DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-14 and 21-26 are pending.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-14 and 21-26 are pending. Claims 1 and 6 have been amended. Claims 22-26 have been newly added.
Claims 1-14 and 21-26 are under examination.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: Grammatical error. Claim 1 is missing a word between “receiving, using”. Examiner suggests “receiving and using”. Appropriate correction is required.
Withdrawn Claim Objections and/or Rejections
The rejection of claims 1, 3, 5-8, 10-12, 14, and 21 under 35 USC 102 as being anticipated by Geddes et al., as set forth on pp. 3-9 of the previous office action (mailed on 09/22/2025) has been withdrawn in view of the amendments (filed on 12/17/2025).
The rejection of claims 2 and 4 under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Geddes and Portune et al., as set forth on pp. 10-12 of the previous office action (mailed on 09/22/2025) has been withdrawn in view of the amendments (filed on 12/17/2025).
The rejection of claim 9 under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Geddes and Wilkinson et al., as set forth on pp. 12-13 of the previous office action (mailed on 09/22/2025) has been withdrawn in view of the amendments (filed on 12/17/2025).
The rejection of claim 13 under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Geddes and Pu et al., as set forth on p. 14 of the previous office action (mailed on 09/22/2025) has been withdrawn in view of the amendments (filed on 12/17/2025).
NEW REJECTIONS NECESSITATED BY AMENDMENT
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.
Claims 1, 3, 5-8, 10-12, 14, and 21-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Geddes et al., (US 9556474 B2) (IDS filed on 08/24/2022), in view of Brooks et al., (US 20110004091A1) (IDS filed on 08/24/2022).
Geddes teaches a method of in vitro detecting an analyte, which is a pathogen (see column 4 lines 53-56 “In yet another aspect, the present invention provides a method for lysing pathogen cells and detecting different targeted DNAs from the same target pathogen or different target pathogens in a sample”) (instant claims 14 and 25), within a sample obtained by a subject, and the sample being selected from the group consisting of saliva, sputum, blood, breath exhalant, a nasopharyngeal swab, an oropharyngeal swab, stool, and a surface swab (see column 31 lines 63-66 “The technology can be used with a variety of sample types, including but not limited to: blood, serum, clinical swabs, nasal swabs, rectal swabs, vaginal swabs, penile swabs, mucus, ear wax, tears, sweat, CSF, sputum…”) (instant claim 21), the method comprising:
using one or more computing devices to cause a first energy source to emit a first
electromagnetic radiation to the sample, wherein the first electromagnetic radiation is selected
to cause mechanically resonant vibrations in the analyte (column 15 lines 28-34 “The
ultrasonic emitting device can be placed in either the interior of a vessel or positioned adjacent
thereto for transmitting energy into the vaporization vessel. The device may include components
for the traditional electromagnetic stimulation of piezoelectric transducers, (man-made or
naturally occurring), purely mechanical devices (such as high frequency air whistles or
microphones), and laser devices.”, column 16 lines 22-24 “The system may include ultrasonic
vessels wherein at least a section of the vessel includes a transducer such as a piezoelectric
transducer to generate acoustic vibrations”, column 6 lines 1-4 “a source of microwave or
ultrasonic energy to increase binding reactions within the system and a source of
electromagnetic energy to excite the excitable molecules.”);
using one or more computing devices to cause a second energy source to emit a second
electromagnetic radiation to a sample, wherein the second electromagnetic radiation is selected
to be different than the first electromagnetic radiation to the sample so as to interact with the vibrating analyte, wherein the second electromagnetic radiation is within the infrared range (column 5 lines 20-33 “contacting the bound DNA sequences with the free capture DNA sequence probes, wherein binding of free capture DNA sequence probes to the DNA sequences causes the excitable energy emitting molecule to be positioned a sufficient distance
from the immobilized metallic material to enhance energy emission; and d. irradiating the
system with electromagnetic energy in a range from UV to IR to induce emissions by the
excitable energy emitting molecule positioned a predetermined distance from the metallic
material, wherein the irradiating can be conducted before, during or after the applying of either
microwave or ultrasound energy.”) (instant claim 10),
wherein a third electromagnetic radiation is produced based on the interaction, wherein
the third electromagnetic radiation is a frequency-shifted electromagnetic radiation of the
second electromagnetic radiation (column 5 lines 20-33 “contacting the bound DNA sequences with the free capture DNA sequence probes, wherein binding of free capture DNA sequence probes to the DNA sequences causes the excitable energy emitting molecule to be positioned a sufficient distance from the immobilized metallic material to enhance energy emission; and d. irradiating the system with electromagnetic energy in a range from UV to IR to induce emissions by the excitable energy emitting molecule positioned a predetermined distance from the metallic material, wherein the irradiating can be conducted before, during or after the applying of either microwave or ultrasound energy.”);
receiving, using a detector, the third electromagnetic radiation, to produce at least one detection signal (column 3 lines 3-7 “When it is desirable to differentiate between the different fluorophores or dyes using instrumental methods, a variety of filters and diffraction gratings allow the respective emission maxima to be independently detected.”, column 18 lines 19-31 “Emitting signals, such as fluorescence or chemiluminescence signals can be detected using devices including, but not limited to, a spectrofluorometer having a light source and detector. Detectors can include photomultiplier tubes. Additionally, it is advantageous for the device to have a monochromator so that specific wavelengths of light may be used to excite a molecule or to detect emissions at a specific wavelength. When a sample containing a fluorophore is placed in the spectrofluorometer and exposed to an amount of exciting radiation, the fluorophore emits radiation that is detected by a photomultiplier tube. Collection of the emitting signals may be collected from the top or bottom of the substrate or both simultaneously.”, claim 3); and
determining using a processor the presence of the analyte based on the received a
third electromagnetic radiation wherein the processor is configured to provide information
regarding the presence of the analyte based on the detection signal (column 28 lines 62-67 “The “Rapid Catch and Signal RCS technology has been applied to a 2-color DNA assay, which shows high sensitivity, sequence specificity and DNA quantitation ability. The DNA scaffold formed on the SiFs is proportional to anchor DNAS fragment molar concentration ratio in the loading solution.”, claim 3) (instant claims 1, 11, and 24). Geddes teaches the wherein the frequency of the third electromagnetic radiation is shifted from the second electromagnetic radiation by an amount equal to the resonance frequency of the analyte (see column 16 lines 40-56, see column 18 lines 19-29, and see column 16 lines 13-16) (instant claim 6) and wherein at least a part of the providing the first electromagnetic radiation and providing the second electromagnetic radiation occur simultaneously (see column 5 lines 27-34) (instant claim 12).
Geddes teaches the first light being within a visible light range or an infrared range (see column 5 lines 40-42 teaching the use of fluorophores, which are known in the art to create visible light) and the second light being within microwave range (see column 6 lines 1-4 “a source of microwave or ultrasonic energy to increase binding reactions within the system and a source of electromagnetic energy to excite the excitable molecules” (instant claim 26).
Geddes also teaches wherein the first electromagnetic radiation is within the microwave range and the first electromagnetic radiation has a frequency more than of more than 1 GHz, more than 3 GHz, more than 5 GHz, more than 8 GHz, less than 100 GHz, less than 50 GHz, less than 15 GHz, between 1 GHz and 100 GHz, between 3 GHz and 50 GHz, or between 5 GHz and 15 GHz (column 5 lines 20-33 “c. contacting the bound DNA sequences with the free capture DNA sequence probes, wherein binding of free capture DNA sequence probes to the DNA sequences causes the excitable energy emitting molecule to be positioned a sufficient
distance from the immobilized metallic material to enhance energy emission; and d. irradiating
the system with electromagnetic energy in a range from UV to IR to induce emissions by the
excitable energy emitting molecule positioned a predetermined distance from the metallic
material, wherein the irradiating can be conducted before, during or after the applying of either
microwave or ultrasound energy.”, column 17 lines 18-19 “Microwaves (about 0.3 to about 300
GHz) lie between the infrared and radiofrequency electromagnetic radiations.”) (instant claims 3 and 5).
Geddes further teaches filtering out the third electromagnetic radiation from background electromagnetic radiation using a filter (see claim 3, see column 3 lines 3-7 “When it is desirable to differentiate between the different fluorophores or dyes using instrumental methods, a variety of filters and diffraction gratings allow the respective emission maxima to be independently detected.”, While Geddes does not explicitly state “optical filters”, one of ordinary skill in the art would know that colored filter is a type of optical filter) (instant claims 7-8), and
the receiver is configured to separate the third electromagnetic radiation from background electromagnetic radiation and the detector is configured to receive the third electromagnetic radiation and produce at least one detection signal (column 3 lines 3-7 “When it is desirable to differentiate between the different fluorophores or dyes using instrumental methods, a variety of filters and diffraction gratings allow the respective emission maxima to be independently detected.”, column 18 lines 19-31 “Emitting signals, such as fluorescence or chemiluminescence signals can be detected using devices including, but not limited to, a spectrofluorometer having a light source and detector. Detectors can include photomultiplier tubes. Additionally, it is advantageous for the device to have a monochromator so that specific wavelengths of light may be used to excite a molecule or to detect emissions at a specific wavelength. When a sample containing a fluorophore is placed in the spectrofluorometer and exposed to an amount of exciting radiation, the fluorophore emits radiation that is detected by a photomultiplier tube. Collection of the emitting signals may be collected from the top or bottom of the substrate or both simultaneously.”, claim 3) (instant claim 22). Geddes also teaches that the third electromagnetic radiation comes from exciting the target pathogens using IR radiation during the application of microwave radiation that produces excited emitted energy from the target pathogen (see column 3 lines 3-7, see column 18 lines 19-31 see claim 3) (instant claim 23).
Regarding independent claims 1, 24 and 26, Geddes does not teach the third radiation being a Doppler frequency-shifted electromagnetic radiation.
Brooks teaches using Doppler frequency-shifted electromagnetic radiation to detect a biological structure ([0040], [0206]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the instant application to combine the methods of analyte detection taught by Geddes with the method of using resonant acousto-EM for analyte detection and using the doppler-shift effect taught by Brooks. Geddes and Brooks both teach acoustic electromagnetic radiation, thus it would have been obvious to modify the methods of Geddes with the teaching of Brooks. Brooks provides motivation for using Doppler-shifted resonance by teaching that it presents a powerful and precise means of selectively causing augmentation and detection (see [0040]). The artisan would have reasonable expectation of success based on the cumulative disclosure of these prior art references at the time the instant application was filed.
Claims 2 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Geddes and Brooks as applied to claims 1, 3, 5-8, 10-12, 14, and 21-26 above, and in further view of Portune et al., (US 20160116422 A1) (IDS filed on 08/24/2022).
The teachings of Geddes and Brooks as they pertain to claims 1, 3, 5-8, 10-12, 14, and 21-26 is discussed above.
Geddes teaches the use of a first electromagnetic radiation (column 17 lines 8-10 “In one embodiment, the application of low-level microwave heating of the sample may be used to speed up any chemical/biochemical kinetics within the system”, column 6 lines 1-4 “a source of microwave or ultrasonic energy to increase binding reactions within the system and a source of electromagnetic energy to excite the excitable molecules.”) (instant claim 4).
Geddes does not teach the radiation being swept over a target frequency range in which a resonant frequency of the analyte exists and the first electromagnetic radiation has a substantially uniform frequency equal to a resonance frequency of the analyte.
Portune teaches wherein the frequency is swept over a target frequency range in which
a resonant frequency of the analyte exists ([0070] “One exemplary method for determining a
presence and/or concentration of a compound 2 comprises sweeping, using an antenna 26
(illumination element), the compound 2 with an electromagnetic energy in a range of
frequencies, measuring, with a signal processing member 30, scattering parameters at each
frequency within the range of frequencies, and determining, with the signal processing member
30 (analysis element), based on the scattering parameters, the concentration of the compound
2.” , [0083] “For testing on treated clothing articles, probes were connected to a network
analyzer to generate microwave energy and receive attenuated signals. A frequency sweep was
performed around permethrin's microwave absorption frequencies. Scattering parameters (Reflection—S11 and Transmission—S21) were measured at each frequency and saved to file”) (instant claim 4). Portune also teaches wherein the first electromagnetic radiation has a substantially uniform frequency equal to a resonance frequency of the analyte ([0065] “The
antenna 26 is operable to emit electromagnetic energy (radiation) at pre-chosen frequencies in a range that may be within about 30 Mhz to about 300 Ghz range, corresponding to absorption frequencies associated with the compound 2.”, [0171] “According to an exemplary embodiment, the antenna can emit electromagnetic energy (radiation) at pre-chosen frequencies within about 30 Mhz to about 30 Ghz range, corresponding to absorption frequencies associated with the compound.”) (instant claim 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application
was filed to combine the teachings of Geddes, Brooks, and Portune as they all teach analyte
detection using electromagnetic radiation. Given the high level of skill in the art as evidenced by
Geddes, Brooks, and Portune, one of ordinary skill in the art would have considered combining the methods of analyte detection taught by Geddes with the method of using resonant acousto-EM for analyte detection and using the doppler-shift effect taught by Brooks with the teachings of uniform frequencies and sweeping frequencies taught by Portune. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify the methods of Geddes in order to have provided wherein a frequency is swept over a target frequency range in which a resonant frequency of an analyte exits as taught by Portune and for the benefit of utilizing radiation to detect an analyte. One of ordinary skill in the art would have also been motivated to modify the methods of Geddes with Portunes teaching of utilizing a frequency sweep in a range at which an analyte undergoes state changes to accurately and efficiently detect and determine a concentration of an analyte ([0059]-0065], [0070], and [0083]).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Geddes and Brooks as applied to claims 1, 3, 5-8, 10-12, 14, and 21-26 above, and in further view of Wilkinson et al., (US 8780948 B2) (IDS filed on 08/24/2022).
The teachings of Geddes and Brooks as they pertain to claims 1, 3, 5-8, 10-12, 14, and 21-26 are discussed above.
Regarding claim 9, Geddes teaches the third electromagnetic radiation ((the microwave radiation, the IR radiation, and the excited emitted energy radiation (abstract, column 2 lines 54- 57, column 4 lines 53-67 and column 5 lines 20-33).
Geddes does not teach the use of a vapor cell.
Wilkinson teaches a wherein the third electromagnetic radiation is passed through a vapor cell that is a reference cell with an absorption line matched to the frequency of the second electromagnetic radiation (column 3 lines 60-65 “In some embodiments, the Rubidium cell 108 may be a Rubidium vapor cell comprising various isotopes of Rubidium such as Rubidium 85 and Rubidium 87 although the scope of the embodiments is not limited in this respect. In these embodiments, the Rubidium vapor cell is interrogated (illuminated by an optical source) to cause photon excitation.”, column 5 lines 25-35 “In some example embodiments, the laser source 102 may be a 1556 nm fiber laser that generates a 1556 nm wavelength. When halved by the wavelength divider 106 (FIG. 1), a 778 nm wavelength may be produced which may be used to cause the two-photon transition 203 within the Rubidium cell 108. In these example embodiments, the 1556 nm fiber laser is used since the two-photon Rubidium transition 203 occurs at precisely 778 nm, which is precisely half of the 1556 mm wavelength. Other laser source and wavelength divider/multiplier combinations may also be used to generate a 778 nm wavelength to cause the two-photon Rubidium transition 203.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the application
to combine the teachings of Geddes, Brooks, and Wilkinson as they all teach the use of
electromagnetic radiation. Given the high level of skill in the art as evidenced by Geddes, Brooks, and Wilkinson, one of ordinary skill in the art would have considered combining the methods of analyte detection taught by Geddes with the method of using resonant acousto-EM for analyte detection and using the doppler-shift effect taught by Brooks, with the teachings of the electromagnetic radiation being passed through a vapor cell with an absorption line matched to the frequency of the second electromagnetic radiation as taught by Wilkinson. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify the method of Geddes in order to have provided wherein a third electromagnetic radiation is passed through a reference cell with an absorption line matched to a frequency of a second electromagnetic radiation as taught by Wilkinson, for the benefit of utilizing a reference cell to provide ultra-stable output for a detector (column 3 lines 60-65, column 5 lines 14-16, column 5 lines 23-35).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Geddes as applied
to claims 1, 3, 5-8, 10-12, 14, and 21-26 above, and in further view of Pu et al., (WO2007047382A2) (IDS filed on 08/24/2022).
The teachings of Geddes and Brooks as they pertain to claims 1, 3, 5-8, 10-12, 14, and 21-26 are discussed above.
Regarding claim 13, Geddes teaches a method step of determining the presence of the
analyte includes the spectrum of the received third electromagnetic radiation (claim 3).
Geddes does not teach comparing the spectrum of the received third electromagnetic radiation to previously acquired spectra of a reference sample containing the analyte.
Pu teaches determining a presence of an analyte includes comparing the spectrum of
the received third electromagnetic radiation to previously acquired spectra of a reference
sample containing the analyte ((detecting and measuring a scattered light (a spectrum of a
received third electromagnetic radiation) which is compared to a reference pattern to detect a
presence of bacteria (an analyte) in a test specimen) ([0030] - [0032])).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the application
to combine the methods of Geddes, Brooks, and Pu as they all teach analyte detection using
electromagnetic radiation. Given the high level of skill in the art as evidenced by Geddes, Brooks, and Pu, one of ordinary would have considered combining the methods of analyte detection taught by Geddes with the method of using resonant acousto-EM for analyte detection and using the doppler-shift effect taught by Brooks, with the teachings of comparing the spectrum to a previously acquired spectra of a reference sample containing the analyte as taught by Pu. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify the method of Geddes in order to have provided determining a presence of an analyte to include comparing a spectrum of a received third electromagnetic radiation to previously acquired spectra of a reference sample containing an analyte as taught by Pu for the benefit of utilizing radiation to detect an analyte and comparing a detected radiation spectrum to a reference spectrum to accurately detect presence and quantity of an analyte in a test sample ([0030] – [0032]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/17/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In light of the newly amended limitation, the new 103 incorporating Brooks who teaches the benefits of Doppler frequencies in these detection methods are present.
On pp. 1-2 applicant argues that Geddes does not teach the newly added limitation of “wherein the third electromagnetic radiation is a doppler frequency-shifted electromagnetic radiation of the second electromagnetic radiation”. Examiner agrees that Geddes does not teach this limitation. However, Brookes teaches using Doppler frequency-shifted electromagnetic radiation to detect a biological structure ([0040], [0206]), and that the use of Doppler frequency-shifted electromagnetic radiation is beneficial because it presents a powerful and precise means of selectively causing augmentation and detection (see [0040]).
Applicant does not provide any arguments directed towards the reference Portune et al.
Applicant does not provide any arguments directed towards the reference Wilkinson et al.
Applicant does not provide any arguments directed towards the reference Pu et al.
Conclusion
No claim is allowed.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MCKENZIE A DUNN whose telephone number is (571)270-0490. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Tuesday 730 am -530pm, Wednesday-Friday 730 am-430 pm.
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, Gregory Emch can be reached at (571)272-8149. 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.
/MCKENZIE A DUNN/Examiner, Art Unit 1678
/GREGORY S EMCH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1678