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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 07/22/2025 was considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 1, the claim recites “light metering unit being designed” in line 8. The examiner suggests changing this limitation to “light metering unit designed”.
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: “illumination means” in claims 1, 4, 7, 8, 11 and 15; “light metering unit” in claims 1-3, 4, 5, and 7-12; “control element” in claim 9; “analogue control apparatus” in claim 10; “light recording device” in claims 13 and 14
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.
Regarding “illumination means”, the claim recites “illumination means” which uses the generic placeholder “means” 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. Accordingly, the limitation on “illumination means” is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) as corresponding to light emitting elements such as light emitting diodes (LEDs) (Applicant’s specification [0021]).
Regarding “light metering unit”, the claim recites “light metering unit” which uses the generic placeholder “unit” 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. Accordingly, the limitation on “light metering unit” is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) as corresponding to a light exposure meter designed to detect and measure the amount (quantity) of light striking the light receiving surface of the meter. For example, the light metering unit may comprise at least one element selected from the group consisting of a photo-diode, light-dependent resistor, phototube, CMOS chip, and solar cell. (Applicant’s specification [0015]) The examiner notes that the light metering unit is not limited to one of the examples, however, the light metering unit according to the invention does not include spectrometers or other devices separating and measuring spectral components of visible light, e.g. devices that can separate white light and measure individual bands of color (a spectrum) (Applicant’s specification [0015]).
Regarding “control unit”, the claim recites “control unit” which uses the generic placeholder “unit” 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. Accordingly, the limitation on “control unit” is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) as corresponding to a processor, controller, circuit, or equivalent.
Regarding “analogue control apparatus”, the claim recites “analogue control apparatus” which uses the generic placeholder “apparatus” 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. Accordingly, the limitation on “analogue control apparatus” is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) as corresponding to a circuit or equivalent (Applicant’s specification [0039]).
Regarding “light recording device”, the claim recites “light recording device” which uses the generic placeholder “device” 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. Accordingly, the limitation on “light recording device” is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) as corresponding to a memory or equivalent.
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 1-15 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.
Regarding claims 1-3, 5-12, 14-15, the claims are generally narrative and indefinite, failing to conform with current U.S. practice. They appear to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document and are replete with grammatical and idiomatic errors.
In general, the claims initially recite elements with the phrase “at least one”, however, subsequent recitations of the same element are inconsistent with continuing to use the phrase “at least one”. For example, claim 9 recites “at least one blinding element” in line 1 and later recites “said blinding element” in line 3. Another example is in claim 6, which recites “the container” in line 2 instead of “the at least one container” as recited in claim 1, but later recites “the at least one chemical and/or biological sample”. These inconsistencies make the claims unclear as it is difficult to determine if there is insufficient antecedent basis for each limitation that is recited differently. Appropriate correction is required.
Further, regarding claim 11, the claim recites “wherein an intensity of light that has passed through or is scattered by the chemical and/or biological sample in the internal space is measured by means of at least one light metering unit measuring the light intensity at the biologically and/or chemically active wavelength.” The claims recites that the “intensity” and “light intensity” are measured by the light metering unit. This appears to be a result of a translation error and for the purposes of examination, the claim is interpreted as “wherein an intensity of light at the at least one biologically and/or chemically active wavelength that has passed through or is scattered by the chemical and/or biological sample in the internal space is measured by means of at least one light metering unit”. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 2 and 12, the claims recite “the illuminance [lx]”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purposes of examination, the claims are interpreted as “an illuminance [lx]”. Appropriate correction is required.
Further, claim 2 recites that “the light metering unit… is designed to measure the illuminance [lx] and/or irradiance [W/m2] of its light receiving surface” unlike claim 12 which recites “wherein measuring the intensity of light comprises measuring the illuminance [lx] and/or irradiance [W/m2] of at least one light receiving surface of the light metering unit”. The examiner suggests amending claim 2 to recite that the illuminance and irradiance are used to measure the intensity, otherwise, it is not clear whether the measurements are related or separate from each other. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 6, the claim recites “wherein the device or the container comprises two or more cavities designed to hold the at least one chemical and/or biological sample.” Since claim 1 recites “at least one container”, it is unclear if only one container comprises two or more cavities, or if there are multiple containers each with multiple cavities. Further, the “cavities” appear to be the same element as the “internal space” recited in claim 1 based on the applicant’s specification [0048] which reads “The device 1 comprises a multitude of cavities 2 ("wells"), each cavity 2 representing an internal space 3 being capable of holding a chemical and/or biological sample 13”. Is the “internal space” the same as the cavities? If not, how are they different or related? For the purposes of examination, the at least one container comprise two or more cavities which may be the same as the internal spaces as show in (Fig. 2 container 20, cavities 21). Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 7, the claim recites “at least one of the light metering units” however, claim 7 depends from claim 1 which recites “at least one light measuring unit”. Was claim 7 intended to depend from claim 5 which recites “at least two light measuring units”? If so, then there would not be antecedent basis for the other limitation “at least one of the illumination means” which was implicitly recited in claim 4 which requires “two or more illumination means”. For the purposes of examination, “at least one of the light metering units” is interpreted as “at least one light measuring unit”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 4 and 13 are rejected based on their dependencies.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract without significantly more.
Interpretation:
Regarding claim 15, the claim recites a method for calibrating an optogenetic illumination device. The preamble does not actively add limitations to the claimed process or further modify the limitations recited in the body of the claim and thus does not limit the claimed process.
Step 1:
Claim 15 is directed to a method and therefore falls within one of the statutory categories of invention process.
Step 2A Prong One:
The limitation of “wherein at least one measured value of at least one function parameter of the illumination means is determined and compared to at least one measured value of the same function parameter of at least one other illumination means, a previously recorded value of the same illumination means, or to at least one preset and/or standard value, and wherein a difference value resulting from the comparison is determined and documented” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of a mathematical concept Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The limitation of “comprising at least one illumination means, wherein at least one measured value of at least one function parameter of the illumination means is determined” is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, does nothing more than mere data gathering which is an extra solution activity. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to
significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to
integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of “comprising at least one illumination means, wherein at least one measured value of at least one function parameter of the illumination means is determined” amount to no more than mere data collection. Data collection cannot amount to significantly more than the abstract idea as it is a well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field and thus do not contain an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05 In re. Meyers, 688 F.2d 789, 794; 215 USPQ 193, 196-97 (CCPA 1982). Further, the cited prior art US20190391014A1 by Stevenson et al. (at least Fig. 1; [0010]; [0109]) and US6723554B1 by Gaillon et al. (at least Fig. 1; abstract) supports the conclusion that the combination of additional elements recited above are well-understood, routine, conventional activities as they teach “comprising at least one illumination means, wherein at least one measured value of at least one function parameter of the illumination means is determined”.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into
a practical application. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds
nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For
example, there is no indication that the combination of elements improves the
functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. The claim is directed to an
abstract idea.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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.
Claims 1-2 and 4-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US20190391014A1 by Stevenson et al. (hereinafter "Stevenson") in view of US6723554B1 by Gaillon et al. (hereinafter "Gaillon").
Regarding claim 1, Stevenson teaches a device (at least Fig. 1) comprising at least one internal space ([0057] two or more receptacles 111, 112; each receptacles represents an internal space as described by the applicant's specification [0048]) which is designed to hold at least one chemical and/or biological sample ([0057] sample cells; [0058] liquid samples; [0011]) or which is designed to comprise at least one container designed to hold at least one chemical and/or biological sample and at least one illumination means for illuminating the chemical and/or biological sample in the internal space ([0060] light distribution component 130 is adapted to receive light 150 from a light source and provide beams to samples) wherein the device further comprises or is provided with at least one light metering unit being designed to measure an intensity of light that has passed through and/or is scattered by the chemical and/or biological sample in the internal space ([0077] detectors 140 perform concurrent measurements of the intensity of transmitted light through the reference sample and the one or more samples).
Although Stevenson does not specify the type of detector used, the detector 140 corresponds with the interpretation of light metering unit (see 112f claim interpretation) as the detectors 140 measure intensity and do not split light into different wavelengths for detection. However, Stevenson is silent as to wherein the at least one illumination means are LEDs (see 112f claim interpretation).
However, Gaillon does address this limitation. Gaillon and Stevenson are considered to be analogous to the present invention as they are in the same field of optical measurements.
Gaillon teaches using LEDs as the illumination means for measuring optical properties of a sample (col 6 lines 34-45; abstract). Further, Gaillon teaches wherein the photodetectors are diodes or photoelectric cells, (col 4 lines 59-61).
It would have been well known to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use LEDs as a light source. Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify Stevenson to replace the light source with one or more LEDs as suggested by Gaillon as LEDs are cost effective and efficient light sources.
Regarding claim 2, Stevenson modified by Gaillon teaches the device of claim 1, and Stevenson further teaches wherein the light metering unit comprises at least one light receiving surface (Fig. 2, [0077] the light receiving surface of the detector is placed adjacent to the sample receptacles).
Although Stevenson does not explicitly teach wherein the light metering unit comprises at least one light receiving surface and is designed to measure the illuminance [lx] and/or irradiance [W/m2] of its light receiving surface, Stevenson does teach that the detector measures intensity or flux of the light ([0067]). Both the detector of Stevenson and the claimed light metering unit measure the intensity of light from the sample. As illuminance is luminous flux distributed per unit area and irradiance is radiant flux distributed per unit area, it would have been well known to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that a detector that can measure intensity or flux can measure illuminance [lx] and/or irradiance [W/m2]. Further, the manner of operating the device does not differentiate the device from the prior art, see MPEP 2114 Sec. II “[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does.” Hewlett-Packard Co.v.Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990”). See MPEP 2114 Sec. II. Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify Stevenson to include wherein the light metering unit is designed to measure the illuminance [lx] and/or irradiance [W/m2] of its light receiving surface in order to efficiently measure intensity.
Regarding claim 4, Stevenson modified by Gaillon teaches the device of claim 1, but Stevenson does not explicitly teach wherein two or more illumination means are provided.
However, Stevenson does teach in some embodiments the light distribution component 130 comprises a fibre optic bundle 230. The fibre optic bundle 230 comprises at least two optical fibres. Further, Stevenson teaches two or more light beams 162 the embodiment of Fig. 1 ([0060]).
Further, it has been held that the mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) MPEP 2144.04 VI. Thus, it would have been well known to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that separate light sources may be used to create individual beams. Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify Stevenson to include wherein two or more illumination means are provided in order to make the device more adjustable.
Regarding claim 5, Stevenson modified by Gaillon teaches the device of claim 1, and Stevenson further teaches wherein the light metering unit is part of a light detection assembly comprising at least two light metering units (Fig. 1; [0087] optical spectrometer module 100 may further comprise two or more detectors 140).
Regarding claim 6, Stevenson modified by Gaillon teaches the device of claim 1, and Stevenson further teaches wherein the device or the container comprises two or more cavities designed to hold the at least one chemical and/or biological sample ([0057] two or more receptacles 111, 112 are cavities as described by applicant's specification [0048]).
Regarding claim 7, Stevenson modified by Gaillon teaches the device of claim 4, and Stevenson further teaches wherein at least one of the light metering units and at least one of the illumination means are disposed in an aligned arrangement (Fig. 1 shows detectors 140 are aligned with light beams 162 from light distribution component 130).
Regarding claim 8, Stevenson modified by Gaillon teaches the device of claim 7, and Stevenson further teaches wherein at least one blinding element is disposed between the aligned light metering unit and illumination means (second walls 113b and 114b; [0077]) and wherein said blinding element comprises at least one aperture (exits 115b and 116b; [0077] For example, the reference receptacle 111 may comprise a second wall 113 b opposite the first wall 113 a. The second wall 113 b defining an exit 115 b to enable the reference beam 161 that has been transmitted across the reference receptacle 111 and through a reference cell to be directed into one of the detectors 140.; The examiner notes that even though Stevenson teaches the blinding element as part of the receptacles, none of the intervening claims relies on the receptacles to teach a different structural element as the "internal space" recited in claim 1 is the space represented by the receptacle, not the receptacle itself as described by the applicant's specification [0048]).
Regarding claim 9, Stevenson modified by Gaillon teaches the device of claim 1, and although Stevenston does not explicitly teach wherein the light metering unit comprises or is coupled with at least one control element, Stevenson does teach a computational unit adapted to receive light intensity data from the optical spectroscopy module. The computational unit comprising a processor adapted to compare a measured intensity of detected light from the reference sample to each of the one or more test samples to thereby determine the level of optical absorption by the one or more samples and generate optical absorption data ([0104]).
Further, Gaillon does address this limitation.
Gaillon teaches wherein the light metering unit comprises or is coupled with at least one control element (photodetector 4; regulating system 7; control unit 7; col 11 lines 50-60).
It would have been well known to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a controller coupled to the detector or spectrometer. Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify Stevenston to include wherein the light metering unit comprises or is coupled with at least one control element as suggested by Gaillon in order to create a feedback loop which improves the stability of the measurement (col 12 lines 5-15).
Regarding claim 10, Stevenson modified by Gaillon teaches the device of claim 1, and although Stevenston does not explicitly teach wherein the light metering unit comprises or is connected to at least one feedback control system and/or at least one analogue control apparatus, Stevenson does teach that the comparison of the measured properties of light associated with a reference and one or more test samples may be performed digitally with a computing unit or an analogue manner through appropriate electronic circuits and devices ([0109]).
However, Gaillon does address this limitation.
Gaillon teaches wherein the light metering unit comprises or is connected to at least one feedback control system and/or at least one analogue control apparatus (photodetector 4; regulating system 7; control unit 7; col 11 lines 50-60; col 12 lines 4-15 feedback loop).
It would have been well known to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a feedback control system to control detectors and light sources. Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify Stevenston to include wherein the light metering unit comprises or is connected to at least one feedback control system and/or at least one analogue control apparatus as suggested by Gaillon in order to improve the stability of the measurement (col 12 lines 5-15).
Regarding claim 11, Stevenson teaches a method (at least Fig. 1 and 4) for controlling an exposure of at least one chemical and/or biological sample to light ([0057] sample cells; [0058] liquid samples; [0011]), wherein the sample is arranged in an internal space ([0057] two or more receptacles 111, 112; each receptacles represents an internal space as described by the applicant's specification [0048])) of an illumination device (Fig. 1 device 100) and illuminated by at least one illumination means emitting light ([0060] light distribution component 130 is adapted to receive light 150 from a light source and provide beams to samples) comprising at least one biologically and/or chemically active wavelength ([0063]; [0009]; wavelengths of light transmitted, absorbed, or emitted by a sample), wherein an intensity of light that has passed through or is scattered by the chemical and/or biological sample in the internal space is measured by means of at least one light metering unit measuring the light intensity at the biologically and/or chemically active wavelength ([0077] detectors 140 perform concurrent measurements of the intensity of transmitted light through the reference sample and the one or more samples; [0063]).
Although Stevenson does not specify the type of detector used, the detector 140 corresponds with the interpretation of light metering unit (see 112f claim interpretation) as the detectors 140 measure intensity and do not split light into different wavelengths for detection. However, Stevenson is silent as to wherein the at least one illumination means are LEDs (see 112f claim interpretation).
However, Gaillon does address this limitation. Gaillon and Stevenson are considered to be analogous to the present invention as they are in the same field of optical measurements.
Gaillon teaches using LEDs as the illumination means for measuring optical properties of a sample (col 6 lines 34-45; abstract). Further, Gaillon teaches wherein the photodetectors are diodes or photoelectric cells, (col 4 lines 59-61).
It would have been well known to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use LEDs as a light source. Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify Stevenson to replace the light source with one or more LEDs as suggested by Gaillon as LEDs are cost effective and efficient light sources.
Regarding claim 12, Stevenson modified by Gaillon teaches the device of method 11, and Stevenson further teaches wherein the light metering unit comprises at least one light receiving surface (Fig. 2, [0077] the light receiving surface of the detector is placed adjacent to the sample receptacles).
Although Stevenson does not explicitly teach wherein the light metering unit comprises at least one light receiving surface and is designed to measure the illuminance [lx] and/or irradiance [W/m2] of its light receiving surface, Stevenson does teach that the detector measures intensity or flux of the light ([0067]). Both the detector of Stevenson and the claimed light metering unit measure the intensity of light from the sample. As illuminance is luminous flux distributed per unit area and irradiance is radiant flux distributed per unit area, it would have been well known to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that a detector that can measure intensity or flux can measure illuminance [lx] and/or irradiance [W/m2]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify Stevenson to include wherein the light metering unit is designed to measure the illuminance [lx] and/or irradiance [W/m2] of its light receiving surface in order to efficiently measure intensity.
Regarding claim 13, Stevenson modified by Gaillon teaches the device of method 11, but Stevenson is silent as to wherein the intensity of light is measured over time by means of at least one light recording device.
However, Gaillon does address this limitation.
Gaillon teaches wherein the intensity of light is measured over time (col 7 lines 36-40 These measurements performed in bioreactors can also be used to carry out analyses as a function of time) by means of at least one light recording device (col 8 lines 4-18; recording means; intensity).
It would have been well known to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to measure an optical property over time. Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify Stevenson to include wherein the intensity of light is measured over time by means of at least one light recording device as suggested by Gaillon in order to provide a robust, temporal measurement.
Regarding claim 14, Stevenson modified by Gaillon teaches the device of method 13, but Stevenson is silent as to wherein at least one illumination intensity profile and/or spectral property is documented in real time by the light recording device.
However, Gaillon does address this limitation.
Gaillon teaches wherein at least one illumination intensity profile and/or spectral property is documented in real time by the light recording device (col 7 lines 53-55 The determination of the turbidity, the absorbance and/or the fluorescence of the medium from these measurements is thus automated, and may be performed in real time; col 7 lines 41-52 processing unit and storage means as a recording device).
It would have been well known to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to perform measurements in real time. Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify Stevenson to include wherein at least one illumination intensity profile and/or spectral property is documented in real time by the light recording device as suggested by Gaillon in order to increase measurement speed and efficiency.
Regarding claim 15, Stevenson teaches a method for calibrating an optogenetic illumination device comprising at least one illumination means (Fig. 1 and Fig. 4; [0060] light distribution component 130 is adapted to receive light 150 from a light source and provide beams to samples), wherein at least one measured value of at least one function parameter of the illumination means is determined and compared to at least one measured value of the same function parameter of at least one other illumination means, a previously recorded value of the same illumination means, or to at least one preset and/or standard value, and wherein a difference value resulting from the comparison is determined and documented ([0010] A reference measurement may also be conducted where no sample is present and light is transmitted through the spectrometer for detection. This can be used to establish the baseline light intensity for comparison with the transmitted light through a sample for calculation of the level of optical absorption by the sample; [0109] comparison of the measured properties of light associated with a reference and one or more test samples may be performed).
Although Stevenson does not specify the type of detector used, the detector 140 corresponds with the interpretation of light metering unit (see 112f claim interpretation) as the detectors 140 measure intensity and do not split light into different wavelengths for detection. However, Stevenson is silent as to wherein the at least one illumination means are LEDs (see 112f claim interpretation).
However, Gaillon does address this limitation. Gaillon and Stevenson are considered to be analogous to the present invention as they are in the same field of optical measurements.
Gaillon teaches using LEDs as the illumination means for measuring optical properties of a sample (col 6 lines 34-45; abstract). Further, Gaillon teaches wherein the photodetectors are diodes or photoelectric cells, (col 4 lines 59-61).
It would have been well known to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use LEDs as a light source. Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify Stevenson to replace the light source with one or more LEDs as suggested by Gaillon as LEDs are cost effective and efficient light sources.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stevenson in view of Gaillon as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 20050264803 A1 by Jones (hereinafter "Jones").
Regarding claim 3, Stevenson modified by Gaillon teaches the device of claim 1, but Stevenson is silent as to the device and/or the light metering unit comprises at least one light filter element.
However, Jones does address this limitation. Jones and Stevenson are considered to be analogous to the present invention as they are in the same field of optical measurements.
Jones teaches the device and/or the light metering unit comprises at least one light filter element ([0034] wavelength dependent optical filter 13 may be selected to prevent light at the incident wavelength passing to the detector 2).
It would have been well known to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a wavelength dependent filter with a detector. Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify Stevenson to include the device and/or the light metering unit comprises at least one light filter element as suggested by Jones in order to prevent unwanted light from reaching the detector, thus improving measurement accuracy.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KAITLYN E KIDWELL whose telephone number is (703)756-1719. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8 a.m. - 5 p.m. 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, 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.
/KAITLYN E KIDWELL/Examiner, Art Unit 2877
/TARIFUR R CHOWDHURY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2877
Prosecution Insights