`Office Action Mailed January 23, 2013
`Amendment dated: June 24, 2013
`
`REMARKS
`
`The following remarks are in response to the Examiner’s Office Action mailed on January
`23, 2013. Claim 36, 65—71, and 83-91 are canceled without prejudice. Claims 1—33, 38—64, and 72-
`
`82 are Withdrawn. Claims 34, 35 and 37 are amended. New claims 92—106 have been added. New
`claims do not add new matter. Support for the new claims are in the application as originally filed.
`
`See, e.g., claims 6-9, 16, 17, and 38-45, and paragraphs 0019, 0021, 0532. Claims 34—37 and 92-106
`
`are pending. Reconsideration is respectfully requested in light of the following remarks.
`
`Claim Objections
`
`Claims 34 and 35 are objected to. Claims 34 and 35 have been amended as suggested by
`
`Examiner. Applicants respectfully request this objection be Withdrawn.
`
`Claims Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. §102
`
`Claims 34 and 35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §102(b) as allegedly being anticipated by US
`
`2003/0138140 (hereinafter “Marcelpoil”). Without conceding the propriety of the rejection over the
`
`Marcelpoil reference, Applicants overcome this rejection as detailed below.
`
`Claim 34 is directed to a method for characterizing an analyte suspected to be present in a
`
`sample. Claim 34 recites “selecting an illumination wavelength based on the analyte suspected to be
`
`contained in the sample, and illuminating the sample with the selected illumination wavelength prior
`
`to and/or concurrently with obtaining the digital image.” This element and/or others are missing
`
`from Marcelpoil.
`Marcelpoil is directed to a method of determining an amount of at least one molecular
`
`species in a sample from a captured image, each molecular species being indicated by a dye
`
`(Marcelpoil, Abstract). As acknowledged in the Office Action, nothing in the cited disclosure of
`
`Marcelpoil teaches or suggests illumination of the sample by an illumination wavelength prior to or
`concurrently with obtaining the digital image, let alone selecting a particular illumination
`
`wavelength based on the analyte suspected to be contained in the sample (Office Action, page 6).
`
`5640974_1.DOC
`
`-12-
`
`Atty. Docket No. 30696-733 .201
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
We are unable to display this document.
HTTP Error 500: Internal Server Error
