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 Objections
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 6 line 8, “the micro-channel based optical filter device” should be “the microchannel-based optical filter device”.
In claim 6 line 9, “high-angle of incidence light strives grooves of the plurality of microchannels” should be “high-angle of incidence light strikes grooves of the plurality of microchannels” or more preferably “high-angle of incidence light is incident on grooves of the plurality of microchannels”.
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 6-7 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.
Claim 6 recites the limitation “receiving, at an optical device having a microchannel-based optical filter, a wavelength-based optical filter, and a detector”. It is not clear what is received at an optical device. Is high-angle of incidence light received at an optical device? Thereby as being indefinite, claim 6 fails to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter. For examination purposes, the examiner has interpreted “receiving, at an optical device having a microchannel-based optical filter, a wavelength-based optical filter, and a detector” as “providing an optical device having a microchannel-based optical filter, a wavelength-based optical filter and a detector”.
Claim 6 further recites the limitation “the microchannel-based optical filter device” in line 7. Because claim 6 recites “a microchannel-based optical filter” in line 5, it is not clear whether “the microchannel-based optical filter device” is different from “a microchannel-based optical filter”. Thereby as being indefinite, claim 6 fails to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter. For examination purposes, the examiner has interpreted “the microchannel-based optical filter device” as “the microchannel-based optical filter”.
Claim 7 is rejected because they depend upon claim 6; they are likewise rejected under the same rationale as that set forth above with respect to claim 6.
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 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 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Colvin, JR. (US 20130324819) in view of Ogawa (US 20110013269).
Regarding claim 6, Colvin, Jr. discloses a method (Figs. 3-7; see Paras. [0029]-[0033] identifying the embodiment shown in Figs. 3-7), comprising:
illuminating a sensor (Figs. 3-4; the light source 108 illuminating a sensor 900; Para. [0044]) implanted in tissue (Para. [0039]) with excitation light (129) having an excitation wavelength, the sensor configured to produce an analyte-dependent optical signal (Para. [0049]) having an emission wavelength (131);
providing an optical device having a microchannel-based optical filter, a wavelength-based optical filter and a detector (see 112(b) rejections above) (see Figs. 4-6 where the AOI filter 724, the wavelength-based optical filter 111/113 and the photodetector 112 are provided);
filtering high-angle of incidence light using the microchannel-based optical filter (see 112(b) rejections above) (Para. [0069]), such that as high-angle of incidence light strives the plurality of microchannels an intensity of the high-angle of incidence light diminishes with each reflection (Para. [0063]);
filtering excitation light from the analyte-dependent optical signal using the wavelength-based optical filter device after filtering high-angle of incidence light (Paras. [0065], [0078]); and
measuring an intensity of the analyte-dependent optical signal (Para. [0013]).
Colvin, JR. does not explicitly disclose the micro-channel based optical filter device having a plurality of grooves.
However, Ogawa teaches a micro-channel based optical filter device having a plurality of grooves (13a; Para. [0174]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at a time before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the method as disclosed by Colvin, JR. with the teachings of Ogawa, to have the micro-channel based optical filter device having a plurality of grooves, for the purpose of easily controlling the effective refractive index (Ogawa: Paras. [0159], [0177]).
Regarding claim 7, Colvin, Jr. as modified by Ogawa discloses the limitations of claim 6 above, and Colvin, Jr. further discloses wherein: the microchannel-based optical filter is disposed between the sensor and the wavelength-based optical filter; and the wavelength-based optical filter is disposed between the detector and the microchannel-based optical filter (Figs. 3-5).
Claims 1 and 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ogawa in view of Gallego-Perez (US 20190329014), and in further view of Colvin, JR.
Regarding claim 1, Ogawa discloses a method (Figs. 2A-2C; see Paras. [0062]-[0063] identifying the embodiment shown in Figs. 2A-2C and see Para. [0174] teaching using etching to obtain the microchannels), comprising:
etching a microchannel (13; Paras. [0174]-[0175]), each microchannel having a plurality of grooves (13a; Para. [0174]).
Ogawa does not explicitly disclose etching a plurality of microchannels into a wafter,
such that the plurality of microchannels are configured to reject light having an angle of incidence greater than a predetermined threshold; and
dicing a portion of the wafer into a plurality of individual of microchannel-based optical filter devices, each containing multiple microchannels from the plurality of microchannels.
However, Gallego-Perez teaches a known microfabrication method includes etching a plurality of microchannels into a wafer and dicing a portion of the wafer into small pieces as needed (Paras. [0038] and [0147]), and Colvin, JR. further teaches microchannels (Fig. 7) are capable of rejecting light having an angle of incidence greater than a predetermined threshold (Para. [0069]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at a time before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the method as disclosed by Ogawa with the teachings of Gallego-Perez and Colvin, JR., for etching a plurality of microchannels into a wafter, such that the plurality of microchannels are configured to reject light having an angle of incidence greater than a predetermined threshold; and dicing a portion of the wafer into a plurality of individual of microchannel-based optical filter devices, each containing multiple microchannels from the plurality of microchannels, for the purpose of using a known microfabrication method and obtaining an optical filter (Gallego-Perez: Para. [0038]; Colvin, JR.: Para. [0069]).
Regarding claim 4, Ogawa as modified by Gallego-Perez and Colvin, JR. discloses the limitations of claim 1 above.
Ogawa does not explicitly disclose assembling an individual microchannel-based optical filter device onto a circuit board above an optical detector, the individual microchannel-based optical filter device configured to impede high angle of incidence light from reaching the detector.
However, Colvin, JR. teaches assembling a individual microchannel-based optical filter device onto a circuit board above an optical detector (Paras. [0045] and [0052] teaching using a circuit board and a photodetectors), and a microchannel (Fig. 7) is configured to impede high angle of incidence light from reaching the detector (Figs. 3 and 7; Para. [0069]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at a time before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the method as disclosed by Ogawa with the teachings of Gallego-Perez and Colvin, JR., for assembling an individual microchannel-based optical filter device onto a circuit board above an optical detector, the individual microchannel-based optical filter device configured to impede high angle of incidence light from reaching the detector, for the purpose of obtaining an optical filter using a known microfabrication method (Gallego-Perez: Para. [0038]; Colvin, JR.: Para. [0069]).
Regarding claim 5, Ogawa as modified by Gallego-Perez and Colvin, JR. discloses the limitations of claim 1 above, and Ogawa further discloses depositing an optical filter (Fig. 2C), the optical filter configured to selectively filter light based on wavelength (Fig. 35 and Para. [0039]).
Ogawa does not explicitly disclose the optical filter on a surface of the wafer.
However, Gallego-Perez teaches forming an optical filter on a surface of the wafer (Para. [0038]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at a time before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the method as disclosed by Ogawa with the teachings of Gallego-Perez, for forming the optical filter on a surface of the wafer, for the purpose of obtaining an optical filter using a known method (Gallego-Perez: Para. [0038]).
Claims 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ogawa in view of Gallego-Perez and Colvin, JR., and in further view of Tervo (US 20190056591).
Regarding claim 2, Ogawa as modified by Gallego-Perez and Colvin, JR. discloses the limitations of claim 1 above.
Ogawa does not explicitly disclose depositing an anti-reflective coating onto a surface of each microchannel from the plurality of microchannels.
However, Tervo teaches providing antireflective coatings on the surface of grating structures, to reduce unwanted reflection of light on the waveguide surfaces (Figs. 4A-4C; 405b, 405c, … coated on 400; Paras. [0004], [0044]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at a time before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the method as disclosed by Ogawa with the teachings of Tervo, for depositing an anti-reflective coating onto a surface of each microchannel from the plurality of microchannels, for the purpose of reducing unwanted reflection of light and obtaining desired properties of the associated grating (Tervo: Para. [0044]).
Regarding claim 3, Ogawa as modified by Gallego-Perez and Colvin, JR. discloses the limitations of claim 1 above.
Ogawa does not explicitly disclose depositing an anti-reflective coating onto an end surface of the wafer.
However, Tervo teaches providing antireflective coatings on the surface of grating structures, including the end surface where the groove has a depth, to reduce unwanted reflection of light on the waveguide surfaces (Figs. 4A-4C; 405b, 405c, … coated on 400; Paras. [0004], [0044]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at a time before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the method as disclosed by Ogawa with the teachings of Tervo, for depositing an anti-reflective coating onto an end surface of the wafer, for the purpose of reducing unwanted reflection of light and obtaining desired properties of the associated grating (Tervo: Para. [0044]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN Y JUNG whose telephone number is (469)295-9076. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday, 9:00 am - 5:00 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, Michael H Caley can be reached on (571)272-2286. 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.
/JONATHAN Y JUNG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2871
Prosecution Insights