising: a flow cell comprising a plurality of reaction sites, the flow cell being configured to receive a fluid and an excitation light, each reaction site being configured to contain a biological sample carried by the fluid, the reaction sites together being positioned along a reaction site plane; and an image sensor positioned to receive light emitted from the reaction site in response to the excitation light, the image sensor defining an imaging surface, the imaging surface defining an imaging surface plane (Maher, Fig. 1
Maher lacks explicit teaching of one or both of the reaction site plane or the imaging surface plane being curved.
Hatakeyama teaches a curved imaging plane (Col. 4, Lines 22-48, Fig. 4A, Fig. 4B) for the benefit of reducing field aberration, and reducing dark current (Col. 5, Lines 20-22).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to include a curved image sensor as taught by Hatakeyama in the device of Maher in order to reduce field aberration and/or dark current.
Regarding claims 2 and 3, the combination of Maher and Hatakeyama lacks explicit teaching of one or both of the reaction site plane or the imaging surface plane including a cylindrically curved plane.
However, the curve shown in Hatakeyama must be either cylindrical or spherical, and either selection would be obvious over the other as there are limited solutions with known results: a flat image sensor with a bend will more easily bend into a cylindrical curve which prevents internal stresses in the material; whereas a spherical bend would provide better field aberration assuming a point source.
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Maher and Hatakeyama further teaches one or both of the reaction site plane or the imaging surface plane having a freeform profile. (adjustability of the curve of a flexible sensor is shown in Hatakeyama, which grants the practitioner the teaching of arbitrary shaping)
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Maher and Hatakeyama further teaches at least a portion of the flow cell or the image sensor being flexible to permit adjustment of the reaction site plane or the imaging surface plane. (Hatakeyama, Col. 4, Lines 22-48)
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Maher and Hatakeyama further teaches an actuator, the actuator being operable to controllably bend at least a portion of theflow cell or the image sensor to thereby controllably change the curve of the reaction site plane or the imaging surface plane. (Hatakeyama, Col. 4, Lines 22-48)
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Maher and Hatakeyama further teaches a driver coupling the actuator with the at least a portion of the flow cell or the image sensor. (Hatakeyama, Col. 4, Lines 22-48)
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Maher and Hatakeyama further teaches the actuator being operable to drive bending of the at least a portion of the flow cell or the imaging surface without contact between the actuator and the at least a portion of the flow cell or the image sensor. (Hatakeyama, Col. 4, Lines 22-48, magnetic attraction is a non-contact technology)
Regarding claim 19, the combination of Maher and Hatakeyama further teaches a processor, the processor being configured to: receive signals from the image sensor, determine a focus value of an image captured by the image sensor, and drive the actuator in response to the determined focus value. (Col. 3, Lines 26 et seq., Col. 4 Lines 49 et seq.)
Regarding claim 21, the combination of Maher and Hatakeyama further teaches the image sensor including a first side and a second side, the first side of the image sensor including the imaging surfac the actuator being positioned at the second side of the image sensor, opposite to the imaging surface. (Hatakeyama, Fig. 4B, magnet 31 behind image sensing plane of detector 3)
Regarding claim 23, the combination of Maher and Hatakeyama further teaches one or more bend sensing elements, the one or more bend sensing elements being configured to sense bending in at least a portion of the flow cell or the image sensor and thereby generate signals indicating one or more curvatures in the reaction site plane or the imaging surface plane. (Hatakeyama, Cols. 5-8 discuss the measurement of dark current which is proportional to the bend in the sensor, and adjusting the bend in the sensor to optimize the focus/dark current balance)
Regarding claim 25, the combination of Maher and Hatakeyama further teaches a processor, the processor being configured to:receive signals from the one or more bend sensing elements, and determine a bending characteristic of the at least a portion of the flow celler the image sensor based on at least the received signals from the one or more bend sensing elements. (id.)
Regarding claim 26, the combination of Maher and Hatakeyama further teaches the bending characteristic including a curvature of the reaction site plane or the imaging surface plane. (id.)
Regarding claim 27, the combination of Maher and Hatakeyama further teaches an actuator, the actuator being operable to controllably bend at least a portion of the flow cell or the image sensor to thereby controllably change the curve of the reaction site plane or the imaging surface plane;the processor being further configured to drive the actuator based at least in part on signals from the one or more bend sensing elements. (id.)
Regarding claim 30, the combination of Maher and Hatakeyama further teaches the curve of the reaction site plane or the imaging surface plane being rigidly defined by the flow cell or the image sensor. (Maher, fixed reaction site plane of reaction samples 115)
Regarding claim 31, the combination of Maher and Hatakeyama further teaches the flow cell being configured to perform sequencing by synthesis at the reaction sites. (Maher, [0005])
Regarding claim 76, Maher teaches a method comprising: communicating excitation light toward a biological sample on a floor of a reaction site in a flow cell; and receiving light emitted from the reaction site in response to the excitation light, the emitted light being received via an image sensor, the image sensor having an imaging surface,
Maher lacks explicit teaching of the image sensor including an imaging surface defining a curved plane.
Hatakeyama teaches a curved imaging plane (Col. 4, Lines 22-48, Fig. 4A, Fig. 4B) for the benefit of reducing field aberration, and reducing dark current (Col. 5, Lines 20-22).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to include a curved image sensor as taught by Hatakeyama in the device of Maher in order to reduce field aberration and/or dark current.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maher in view of Hatakeyama and Yamashita (2012/0057072)
Regarding claim 20, the combination of Maher and Hatakeyama lacks explicit teaching of the processor being configured to:receive signals from the image sensor, determine a point spread function (PSF) of an image captured by the image sensor, and drive the actuator in response to the determined PSF.
Yamashita teaches the processor being configured to:receive signals from the image sensor, determine a point spread function (PSF) of an image captured by the image sensor, and drive the actuator in response to the determined PSF. (Yamashita, [0004])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to include the PSF focus adjustment technique of Yamashita in the device of Maher and Hatakeyama in order to improve the image quality received by the sensor.
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maher in view of Hatakeyama and McKnight et al. (2016/0086987)
Regarding claim 24, the combination of Maher and Hatakeyama lacks explicit teaching of the one or more bend sensing elements including one or more strain gauges.
McKnight teaches the one or more bend sensing elements including one or more strain gauges. (McKnight, [0053])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to include the strain gauges of McKnight in the device of Maher and Hatakeyama in order to measure the deformation of the imaging element directly rather than indirectly.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EDWIN C GUNBERG whose telephone number is (571)270-3107. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:30AM-5:00PM.
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, Uzma Alam can be reached at 571-272-3995. 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.
/EDWIN C GUNBERG/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2884
Prosecution Insights