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:
a optical subsystem (Claim 1, 3-6)
an electronic subsystem (Claim 1)
a controller (Claim 1, 7-8, 17, 20)
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 5, 7, 17, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by WOLF et al. (2017/0059488).
Claim 1
WOLF et al. (2017/0059488) an optical system for sensing molecular species (See Fig. 3), comprising: an optical subsystem having a telescope (Fig. 3, Ref. 32; Newtonian telescope) configured to receive a signal corresponding to a sample (Fig. 3, Ref. 31; Sample); an electronics subsystem (Fig. 3, Ref. 37; electronic PMT with filter Ref. 35) configured to sample and filter the signal; and a controller (Fig. 3, Ref. 38; data acquisition system) configured to analyze the signal for characteristics corresponding to a molecular species (Para. 0057; pathogen etc..).
PNG
media_image1.png
628
480
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim 2
WOLF et al. (2017/0059488) discloses the controller (Fig. 3, Ref. 38) is configured to: determine, responsive to analyzing the signal, that a threshold level of characteristics corresponding to the molecular species is met; and identify the molecular species as a type of molecular species (Para. 0042; further see prior art Claim 7).
Claim 5
WOLF et al. (2017/0059488) discloses the optical subsystem includes a detector configured to sense light (Fig. 37, 39; PMT).
Claim 7
WOLF et al. (2017/0059488) discloses the controller is further configured to synchronize laser pulses from a laser to produce high-resolution timing signals from the received signal (Para. 0053-0056).
Claim 17
WOLF et al. (2017/0059488) discloses an optical system for sensing molecular species (See Fig. 3), comprising: a telescope (Fig. 3, Ref. 32) configured to receive a signal corresponding to a sample (Fig. 3, Ref. 31); at least one filter (Fig. 3, Ref. 35) and converter (Fig. 3, Ref. 37) configured to process the received signal; and a controller (Fig. 3, Ref. 38) configured to analyze the signal for characteristics corresponding to a molecular species (Para. 0057; pathogen etc..) including to determine that a threshold level of characteristics corresponding to the molecular species is met and identify the molecular species as a type of molecular species (Para. 0042; further see prior art Claim 7).
Claim 20
WOLF et al. (2017/0059488) discloses the controller is further configured to synchronize laser pulses from a laser to produce high-resolution timing signals from the received signal (Para. 0053-0056).
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.
Claim(s) 3-4, 6, 8, 9, 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WOLF et al. (2017/0059488).
Claim 3-4, 18
WOLF et al. (2017/0059488) discloses the claimed invention except for optical subsystem includes a scanning confocal arranged on the telescope to receive the signal corresponding to the sample or a scanning confocal arranged on the telescope to receive the signal corresponding to the sample and the scanning confocal includes an imaging relay having a pair of lenses and at least one mirror, wherein the at least one mirror is configured to scan the received signal and de-scan a retuning signal. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify WOLF et al. (2017/0059488) with a scanning confocal with optical elements on a telescope since it was well known in the art that using a confocal system combines the high axial resolution of confocal imaging with the ability to collect and focus the weak fluorescence signal from each scanned point, enabling clear, high-resolution 2D or 3D images of samples. The examiner takes Official Notice that the elements listed above are well-known, or to be common knowledge in the art are capable of instant and unquestionable demonstration as being well-known.
Claim 6, 19
WOLF et al. (2017/0059488) discloses the claimed invention except for optical subsystem includes a silicon photomultiplier (SiPM) for single photon detection. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify WOLF et al. (2017/0059488) with the optical subsystem includes a silicon photomultiplier (SiPM) for single photon detection since it was well known in the art that a silicon photomultiplier is used in a telescope-based photo-scanning confocal because it offers single-photon sensitivity, high gain, compact size, magnetic field tolerance, fast response, and low operating voltage, all of which are critical for detecting faint, spatially resolved signals in a confocal telescope setup. The examiner takes Official Notice that the elements listed above are well-known, or to be common knowledge in the art are capable of instant and unquestionable demonstration as being well-known.
Claim 8
WOLF et al. (2017/0059488) discloses the claimed invention except for the controller is further configured to instruct centroiding on a return signal to extract radiation dynamics from the return signal. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify WOLF et al. (2017/0059488) with the centroiding on a return signal since it was well known in the art that instruct centroiding on the return signal extracts the precise location and intensity of the radiation source, enabling accurate, repeatable, and high-sensitivity measurements of radiation dynamics in a confocal telescope setup. The examiner takes Official Notice that the elements listed above are well-known, or to be common knowledge in the art are capable of instant and unquestionable demonstration as being well-known.
Claim 9
WOLF et al. (2017/0059488) discloses the radiation dynamics includes the characteristics corresponding to the molecular species (Para. 0057; one derives an assessment of the probability that the suspect cloud is mainly formed by biological substances or “harmless” AH. This could be applied, e.g., when checking a typical bioterrorisin threat consisting of sprays of pathogen bacteria, like anthrax, yersina pestis, or liquid drops containing viruses).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10-16 are allowed over the prior art of record.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 10, the prior art fails to disclose or make obvious a method for sensing molecular species having the steps of receiving a signal from a detector and acquiring pulses on an analog to digital converter until a total pulse or per pixel amount is reached; instructing at least one mirror to move; instructing a laser to generate laser pulses; in response to the number of pixels being reached, analyze the signals; and display result data to user based on the analyzing, wherein the results identify a molecular species corresponding to the result data, and in combination with the other recited limitations of claim 10. Claims 11-16 are allowed by the virtue of dependency on the allowed claim 10.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL PATRICK STAFIRA whose telephone number is (571)272-2430. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 6:30am-3pm.
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.
/MICHAEL P STAFIRA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2877 July 17, 2026
Prosecution Insights