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 .
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-2 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-5 of US. application 19/007588 (‘588 hereafter) in view of Kim (US 20120305801 A1). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because.
Regarding claim 1, ’588 claims a fluorescence detection device comprising: a light source configured to irradiate a sample with excitation light in a circularly polarized state; a cholesteric liquid crystal layer configured to transmit fluorescence emitted by the sample due to the excitation light and reflect the excitation light; and a sensor configured to detect the fluorescence transmitted through the cholesteric liquid crystal layer (claim 1), but fails to claim a sample holder configured to hold the sample.
However, Kim which relates to fluorescence detection, thus from the same field of endeavor as ‘588, teaches a sample holder (150) configured to hold the sample ([0044]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify ‘588 by incorporating a sample holder configured to hold the sample for a precise and repeatable optical measurement.
Regarding claim 2, ’588, when modified claims the fluorescence detection device according to claim 1, wherein the light source comprises: a light emitter; a polarizing plate configured to make light from the light emitter linearly polarized; and a quarter-wave plate configured to convert the linearly polarized light output from the polarizing plate into the excitation light in the circularly polarized state (claim 2).
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.
Claims 1-2, 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (US 20120305801 A1) in view of Sato (US20220066080A1).
Regarding claim 1, Kim (US 20120305801 A1) teaches a fluorescence detection device (Abstract) comprising: a light source (101) configured to irradiate a sample with excitation light in a circularly polarized state ([0044], [0051]); a sample holder (150) configured to hold the sample ([0044]); and a sensor (113) configured to detect the fluorescence ([0044]) but fails to disclose a cholesteric liquid crystal layer configured to transmit fluorescence emitted by the sample due to the excitation light and reflect the excitation light, a sensor configured to detect the fluorescence transmitted through the cholesteric liquid crystal layer.
However, Sato which relates to a detection device, thus from the same field of endeavor as Kim teaches a cholesteric liquid crystal layer (16) configured to allow transmission of only light in a wide wavelength range of the selective reflection wavelength range of the cholesteric liquid crystal layer and reject the rest, and a sensor (10) configured to detect the light transmitted through the cholesteric liquid crystal layer ([0073], [0088]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kim by incorporating a cholesteric liquid crystal layer configured to transmit fluorescence emitted by the sample due to the excitation light and reflect the excitation light a sensor configured to detect the fluorescence transmitted through the cholesteric liquid crystal layer in order to reduce of the influence of external light such that high-accuracy measurement can be performed at a high SN ratio ([0073]).
Regarding claim 2, Kim, when modified by Sato, teaches the fluorescence detection device according to claim 1, wherein the light source comprises: a light emitter (101) (Kim: [0045]); a polarizing plate (103) configured to make light from the light emitter linearly polarized (Kim: [0045], [0046]); and a quarter-wave plate (106) configured to convert the linearly polarized light output from the polarizing plate into the excitation light in the circularly polarized state (Kim: [0051]).
Regarding claim 6, Kim, when modified by Sato, teaches the fluorescence detection device according to claim 1, but fails to disclose wherein an angle of incidence of the excitation light with respect to a surface of the cholesteric liquid crystal layer is 30° or smaller.
However, it is well known that the angle of incidence of incident light determine the optical properties of the cholesteric liquid crystal as disclosed by Sato ([0247], [0249]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kim and Sato by incorporating wherein an angle of incidence of the excitation light with respect to a surface of the cholesteric liquid crystal layer is 30° or smaller to provide optimal performance of the filter.
Claims 3 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (US 20120305801 A1) in view of Sato (US20220066080A1), further in view of Nagatomi (US 20150276606 A1)
Regarding claim 3, Kim, when modified by Sato, teaches the fluorescence detection device according to claim 1, but fails to disclose wherein the sample holder comprises a resin substrate with a light-shielding property having a first surface and a second surface opposite to the first surface and positioned on the cholesteric liquid crystal layer side, and a through hole passing through the resin substrate from the first surface to the second surface is provided in the sample holder.
Nagatomi which relates to fluorescence detection, thus from the same field of endeavor as Kim, teaches the sample holder (substrate 1) comprises a resin substrate (substrate 11) with a light-shielding property (polycarbonate is known for having a UV light-shielding property) having a first surface and a second surface opposite to the first surface ([0027], fig. 1A), and a through hole passing through the resin (polycarbonate) substrate from the first surface to the second surface is provided in the sample holder ([0029], [0043], [0038]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kim and Sato by incorporating wherein the sample holder comprises a resin substrate with a light-shielding property having a first surface and a second surface opposite to the first surface and positioned on the cholesteric liquid crystal layer side, and a through hole passing through the resin substrate from the first surface to the second surface is provided in the sample holder to optimize irradiation and collection of light.
Regarding claim 5, Kim, when modified by Sato and Nagatomi, teaches the fluorescence detection device according to claim 3, wherein the cholesteric liquid crystal layer has a liquid crystal molecule that helically rotates, and comprises a first liquid crystal layer and a second liquid crystal layer having the liquid crystal molecule that rotates in a direction different from a direction in which the liquid crystal molecule of the first liquid crystal layer rotates (Sato: [0210]).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (US 20120305801 A1) in view of Sato (US20220066080A1), further in view of Sano (WO 2015189695 A1)
Regarding claim 7, Kim, when modified by Sato, teaches the fluorescence detection device according to claim 1, further comprising: a light-transmitting substrate (20) disposed on the cholesteric liquid crystal layer (26) and on which the cholesteric liquid crystal layer is formed (Sato: [0096]-[0098]), but fails to disclose a light-shielding layer having a light-shielding property and surrounding an outer periphery of an upper surface of the sensor.
However, light shielding layers are well known in fluorescence sensors as disclosed by Sano ([0026]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kim and Sato by incorporating a light-shielding layer having a light-shielding property and surrounding an outer periphery of an upper surface of the sensor to reduce stray light and improve detection accuracy..
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4, 8-12 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.
Regarding claim 4, the prior art of record taken alone or in combination, fails to teach or disclose: “wherein an opening area of the through hole in the first surface is larger than an opening area of the through hole in the second surface, and an angle between the second surface and a side wall of the through hole surrounding the sample is 45° or smaller”.
None of the cited prior art explicitly disclose a through-hole with a specific configuration where an opening area of the through hole in the first surface is larger than an opening area of the through hole in the second surface , combined with a sidewall angle of 45o or smaller.
Regarding claim 8, the prior art of record taken alone or in combination, fails to teach or disclose: “wherein the cholesteric liquid crystal layer is positioned near the second surface in the through hole”
None of the cited prior art explicitly disclose the specific positioning of a cholesteric liquid crystal layer relative to a through-hole.
Regarding claim 9, the prior art of record taken alone or in combination, fails to teach or disclose: “a through hole passing through the resin substrate from the first surface to the second surface is provided in the sample holder, a plurality of storage parts each surrounded by a side wall of the through hole and configured to accommodate the sample are provided, each of the storage parts comprises the cholesteric liquid crystal layer formed on a lower side of the storage part, a plurality of the sensors are provided for the respective storage parts, the sensors are each disposed on a lower side of the cholesteric liquid crystal layer, an outer periphery of the cholesteric liquid crystal layer is surrounded by the side wall, and the sensors are adjacent to each other in a lateral direction.”
Claims 10-12 would be allowed due to dependency on claim 9.
Regarding claim 9, Kim, when modified by Sato, teaches the fluorescence detection device according to claim 1, a plurality of storage parts (151-154) each surrounded by a side wall and configured to accommodate the sample are provided (Kim: [0044], [0060], fig. 2), a plurality of the sensors are provided for the respective storage parts (Kim: [0056]-[0057]),
Ogawa (US20080062423A1) teaches the sample holder comprises a resin substrate with a light-shielding property having a first surface and a second surface opposite to the first surface ([0043]),
Zhao (US 20240091731 A1) teaches the sample holder comprises a resin substrate with a light-shielding (opaque) property having a first surface and a second surface opposite to the first surface ([0056]), a plurality of storage parts (well 116) each surrounded by a side wall (reaction barriers 115) and configured to accommodate the sample are provided ([0054], fig. 1).
However, the prior art of record, whether considered individually or in combination, do not render obvious the claim subject matter: “a through hole passing through the resin substrate from the first surface to the second surface is provided in the sample holder, a plurality of storage parts each surrounded by a side wall of the through hole and configured to accommodate the sample are provided, each of the storage parts comprises the cholesteric liquid crystal layer formed on a lower side of the storage part, a plurality of the sensors are provided for the respective storage parts, the sensors are each disposed on a lower side of the cholesteric liquid crystal layer, an outer periphery of the cholesteric liquid crystal layer is surrounded by the side wall, and the sensors are adjacent to each other in a lateral direction.”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Kimura (US 20010055208 A1) teaches a cholesteric liquid crystal layer configured to transmit reflect fluorescence emitted by the sample due to the excitation light and reflect transmit the excitation light ([0043]. Kimura teaches wherein the cholesteric liquid crystal layer has a liquid crystal molecule that helically rotates, and comprises a first liquid crystal layer and a second liquid crystal layer having the liquid crystal molecule that rotates in a direction different from a direction in which the liquid crystal molecule of the first liquid crystal layer rotates ([0055]).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMED DOUMBIA whose telephone number is (571)272-8266. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5:00 PM ET.
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, Michelle Iacoletti 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.
/MOHAMED DOUMBIA/ Examiner, Art Unit 2877 /MICHELLE M IACOLETTI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2877
Prosecution Insights