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 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.
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 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Neuzil (WO 2015/189298 A1), and further in view of Christopherson (US 2024/0191297 A1).
With respect to independent claim 1, Neuzil teaches in Fig. 2 a system for reducing scattering and improving power density in cellular matrices this limitation “cellular matrices” is determined to “intended use”, comprising:
a light source 9 configured to provide source light at a first wavelength to a cellular matrix;
a first filter 2 configured to receive the source light from the light source and provide a first light;
a plurality of fluorophores 6 configured to receive at least a portion of the source light and first light and generate a second light at a second wavelength;
at least one second filter 7 configured to receive at least a portion of the first light and second light and filter the first light; and
a detector 8 configured to receive the second light from the at least one second filter to perform optogenetics on the cellular matrices. Neuzil is silent with cellular matrices. Christopherson, a pertinent art, teaches cellular matrix in paragraph [0113. In view of this, it would be obvious at the time of the claimed invention was filed to modify the teaching of Neuzil in order to detect fluorescences in desired sample. This is in consistency with the Supreme Court Decision of the KSR. V. International Co.: applying a known technique to a known device (method or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results.]
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Neuzil modified by Christopherson, and further in view of Ness (US 8,730,497 B2).
The teaching of Neuzil modified by Christopherson has been discussed above.
With respect to dependent claim 2, Neuzil is silent with wherein the first filter is a polarization filter configured to provide the first light at a first polarization.
Ness teaches in column 22, lines 16 – 20 a polarization filter 510. In view of this, it would be obvious at the time of the claimed invention was filed to modify the teaching of Neuzil modified by Christopherson in order to form a polarized excitation light. This is in consistency with the Supreme Court Decision of the KSR. V. International Co.: applying a known technique to a known device (method or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Neuzil modified by Christopherson, and further in view of Prins (US 2007/0146717 A1).
The teaching of Neuzil modified by Christopherson has been discussed above.
With respect to dependent claim 3, Ness teaches wherein the at least one second filter includes two filters, wherein one of the filters is a polarization filter 512.
Prins, a pertinent art, teaches in paragraph [0042] a broad absorption and polarizing filter. In view of this, it would be obvious at the time of the claimed invention was filed to modify the teaching of Neuzil modified by Christopherson in order to exclude scattered light of the light source (see paragraph [0042] of Prins). This is in consistency with the Supreme Court Decision of the KSR. V. International Co.: applying a known technique to a known device (method or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
With respect to dependent claim 4, as discussed above Prins teaches wherein the other of the two filter is an absorptive filter to eliminate excitation light due to scattering events.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5 – 6 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.
Claims 7 – 19 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
With respect to dependent claim 5, the prior art of record fails to teach or reasonably suggest:
a plurality of scatterers arranged at the cellular matrix configured to return a portion of the light to increase an optical power density of the cellular matrix.
With respect to dependent claim 6, the prior art of record fails to teach or reasonably suggest:
a frame arranged an outer edge of the cellular matrix to direct light in a direction opposite that of the source light.
With respect to independent claim 7 and its dependent claims 8 – 16 and 18 – 19, the prior art of record fails to teach or reasonably suggest: a system of cellular matrices for reducing scattering and improving power density in the cellular matrices, comprising:
a frame arranged around the cellular matrices and configured to direct the light in a second direction along the first path to maintain a threshold power density of the light within the cellular matrices.
With respect to independent claim 17, the prior art of record fails to teach or reasonably suggest: a system of cellular matrices for reducing scattering and improving power density in the cellular matrices, comprising
a plurality of scatterers disposed within a layer of the cellular matrix and configured to return a portion of the emitted light to the cellular matrix to increase an optical power density of the cellular matrix.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KIHO KIM, Ph.D. whose telephone number is (571)270-1628. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8-5 EST.
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.
KIHO KIM, Ph.D.
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2884
/Kiho Kim/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2884
Prosecution Insights