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 .
Summary
This action is responsive to the Request for Continued Examination filed on 02/03/2026. The amendment has been entered. Applicant has submitted Claims 1, 5-10, 12-15, 19, and 25-29 for examination.
Examiner finds the following: 1) Claims 1, 5-10, 12-15, 19, and 25-29 are rejected; 2) no claims objected to; and 3) no claims allowable.
Request for Continued Examination
Receipt is acknowledged of a Request for Continued Examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) and a submission, filed on 02/03/2026.
Response to Arguments and Remarks
Examiner respectfully acknowledges Applicant's remarks.
Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or non-obviousness.
Claims 1, 7-8, 10, 12-13, and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schwindt (US9995800), in view of Jiang (Jiang, Wenhuan & Lu, Jun & Yang, Li & Sa, Yu & Feng, Yuanming & Ding, Junhua & Hu, Xin. (2015). Comparison study of distinguishing cancerous and normal prostate epithelial cells by confocal and polarization diffraction imaging. Journal of Biomedical Optics. 21. 071102-071102. 10.1117/1.JBO.21.7.071102.), in further view of MicroscopyU (“The Diffraction Barrier in Optical Microscopy,” MicroscopyU, Internet Archive Date of 08/03/2016, https://www.microscopyu.com/techniques/super-resolution/the-diffraction-barrier-in-optical-microscopy), and in further view of Nagai (US 20060065820).
Regarding Claim 1, Schwindt discloses:
A system for optical imaging (Schwindt, FIG. 1 and C5, L17-18, atomic magnetometer 10) … comprising:
a source of coherent light (Schwindt, FIG. 1 and C6, L33-38, and C4, L20-24, “The magnetic response of a rubidium atomic vapor is maximized by passing a circularly polarized pump laser beam through the vapor to align nearly all of the electron spins. Such optical pumping greatly enhances the sensitivity because the signals from all the atoms add coherently”);
a polarization state generator for generating polarized optical photons from the light originating in the source of coherent light (Schwindt, FIG.1 and C5, L36-40, “In the atomic magnetometer 10, a pump light beam 18, which can be generated by a laser 20 is directed through a linear polarizer 22 to linearly polarize the pump light beam 18”);
a cryo-free sample environment (Schwindt, C1, L42-44, “These atomic magnetometers do not require cryogenic cooling and are capable of measuring the absolute magnetic field at high sensitivity,” and C14, L60-61, “our AM vapor cell is maintained at an elevated temperature, e.g. a temperature of 150° C”), comprising
a plurality of electromagnets, each connected to one or more power supply components via one or more electronic circuits for supplying voltage to the plurality of electromagnets to generate a desired magnetic field (Schwindt, FIG. 1 and C9, L38-53, specifically “Phase sensitive detection can be performed in the atomic magnetometer 10 by modulating the electrical current applied to one or more sets of the coils 48 at a reference frequency of up to a few kilohertz (kHz),” FIG. 13 and C15, L 56-67, specifically “An important aspect of the system of FIG. 13 is that the sample tube is contained within the solenoid coil”); and
a controller, connected to the electromagnets and including software for generating and controlling the desired magnetic field created by each of the plurality of electromagnets in concert with each other (Schwindt, C5, L1-7, specifically “by providing and controlling mutually 5 perpendicular sets of field coils, it is possible to select the field component that is to be detected.” Examiner notes that for the kind of control disclosed by Schwindt, a computer would inherently be required to manage and control the atomic magnetometer 10);
a polarization state analyzer for permitting photons scattered by the magnetic sample and having a desired polarization to interact with a detector (Schwindt, FIG. 6 and C11, L13-28, specifically “The effect of the magnetic field B on the magnetically polarized alkali metal vapor 14 is sensed using the probe light beam 28 which is directed through the cell 12 along 15 substantially the same optical path 34 as the pump light beam 18, with the linear polarization of the probe light beam 28 being rotated about an angle which is dependent upon the magnitude of the magnetic field B”), …
…wherein the plurality of electromagnets is configured to generate a multi-pole complex magnetic field having variable shape, variable amplitude, and variable frequency in the sample environment (Schwindt, FIG. 1 and C9, L38-53, specifically “Phase sensitive detection can be performed in the atomic magnetometer 10 by modulating the electrical current applied to one or more sets of the coils 48 at a reference frequency of up to a few kilohertz (kHz),” and FIG. 6 and C9, L38-53, “Phase sensitive detection can be performed in the atomic magnetometer 10 by modulating the electrical current applied to one or more sets of the coils 48 at a reference frequency of up to a few kilohertz (kHz). This produces a modulated magnetic field component which can be used to synchronously detect a magnetic field B which is aligned with the modulated magnetic field component generated by the coils 48. This magnetic field component modulates the index of refraction of the alkali metal vapor 14 thus modulating the angular rotation of the linearly-polarized probe light beam 28 and producing a modulation at the reference frequency on the signals 42 and 46. This allows the use of a lock-in amplifier 50 to amplify the output voltage signal 46 at the reference frequency while filtering out noise and other unwanted signals which may be present in the signal 46 at other frequencies”).
Schwindt discloses the above, but does not explicitly disclose:
… the polarization state analyzer being reconfigurable in a plurality of modes, including an imaging mode and a diffraction mode, the polarization state analyzer comprising a detector, one or more polarization optics and a microscope, as well as an imaging unit comprising an imager for generating an image based on the interactions of the photons scattered by the magnetic sample with the detector, …
Examiner notes that Schwindt implies optical imaging due to Schwindt, FIG. 13 and C12, L26-42, but is not as explicit as Examiner would prefer.
However, Jiang, in the same field of endeavor (Comparison study of distinguishing cancerous and normal prostate epithelial cells by confocal and polarization diffraction imaging), discloses:
… the polarization state analyzer being reconfigurable in a plurality of modes, including an imaging mode and a diffraction mode (Jiang, P2, C2, Paragraph 2, “A method of polarization diffraction imaging flow cytometry (p-DIFC) has been developed to image coherent light scattered by single particles or cells using a microscope objective at off focus positions to increase image contrast and adjust the angular cone of detection”), the polarization state analyzer comprising a detector (Jiang, P2, C2, Paragraph 2, inherent to “polarization diffraction imaging”), one or more polarization optics (Jiang, P2, C2, Paragraph 2, inherent to “polarization diffraction imaging”) and a microscope (Jiang, P2, C2, Paragraph 2, “using a microscope”), as well as an imaging unit (Jiang, P2, C2, Paragraph 2, “polarization diffraction imaging”) comprising an imager (Jiang, P2, C2, Paragraph 2, inherent to “polarization diffraction imaging”) for generating an image based on the interactions of the photons scattered by the magnetic sample with the detector (Jiang, P2, C2, Paragraph 2, inherent to “polarization diffraction imaging”), …
It would have been obvious to PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Schwindt with the known method of polarization diffraction imaging of Jiang. PHOSITA would have known about the method of polarization diffraction imaging disclosed by Jiang and how it would affect the apparatus of Schwindt. PHOSITA would have been motivated to do this as applying a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results (See MPEP § 2143 (I)(D)), specifically the use of the known method of polarization diffraction imaging to increase image contrast and adjust the angular cone of detection.
The combination of Schwindt and Jiang discloses the above, but does not explicitly disclose:
…wherein the image has a resolution of about half of a wavelength of the light originating in the source of coherent light; …
However, MicroscopyU, in a similar field of endeavor (optical microscopy), discloses:
…wherein the image has a resolution of about half of a wavelength of the light originating in the source of coherent light (MicroscopyU, Paragraph 1, “These resolution limitations are often referred to as the diffraction barrier, which restricts the ability of optical instruments to distinguish between two objects separated by a lateral distance less than approximately half the wavelength of light used to image the specimen”);
It would have been obvious to PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Schwindt and Jiang with the known diffraction barrier of MicroscopyU. PHOSITA would have known about the diffraction barrier as disclosed by MicroscopyU and how it would affect the combination of Schwindt and Jiang. PHOSITA would have been motivated to do this as a combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results (See MPEP § 2143 (I)(A)), specifically the known diffraction barrier and how it affects image resolution.
The combination of Schwindt, Jiang, and MicroscopyU discloses the above, but does not explicitly disclose:
… of a magnetic sample based on the scattering of polarized light by the magnetic sample, the system, …
… configured to hold the magnetic sample to be imaged directly, or by diffraction methods, based on scattering of the polarized, optical photons by the magnetic sample, the cryo-free sample environment …
However, Nagai, in a similar field of endeavor (MEASURING DEVICE), discloses:
… of a magnetic sample based on the scattering of polarized light by the magnetic sample, the system (Nagai, FIG. 23, [0306], “The light scattered by the probe 2302 and the magnetic substance to be measured 107 is focused by the object lens 106, split by the beam splitter 105, passed through a shielding plate 2303 with not-dispersed light being blocked, and passed through the half-turn asymmetric reflectional symmetry polarizing element 111 such as the aforesaid divisional half-wave element, divisional polarization rotation element, or divisional 1/4 wave element, and then polarization is detected by the polarization split detection optical system constituted of the polarization beam splitter 113 and so on so that the differential polarization detection signal 118 and the sum signal 123 are taken into the control unit 124”), …
… configured to hold the magnetic sample to be imaged directly, or by diffraction methods, based on scattering of the polarized, optical photons by the magnetic sample, the cryo-free sample environment (Nagai, FIG. 23, [0306], “The light scattered by the probe 2302 and the magnetic substance to be measured 107 is focused by the object lens 106, split by the beam splitter 105, passed through a shielding plate 2303 with not-dispersed light being blocked, and passed through the half-turn asymmetric reflectional symmetry polarizing element 111 such as the aforesaid divisional half-wave element, divisional polarization rotation element, or divisional 1/4 wave element, and then polarization is detected by the polarization split detection optical system constituted of the polarization beam splitter 113 and so on so that the differential polarization detection signal 118 and the sum signal 123 are taken into the control unit 124”)…
It would have been obvious to PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Schwindt, Jiang, and MicroscopyU with the known detection of scattered light off a magnetic sample of Nagai. PHOSITA would have known about the detection of scattered light off a magnetic sample as disclosed by Nagai and how it would affect the combination of Schwindt, Jiang, and MicroscopyU. PHOSITA would have been motivated to do this as a combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results (See MPEP § 2143 (I)(A)), specifically the application of a known method to analyze magnetic samples.
Regarding Claim 7, the combination of Schwindt, Jiang, MicroscopyU, and Nagai discloses Claim 1 and Schwindt further discloses:
… wherein the sample environment further comprises a sample holder positioned such that the plurality of electromagnets surround the sample holder (Schwindt, FIG. 13 and C15, L24-27, “FIG. 13 shows an array of four sensor modules 120 placed in a square or other rectangular arrangement about a sample tube 124 wrapped by a solenoid 126 and contained within a magnetic shield 128”).
Regarding Claim 8, the combination of Schwindt, Jiang, MicroscopyU, and Nagai discloses Claim 1 and Schwindt further discloses:
… wherein each of the plurality of electromagnets are held within a magnet holder and located in a magnet housing positioned to surround a sample holder in the sample environment (Schwindt, FIG. 13 and C15, L24-27, “FIG. 13 shows an array of four sensor modules 120 placed in a square or other rectangular arrangement about a sample tube 124 wrapped by a solenoid 126 and contained within a magnetic shield 128”).
Regarding Claim 10, the combination of Schwindt, Jiang, MicroscopyU, and Nagai discloses the limitations of Claim 8, but does not explicitly disclose:
… wherein the magnet housing has an octagonal shape or an annular shape.
From MPEP § 2143(IV)(A):
In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.
Although the combination of Schwindt, Jiang, MicroscopyU, and Nagai in view of in view of MicroscopyU fails to specifically teach “annular and octagonal….” it is the position of the Examiner that, lacking criticality and unexpected results, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to provide the housing in one of several well-known shapes suitable for the intended purpose.
Regarding Claim 12, the combination of Schwindt, Jiang, MicroscopyU, and Nagai discloses Claim 1 and Schwindt further discloses:
… further comprising one or more filtering optics positioned between the polarization state generator and the sample environment (Schwindt, FIG. 10 and C13, L46-62, specifically “Also indicated in the figure are the point 82 where the pump and probe beams emerge from the end of a polarization-maintaining optical fiber (not shown in the figure), a lens 84, the DOE 86, a polarizer 88 followed by a half-wave plate 90, a converging or collimating lens 92, a window 94, the vapor cell 96, the mirror 98 placed behind the vapor cell to fold the optical path, a band-rejection filter 100 for excluding the pump beam from the light that is to be detected”).
Regarding Claim 13, the combination of Schwindt, Jiang, MicroscopyU, and Nagai discloses Claim 1 and Schwindt further discloses:
… further comprising one or more collimating optics positioned between the polarization state generator and the sample environment (Schwindt, FIG. 1 and C5, L41-45, “The pump light beam 18, which can have an optical power level of up to a few milliWatts (mW) or more depending upon the size of the cell 12, can then be expanded and substantially collimated by one or more lenses 24”).
Regarding Claim 25, Schwindt discloses:
A system for optical imaging (Schwindt, FIG. 1 and C5, L17-18, atomic magnetometer 10) … comprising:
a source of coherent light (Schwindt, FIG. 1 and C6, L33-38, and C4, L20-24, “The magnetic response of a rubidium atomic vapor is maximized by passing a circularly polarized pump laser beam through the vapor to align nearly all of the electron spins. Such optical pumping greatly enhances the sensitivity because the signals from all the atoms add coherently”);
a polarization state generator for generating polarized optical photons from the light originating in the source of coherent light (Schwindt, FIG.1 and C5, L36-40, “In the atomic magnetometer 10, a pump light beam 18, which can be generated by a laser 20 is directed through a linear polarizer 22 to linearly polarize the pump light beam 18”);
a sample environment, comprising
a sample holder, …
a plurality of electromagnets, each connected to one or more power supply components via one or more electronic circuits for supplying voltage to the plurality of electromagnets to generate a desired magnetic field (Schwindt, FIT. 1 and C9, L38-53, specifically “Phase sensitive detection can be performed in the atomic magnetometer 10 by modulating the electrical current applied to one or more sets of the coils 48 at a reference frequency of up to a few kilohertz (kHz),” FIG. 13 and C15, L 56-67, specifically “An important aspect of the system of FIG. 13 is that the sample tube is contained within the solenoid coil”); and
a controller, connected to the electromagnets and including software for generating and controlling the desired magnetic field created by each of the plurality of electromagnets in concert with each other (Schwindt, C5, L1-7, specifically “by providing and controlling mutually 5 perpendicular sets of field coils, it is possible to select the field component that is to be detected.” Examiner notes that for the kind of control disclosed by Schwindt, a computer would inherently be required to manage and control the atomic magnetometer 10);
a polarization state analyzer for permitting photons … having a desired polarization to interact with a detector (Schwindt, FIG. 6 and C11, L13-28, specifically “The effect of the magnetic field B on the magnetically polarized alkali metal vapor 14 is sensed using the probe light beam 28 which is directed through the cell 12 along 15 substantially the same optical path 34 as the pump light beam 18, with the linear polarization of the probe light beam 28 being rotated about an angle which is dependent upon the magnitude of the magnetic field B”, …
Schwindt discloses the above, but does not explicitly disclose:
… the polarization state analyzer being reconfigurable in a plurality of modes, including an imaging mode and a diffraction mode, the polarization state analyzer comprising a detector, one or more polarization optics and a microscope, as well as an imaging unit comprising an imager for generating an image based on the interactions of the optical photons with the detector, …
Examiner notes that Schwindt implies optical imaging due to Schwindt, FIG. 13 and C12, L26-42, but is not as explicit as Examiner would prefer.
However, Jiang, in the same field of endeavor (Comparison study of distinguishing cancerous and normal prostate epithelial cells by confocal and polarization diffraction imaging), discloses:
… the polarization state analyzer being reconfigurable in a plurality of modes, including an imaging mode and a diffraction mode (Jiang, P2, C2, Paragraph 2, “A method of polarization diffraction imaging flow cytometry (p-DIFC) has been developed to image coherent light scattered by single particles or cells using a microscope objective at off focus positions to increase image contrast and adjust the angular cone of detection”), the polarization state analyzer comprising a detector (Jiang, P2, C2, Paragraph 2, inherent to “polarization diffraction imaging”), one or more polarization optics (Jiang, P2, C2, Paragraph 2, inherent to “polarization diffraction imaging”) and a microscope (Jiang, P2, C2, Paragraph 2, “using a microscope”), as well as an imaging unit (Jiang, P2, C2, Paragraph 2, “polarization diffraction imaging”) comprising an imager (Jiang, P2, C2, Paragraph 2, inherent to “polarization diffraction imaging”) for generating an image based on the interactions of the optical photons with the detector (Jiang, P2, C2, Paragraph 2, inherent to “polarization diffraction imaging”), …
It would have been obvious to PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Schwindt with the known method of polarization diffraction imaging of Jiang. PHOSITA would have known about the method of polarization diffraction imaging disclosed by Jiang and how it would affect the apparatus of Schwindt. PHOSITA would have been motivated to do this as applying a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results (See MPEP § 2143 (I)(D)), specifically the use of the known method of polarization diffraction imaging to increase image contrast and adjust the angular cone of detection.
The combination of Schwindt and Jiang discloses the above, but does not explicitly disclose:
…wherein the image has a resolution of about half of a wavelength of the light originating in the source of coherent light; …
However, MicroscopyU, in a similar field of endeavor (optical microscopy), discloses:
…wherein the image has a resolution of about half of a wavelength of the light originating in the source of coherent light (MicroscopyU, Paragraph 1, “These resolution limitations are often referred to as the diffraction barrier, which restricts the ability of optical instruments to distinguish between two objects separated by a lateral distance less than approximately half the wavelength of light used to image the specimen”);
It would have been obvious to PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Schwindt and Jiang with the known diffraction barrier of MicroscopyU. PHOSITA would have known about the diffraction barrier as disclosed by MicroscopyU and how it would affect the combination of Schwindt and Jiang. PHOSITA would have been motivated to do this as a combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results (See MPEP § 2143 (I)(A)), specifically the known diffraction barrier and how it affects image resolution.
The combination of Schwindt, Jiang, and MicroscopyU discloses the above, but does not explicitly disclose:
… of a magnetic sample based on the scattering of polarized light by the magnetic sample, the system …
… configured to hold the magnetic sample to be imaged directly, or by diffraction methods, based on scattering of the polarized, optical photons by the magnetic sample; …
However, Nagai, in a similar field of endeavor (MEASURING DEVICE), discloses:
… of a magnetic sample based on the scattering of polarized light by the magnetic sample, the system (Nagai, FIG. 23, [0306], “The light scattered by the probe 2302 and the magnetic substance to be measured 107 is focused by the object lens 106, split by the beam splitter 105, passed through a shielding plate 2303 with not-dispersed light being blocked, and passed through the half-turn asymmetric reflectional symmetry polarizing element 111 such as the aforesaid divisional half-wave element, divisional polarization rotation element, or divisional 1/4 wave element, and then polarization is detected by the polarization split detection optical system constituted of the polarization beam splitter 113 and so on so that the differential polarization detection signal 118 and the sum signal 123 are taken into the control unit 124”), …
… configured to hold the magnetic sample to be imaged directly, or by diffraction methods, based on scattering of the polarized, optical photons by the magnetic sample, the cryo-free sample environment (Nagai, FIG. 23, [0306], “The light scattered by the probe 2302 and the magnetic substance to be measured 107 is focused by the object lens 106, split by the beam splitter 105, passed through a shielding plate 2303 with not-dispersed light being blocked, and passed through the half-turn asymmetric reflectional symmetry polarizing element 111 such as the aforesaid divisional half-wave element, divisional polarization rotation element, or divisional 1/4 wave element, and then polarization is detected by the polarization split detection optical system constituted of the polarization beam splitter 113 and so on so that the differential polarization detection signal 118 and the sum signal 123 are taken into the control unit 124”)…
It would have been obvious to PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Schwindt, Jiang, and MicroscopyU with the known detection of scattered light off a magnetic sample of Nagai. PHOSITA would have known about the detection of scattered light off a magnetic sample as disclosed by Nagai and how it would affect the combination of Schwindt, Jiang, and MicroscopyU. PHOSITA would have been motivated to do this as a combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results (See MPEP § 2143 (I)(A)), specifically the application of a known method to analyze magnetic samples.
Claims 5-6 and 26-27 are rejected under rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schwindt (US9995800), in view of Jiang (Jiang, Wenhuan & Lu, Jun & Yang, Li & Sa, Yu & Feng, Yuanming & Ding, Junhua & Hu, Xin. (2015). Comparison study of distinguishing cancerous and normal prostate epithelial cells by confocal and polarization diffraction imaging. Journal of Biomedical Optics. 21. 071102-071102. 10.1117/1.JBO.21.7.071102.), in view of MicroscopyU (“The Diffraction Barrier in Optical Microscopy,” MicroscopyU, Internet Archive Date of 08/03/2016, https://www.microscopyu.com/techniques/super-resolution/the-diffraction-barrier-in-optical-microscopy), in further view of Nagai (US 20060065820), and in further view of Kopelman (US20140248632).
Regarding Claim 5, the combination of Schwindt, Jiang, MicroscopyU, and Nagai discloses Claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose:
… wherein the sample environment creates a rotated magnetic field.
However, Kopelman, in a similar field of endeavor (Magnetically Induced Microspinning For Super-Detection And Super-Characterization Of Biomarkers And Live Cells), discloses:
… wherein the sample environment creates a rotated magnetic field (Kopelman, [0119], “The magnetic moments of the magnetic particles within each of the cells will sum, allowing rotation of the entire cluster in the presence of a rotating magnetic field”).
It would have been obvious to PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Schwindt, Jiang, MicroscopyU, and Nagai with the rotated magnetic field of Kopelman. PHOSITA would have known about the rotated magnetic field as disclosed by Kopelman and how to use it to modify the combination of Schwindt, Jiang, MicroscopyU, and Nagai. PHOSITA would have been motivated to do this as an application of a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results (See MPEP § 2143 (I)(D)), specifically the monitoring of cells through the rotation of the magnetic field.
Regarding Claim 6, the combination of Schwindt, Jiang, MicroscopyU, Nagai and Kopelman discloses Claim 5, and Kopelman further discloses:
… wherein the rotated magnetic field has … a frequency of up to 60 KHz (Kopelman, C5, L55-57, “As a consequence, the ability to rotate cells through the internalization of similar magnetic nanoparticles and the application of a rotating magnetic field, i.e., alternating in two directions at the same time, without causing harm to the cell has been a concern, even though we are using much lower fields by an order of magnitude, and frequencies in the ranges of a few dozen Hz instead of a few 100 kHz”).
The combination of Schwindt, Jiang, MicroscopyU, and Kopelman do not specifically disclose:
…wherein the rotated magnetic field has a magnetic flux density of 0.5 T…
However, Kopelman discloses the monitoring of cells through the rotation of the magnetic field (Kopelman, C5, L55-57). The magnetic flux density is a result-effective variable. In that, if the magnetic flux density is too low or too high it would fail to contain and control the sample for imaging.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to PHOSITA before applicant’s filing date to include the rotated magnetic field has a magnetic flux density of 0.5 T, since determining the optimum magnetic flux density a result effective variable and would require routine skill in the art. Furthermore, it has been held that that determining the optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art (see MPEP 2144.05 (II (A) and (B)).
Regarding Claim 26, the combination of Schwindt, Jiang, MicroscopyU, and Nagai discloses Claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose:
… wherein the imaging unit is further coupled to a control unit by wired or wireless communication, the control unit being configured for processing the generated images.
However, Kopelman, in a similar field of endeavor (Magnetically Induced Microspinning For Super-Detection And Super-Characterization Of Biomarkers And Live Cells), discloses:
… wherein the imaging unit is further coupled to a control unit by wired or wireless communication, the control unit being configured for processing the generated images (Kopelman, [0132], “controlled by a computer with input and display, such as an imaging processing system or portion thereof or other control system”).
It would have been obvious to PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Schwindt, Jiang, MicroscopyU, and Nagai with the known optical imaging of Kopelman. PHOSITA would have known about the optical imaging as disclosed by Kopelman and how it would affect the combination of Schwindt, Jiang, MicroscopyU, and Nagai. PHOSITA would have been motivated to do this as a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results (See MPEP § 2143 (I)(B)), specifically the use of optical imaging in magnetometers.
Regarding Claim 28, the combination of Schwindt, Jiang, MicroscopyU, and Nagai discloses Claim 25, but does not explicitly disclose:
… wherein the imaging unit is further coupled to a control unit by wired or wireless communication, the control unit being configured for processing the generated images.
However, Kopelman, in a similar field of endeavor (Magnetically Induced Microspinning For Super-Detection And Super-Characterization Of Biomarkers And Live Cells), discloses:
… wherein the imaging unit is further coupled to a control unit by wired or wireless communication, the control unit being configured for processing the generated images (Kopelman, [0132], “controlled by a computer with input and display, such as an imaging processing system or portion thereof or other control system”).
It would have been obvious to PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Schwindt, Jiang, and MicroscopyU with the known optical imaging of Kopelman. PHOSITA would have known about the optical imaging as disclosed by Kopelman and how it would affect the combination of Schwindt, Jiang, and MicroscopyU. PHOSITA would have been motivated to do this as a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results (See MPEP § 2143 (I)(B)), specifically the use of optical imaging in magnetometers.
Claim 9 is rejected under rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schwindt (US9995800), in view of Jiang (Jiang, Wenhuan & Lu, Jun & Yang, Li & Sa, Yu & Feng, Yuanming & Ding, Junhua & Hu, Xin. (2015). Comparison study of distinguishing cancerous and normal prostate epithelial cells by confocal and polarization diffraction imaging. Journal of Biomedical Optics. 21. 071102-071102. 10.1117/1.JBO.21.7.071102.), in view of MicroscopyU (“The Diffraction Barrier in Optical Microscopy,” MicroscopyU, Internet Archive Date of 08/03/2016, https://www.microscopyu.com/techniques/super-resolution/the-diffraction-barrier-in-optical-microscopy), in further view of Nagai (US 20060065820), and in further view of Sakai (JP2015045621).
Regarding Claim 9, the combination of Schwindt, Jiang, MicroscopyU, and Nagai discloses the limitations of Claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose:
… wherein the magnet housing is rotatable around the sample holder.
However, Sakai, in the same field of endeavor (viscosity / elasticity measuring apparatus and method for measuring viscosity / elasticity), discloses:
… wherein the magnet housing is rotatable around the sample holder (Sakai, FIG. 1, P3, Paragraph 3, “the opposed permanent magnets are rotated around the container 101 by a motor or the likearound the z axis as a rotation axis, and a rotating magnetic field is applied to the rotor 106 to rotate torque to therotor 106”).
It would have been obvious to PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Schwindt, Jiang, MicroscopyU, and Nagai with the rotating magnets of Sakai. PHOSITA would have known about the rotating magnets as disclosed by Sakai and how to use it to modify the combination of Schwindt, Jiang, MicroscopyU, and Nagai. PHOSITA would have been motivated to do this as an application of a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results (See MPEP § 2143 (I)(D)), specifically rotation of the magnets in alternative or in addition to the control of the magnetic field for greater control and analysis options.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 103 as being unpatentable over Schwindt (US9995800), in view of Jiang (Jiang, Wenhuan & Lu, Jun & Yang, Li & Sa, Yu & Feng, Yuanming & Ding, Junhua & Hu, Xin. (2015). Comparison study of distinguishing cancerous and normal prostate epithelial cells by confocal and polarization diffraction imaging. Journal of Biomedical Optics. 21. 071102-071102. 10.1117/1.JBO.21.7.071102.), in view of MicroscopyU (“The Diffraction Barrier in Optical Microscopy,” MicroscopyU, Internet Archive Date of 08/03/2016, https://www.microscopyu.com/techniques/super-resolution/the-diffraction-barrier-in-optical-microscopy), in further view of Nagai (US 20060065820), and in further view of Jo (US5838444).
Regarding Claim 14, the combination of Schwindt, Jiang, MicroscopyU, and Nagai discloses the limitations of Claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose:
… wherein the magnet housing is rotatable around the sample holder.
However, Jo, in the same field of endeavor (magneto-optic characteristic measuring device), discloses:
… further comprising one or more alignment mirrors positioned between the polarization state generator and the sample environment (Jo, C3, L30-55, “a laser generator for emitting a beam of laser, a polarizer for polarizing the laser beam into a linearly polarized beam, a beam splitter for irradiating the beam from the polarizer onto a sample via a reflection mirror while receiving the reflected beam from the sample, an optical detector for receiving the reflected beam”).
It would have been obvious to PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Schwindt, Jiang, and MicroscopyU with the laser and mirror system of Jo. PHOSITA would have known about the laser and mirror system as disclosed by Jo and how to use it to modify the combination of Schwindt, Jiang, and MicroscopyU. PHOSITA would have been motivated to do this as an application of a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results (See MPEP § 2143 (I)(D)), specifically the use of alignment mirrors for better angle control and sensitivity.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 103 as being unpatentable over Schwindt (US9995800), in view of Jiang (Jiang, Wenhuan & Lu, Jun & Yang, Li & Sa, Yu & Feng, Yuanming & Ding, Junhua & Hu, Xin. (2015). Comparison study of distinguishing cancerous and normal prostate epithelial cells by confocal and polarization diffraction imaging. Journal of Biomedical Optics. 21. 071102-071102. 10.1117/1.JBO.21.7.071102.), in view of MicroscopyU (“The Diffraction Barrier in Optical Microscopy,” MicroscopyU, Internet Archive Date of 08/03/2016, https://www.microscopyu.com/techniques/super-resolution/the-diffraction-barrier-in-optical-microscopy), in further view of Nagai (US 20060065820), and in further view of Yamada (US20140070802A1).
Regarding Claim 15, the combination of Schwindt, Jiang, MicroscopyU, and Nagai discloses the limitations of Claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose:
… wherein the sample environment is at about room temperature.
However, Yamada, in the same field of endeavor (high-resolution sensor of magnetic field sensor system), discloses:
… wherein the sample environment is at about room temperature. (Yamada, [0027], “The devices according to the present invention can work at room temperature, e.g., below 200.degree. C. They may also be operated at lower temperatures, e.g., at cryogenic temperatures”).
It would have been obvious to PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Schwindt, Jiang, MicroscopyU, and Nagai with the temperature range of Yamada. PHOSITA would have known about the temperature range as disclosed by Yamada and how to use it to modify the combination of Schwindt, Jiang, MicroscopyU, and Nagai. PHOSITA would have been motivated to do this as an application of a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results (See MPEP § 2143 (I)(D)), specifically the methods for manner for operating at room temperature.
Claims 19, 21, and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schwindt (US9995800) in view of Liu (US20210342505A1), in view of Kopelman (US20140248632), in further view of Nagai (US 20060065820), and in further view of Gilbert (US10312436B2).
Regarding Claim 19, the combination of Schwindt, Jiang, MicroscopyU, and Nagai discloses the limitations of Claim 1, and Schwindt further discloses:
A method of creating Neel type skyrmion domains in a condensed matter sample using the system for imaging of claim 1, the method comprising:
placing the condensed matter sample in a sample environment (Schwindt, FIG. 13 and C15, L24-27, “FIG. 13 shows an array of four sensor modules 120 placed in a square or other rectangular arrangement about a sample tube 124 wrapped by a solenoid 126 and contained within a magnetic shield 128”), the sample environment comprising:
the sample holder (Schwindt, FIG. 13 and C15, L24-27, “FIG. 13 shows an array of four sensor modules 120 placed in a square or other rectangular arrangement about a sample tube 124 wrapped by a solenoid 126 and contained within a magnetic shield 128”); and
the plurality of electromagnets arranged to surround the sample holder (Schwindt, FIT. 1 and C9, L38-53, specifically “Phase sensitive detection can be performed in the atomic magnetometer 10 by modulating the electrical current applied to one or more sets of the coils 48 at a reference frequency of up to a few kilohertz (kHz),” FIG. 13 and C15, L 56-67, specifically “An important aspect of the system of FIG. 13 is that the sample tube is contained within the solenoid coil”)…
The combination of Schwindt, Jiang, MicroscopyU, and Nagai discloses the above limitations, but does not explicitly disclose:
…applying a rotated magnetic field generated by the plurality of electromagnets to the sample to induce bubble skyrmionic polarization dipole textures in the sample.
However, Liu, in the same field of endeavor (micromagnetic methods), discloses:
…applying a rotated magnetic field generated by the plurality of electromagnets to the sample to induce bubble skyrmionic polarization dipole textures in the sample (Liu, [0121], “he magnetic dipole-dipole interaction of the spins”).
It would have been obvious to PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Schwindt, Jiang, MicroscopyU, and Nagai with the dipolar interactions of Liu. PHOSITA would have known about the dipolar interactions as disclosed by Liu and how to use it to modify the combination of Schwindt, Jiang, MicroscopyU, and Nagai. PHOSITA would have been motivated to do this as a combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results (See MPEP § 2143 (I)(A)), specifically known methods for controlling and testing magnetometers.
The combination of Schwindt and Liu discloses the above, but does not explicitly disclose:
… wherein the rotated magnetic field has … a frequency of up to 60 KHz.
However, Kopelman, in the same field of endeavor (an inspection device and an inspection method capable of achieving improved magnetic field sensitivity), discloses:
… wherein the rotated magnetic field has … a frequency of up to 60 KHz (Kopelman, C5, L55-57, “As a consequence, the ability to rotate cells through the internalization of similar magnetic nanoparticles and the application of a rotating magnetic field, i.e., alternating in two directions at the same time, without causing harm to the cell has been a concern, even though we are using much lower fields by an order of magnitude, and frequencies in the ranges of a few dozen Hz instead of a few 100 kHz”)…
It would have been obvious to PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Schwindt, Jiang, MicroscopyU, Nagai, and Liu with the rotated magnetic field parameters of Kopelman. PHOSITA would have known about the rotated magnetic field as disclosed by Kopelman and how to use it to modify the combination of Schwindt, Jiang, MicroscopyU, Nagai, and Liu. PHOSITA would have been motivated to do this as an application of a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results (See MPEP § 2143 (I)(D)), specifically the monitoring of cells through the rotation of the magnetic field.
The combination of Schwindt, Jiang, MicroscopyU, Nagai, Liu, and Kopelman do not specifically disclose:
…wherein the rotated magnetic field has a magnetic flux density of 0.5 T…
However, Kopelman discloses the monitoring of cells through the rotation of the magnetic field (Kopelman, C5, L55-57). The magnetic flux density is a result-effective variable. In that, if the magnetic flux density is too low or too high it would fail to contain and control the sample for imaging.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to PHOSITA before applicant’s filing date to include the rotated magnetic field has a magnetic flux density of 0.5 T, since determining the optimum magnetic flux density a result effective variable and would require routine skill in the art. Furthermore, it has been held that that determining the optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art (see MPEP 2144.05 (II (A) and (B)).
The combination of Schwindt, Jiang, MicroscopyU, Nagai, Liu, and Kopelman discloses the above, but does not explicitly disclose:
… the sample comprises a uniaxial centrosymmetric ferromagnetic thin-film material.
However, Gilbert, in the same field of endeavor (method for fabricating artificial skyrmions and skyrmion lattices), discloses:
… the sample comprises a uniaxial centrosymmetric ferromagnetic thin-film material (Gilbert, C1, L47-50, “Magnetic skyrmions are chiral spin textures with topological character and particle-like properties, primarily observed in ferromagnetic thin films or non-centrosymmetric bulk materials”).
It would have been obvious to PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Schwindt, Jiang, MicroscopyU, Nagai, Liu, and Kopelman with the sample compositions of Gilbert. PHOSITA would have known about the sample compositions as disclosed by Gilbert and how to use it to modify the combination of Schwindt, Jiang, MicroscopyU, Nagai, Liu, and Kopelman. PHOSITA would have been motivated to do this as an application of a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results (See MPEP § 2143 (I)(D)), specifically the use of known materials.
Regarding Claim 24, the combination of Schwindt, Jiang, MicroscopyU, Nagai, Liu, Kopelman, and Gilbert discloses Claim 19, and Gilbert further discloses:
… wherein the sample comprises Y3Fe5O12 (Gilbert, FIG. 1 and C6, L35-40, “Although Co is used in this illustration to construct the structures, essentially any magnetic material could be used, including ferromagnetic metals (Fe, Ni, Gd, Sm, Tb, Nd, Mn and their alloys), intermetallic materials (FeGa, NdFeB, etc.), ferromagnetic oxides (LaSrMnO3, LaSrCoO3, etc.), and ferromagnetic nitrides (FeN, GdN, etc.” Examiner notes that though Gilbert does not explicitly state Y3Fe5O12, a person having ordinary skill in the art would understand that Y3Fe5O12 is a ferromagnetic material).
It would have been obvious to PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Schwindt, Jiang, MicroscopyU, Nagai, Liu, Kopelman, and Gilbert with the sample compositions of Gilbert. PHOSITA would have known about the sample compositions as disclosed by Gilbert and how to use it to modify the combination of Schwindt, Jiang, MicroscopyU, Nagai, Liu, Kopelman, and Gilbert. PHOSITA would have been motivated to do this as an application of a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results (See MPEP § 2143 (I)(D)), specifically the use of known materials.
Claims 27 and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schwindt (US9995800), in view of Jiang (Jiang, Wenhuan & Lu, Jun & Yang, Li & Sa, Yu & Feng, Yuanming & Ding, Junhua & Hu, Xin. (2015). Comparison study of distinguishing cancerous and normal prostate epithelial cells by confocal and polarization diffraction imaging. Journal of Biomedical Optics. 21. 071102-071102. 10.1117/1.JBO.21.7.071102.), in view of MicroscopyU (“The Diffraction Barrier in Optical Microscopy,” MicroscopyU, Internet Archive Date of 08/03/2016, https://www.microscopyu.com/techniques/super-resolution/the-diffraction-barrier-in-optical-microscopy), in further view of Nagai (US 20060065820), and in further view of Endo (US 20140225606 A1).
Regarding Claim 27, the combination of Schwindt, Jiang, MicroscopyU, and Nagai discloses the limitations of Claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose:
… wherein the imaging unit comprises at least one CCD or equivalent image sensor.
However, Endo, in the same field of endeavor (an inspection device and an inspection method suitable for the use of a magnetic inspection probe), discloses:
… wherein the imaging unit comprises at least one CCD or equivalent image sensor (Endo, FIG. 1, [0052], “a two-dimensional photoreceptor device 25 such as a CCD camera or a photodiode”).
It would have been obvious to PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Schwindt, Jiang, MicroscopyU, and Nagai with the CCD of Endo. PHOSITA would have known about the CCD’s as disclosed by Endo and how to use it to modify the combination of Schwindt, Jiang, MicroscopyU, and Nagai. PHOSITA would have been motivated to do this as an application of a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results (See MPEP § 2143 (I)(D)), specifically the use of a known sensor for imaging.
Regarding Claim 29, the combination of Schwindt, Jiang, MicroscopyU, and Nagai discloses the limitations of Claim 25, but does not explicitly disclose:
… wherein the imaging unit comprises at least one CCD or equivalent image sensor.
However, Endo, in the same field of endeavor (an inspection device and an inspection method suitable for the use of a magnetic inspection probe), discloses:
… wherein the imaging unit comprises at least one CCD or equivalent image sensor (Endo, FIG. 1, [0052], “a two-dimensional photoreceptor device 25 such as a CCD camera or a photodiode”).
It would have been obvious to PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Schwindt, Jiang, MicroscopyU, and Nagai with the CCD of Endo. PHOSITA would have known about the CCD’s as disclosed by Endo and how to use it to modify the combination of Schwindt, Jiang, MicroscopyU, and Nagai. PHOSITA would have been motivated to do this as an application of a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results (See MPEP § 2143 (I)(D)), specifically the use of a known sensor for imaging.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHAD A REVERMAN whose telephone number is (571)270-0079. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9-5 EST.
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, Kara Geisel can be reached at (571) 272-2416. 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.
/CHAD ANDREW REVERMAN/Examiner, Art Unit 2877
/Kara E. Geisel/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2877
Prosecution Insights