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 Status
The status of claims 1-20 is:
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 09/16/2024 and 03/12/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Objections
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim states “segmenting a portion overlaps” when it should state” segmenting a portion that overlaps”. Appropriate correction is required.
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:
“flow unit” in claims 1, 7, 9, 11, and 15
“light emitting layer” in claims 1 and 9-10
“acquisition unit” in claims 9 and 11-12
“analysis unit” in claims 9 and 17
“transmission layer” in claim 11
“learning unit” in claims 16-18.
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 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)(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.
Claim(s) 1, 7-9, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Cho et al. (Cho, S. Y., Gong, X., Koman, V. B., Kuehne, M., Moon, S. J., Son, M., ... & Strano, M. S. (2021). Cellular lensing and near infrared fluorescent nanosensor arrays to enable chemical efflux cytometry. Nature Communications, 12(1), 3079., presented in the IDS received 09/16/2024).
Regarding claim 1, Cho discloses a cell analysis method comprising:
providing a flow unit configured to provide a path in which a cell flows (Cho Page 2: “The schematic of the flow channel and nanosensor array integration for NCC are shown in Fig. 1a”; Cho Fig. 1a), the flow unit including a light emitting layer configured to, in response to being irradiated by a first light in a first wavelength band, emit a second light in a second wavelength band (Cho Page 2: “A commercial microfluidic channel was coated with APTES for self assembled monolayer formation and SWNT/(GT)15 adhesion on both the top and bottom surface of the channel”; Cho Page 10: “SWNT/(GT)15 releases the nIR fluorescence with visible range excitation laser (e.g. 516 nm) acting as an optical transducer for H2O2 detection”);
irradiating the light emitting layer with the first light (Cho Page 4: “For the NCC implementation, the NIM was integrated with a syringe pump and nIR microscope. 561nm excitation laser was provided from the bottom side of the channel (right, Fig. 3a)”; Cho Fig. 3a);
emitting the second light from the light emitting layer in response to the irradiation of the first light (Cho Page 10: “SWNT/(GT)15 releases the nIR fluorescence with visible range excitation laser (e.g. 516 nm) acting as an optical transducer for H2O2 detection”; Cho Fig. 3a);
acquiring an image formed by reacting the cell with the second light emitted from the light emitting layer (Cho Page 4: “The NIM platform demonstrates uniform and near-instantaneous nIR intensity response even when imaged at the high-resolution needed to interrogate single cells”; Cho Figs. 1e-1f); and
analyzing the cell from the acquired image (Cho Page 4: “The NIM platform demonstrates uniform and near-instantaneous nIR intensity response even when imaged at the high-resolution needed to interrogate single cells”; Cho Figs. 2a-2g).
Regarding claim 7, Cho discloses the method, wherein a number of cells flowing in the flow unit is between 105 and 107 per minute (Cho Page 2: “While typical flow and image cytometry of living cells can sample 106–107 cells in just a few minutes”).
Regarding claim 8, Cho discloses the method, wherein the first light includes a visible light (Cho Page 10: “SWNT/(GT)15 releases the nIR fluorescence with visible range excitation laser (e.g. 516 nm) acting as an optical transducer for H2O2 detection”; Cho Fig. 3a), and wherein the second light includes a near-infrared light (Cho Page 10: “SWNT/(GT)15 releases the nIR fluorescence with visible range excitation laser (e.g. 516 nm) acting as an optical transducer for H2O2 detection”; Cho Fig. 3a).
Regarding claim 9, Cho discloses a cell analysis system comprising:
a flow unit configured to provide a path in which a cell flows (Cho Page 2: “The schematic of
the flow channel and nanosensor array integration for NCC are shown in Fig. 1a”; Cho Fig. 1a), the flow unit including a light emitting layer configured to, in response to being irradiated by a first light in a first wavelength band, emit a second light in a second wavelength band (Cho Page 2: “A commercial microfluidic channel was coated with APTES for self assembled monolayer formation and SWNT/(GT)15 adhesion on both the top and bottom surface of the channel”; Cho Page 10: “SWNT/(GT)15 releases the nIR fluorescence with visible range excitation laser (e.g. 516 nm) acting as an optical transducer for H2O2 detection”);
an acquisition unit configured to acquire an image formed by reacting the cell with the second light (Cho Page 10: “NCC was implemented with the help of a nIR microscope (IMA IRTM, Photon Etc.) equipped with 561nm laser excitation (MGL-FN-561, Opto Engine LLC)”); and
an analysis unit configured to analyze the cell from the image acquired by the acquisition unit (Cho Page 10: “All the measurements were conducted with ×20 objective, 0.1 s exposure time and medium intensity gain. In order to investigate the focal points and observed cell locations, motorized Z-stage controller was integrated with nIR microscopy. Hollow glass microspheres (0.6 g/cc and 5–30 μm, Cospheric LLC), PS microparticle (20 μm, Sigma Aldrich), and stainless steel metal microspheres (7.8 g/cc and 1–22 μm, Cospheric LLC) were used for reference particles as lensing effect observations. All reported micrograph results were consistently replicated across multiple experiments (minimum of n=3) with all replicates generating similar results”).
Regarding claim 20, Cho discloses the system, wherein the first light includes a visible light (Cho Page 10: “SWNT/(GT)15 releases the nIR fluorescence with visible range excitation laser (e.g. 516 nm) acting as an optical transducer for H2O2 detection”; Cho Fig. 3a), and wherein the second light includes a near-infrared light (Cho Page 10: “SWNT/(GT)15 releases the nIR fluorescence with visible range excitation laser (e.g. 516 nm) acting as an optical transducer for H2O2 detection”; Cho Fig. 3a).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-6 and 10-19 are 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Ueda et al. (U.S. Patent Publication No 2024/0273716, hereinafter “Ueda”) discloses a system for imaging cells using lights and a plurality of mirrors and lenses (Ueda Abstract and Fig. 1).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AIDAN KEUP whose telephone number is (703)756-4578. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00-4:00.
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, Emily Terrell can be reached at (571) 270-3717. 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.
/AIDAN KEUP/ Examiner, Art Unit 2666 /Molly Wilburn/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2666
Prosecution Insights