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 .
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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.
1. Claims 1-3, 5, 6, 22-25, 29 and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over International Patent Application No. WO2021/003369 to Ozcan et al. (cited by applicant) in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2008/0268469 to Sriene et al. and Lee et al. (“Synthetic Fourier transform light scattering,” Optics Express Vol. 21, Issue 19, pp. 22453-22463 (2013))
Ozcan et al. teaches a computational cytometer that includes a system 10 shown in Figs. 1A-1C for analyzing structures 90 (cells) in a solution. [0025], [0028].
The system includes a light source 20 for illuminating the solution as shown in Fig. 1C and a sensor 22 for detecting light from the light source after interaction with the solution.
A controller 45 analyzes a response from the sensor to resolve speckle information to assess the structures in the solution. [0006], [0032]
Ozcan et al. does not teach a focusing optic that focus light on the image sensor 22.
Sriene et al. teaches detecting target particles using light scattering signals.[0053] In Fig. 1 Sriene et al. illustrates the use of focusing optic in front of light detector 115.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to modify Ozcan et al. in view of Sriene et al. to include a focusing optic in from of the image sensor as taught by Sriene et al. for purposes of focusing light onto the image sensor.
Ozcan et al. in view of Sriene et al. do not teach that imaging frequency information is obtained as spatial-frequency information across the sensor.
Lee et al. teaches Fourier transformation of light scattering to produce spatial frequencies that correspond to scattering angles. (page 3 “Theory and simulations”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to modify Ozcan et al. in view of Sriene et al to use imaging frequency information that is obtained as spatial-frequency information across the sensor in view of Lee et al. teaching that spatial frequencies that correspond to scattering angles.
I.) Regarding applicant’s claim 1, as noted above, Ozcan et al. in view of Sriene et al. and Lee et al. renders all the elements of claim 1 obvious
Therefore, Ozcan et al. in view of Sriene et al. and Lee et al. renders claim 1 obvious.
II.) Regarding applicant’s claim 2, as noted above, Ozcan et al. in view of Sriene et al. and Lee et al. renders claim 1 obvious from which claim 2 depends.
Claim 2 recites that the structures are cells.
As noted above, Ozcan et al. teaches analyzing structures 90 (cells) in a solution. [0028]
Therefore, Ozcan et al. in view of Sriene et al. and Lee et al. renders claim 2 obvious.
III.) Regarding applicant’s claim 3, as noted above, Ozcan et al. in view of Sriene et al. and Lee et al. renders claim 2 obvious from which claim 3 depends.
Claim 3 recites that the cells are in or from a bioreactor.
The origination of the cells do not incorporate structural limitations to system for analyzing structures in a solution and the limitations of claim 3 are not afforded patentable weight.
Therefore, Ozcan et al. in view of Sriene et al. and Lee et al. render claim 3 obvious via claim 1.
IV.) Regarding applicant’s claim 5, as noted above, Ozcan et al. in view of Sriene et al. and Lee et al. renders claim 1 obvious from which claim 5 depends.
Claim 5 recites that the controller assesses a density of the cells.
Ozcan et al. teaches measuring the concentration of cells. [0020]
Therefore, Ozcan et al. in view of Sriene et al. and Lee et al. renders claim 5 obvious.
V.) Regarding applicant’s claim 6, as noted above, Ozcan et al. in view of Sriene et al. and Lee et al. renders claim 1 obvious from which claim 6 depends.
Claim 6 recites that the light source is a laser.
Ozcan et al. teaches that the light source can be a laser diode. [0029]
Therefore, Ozcan et al. in view of Sriene et al. and Lee et al. renders claim 6 obvious.
VI.) Regarding applicant’s claim 22, as noted above, Ozcan et al. in view of Sriene et al. and Lee et al. renders claim 1 obvious from which claim 22 depends.
Claim 22 recites that the sensor is positioned at a focal plane of the focusing optic such that the focusing optic performs a physical Fourier transform of the light after interaction with the solution.
Ozcan et al. in view of Sriene et al. and Lee et al. does not teach that the sensor is positioned at a focal plane of the focusing optic such that the focusing optic performs a physical Fourier transform of the light after interaction with the solution.
In Ozcan et al. in view of Sriene et al. and Lee et al. it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to arrange and position the image sensor and focusing optic to produce spatial frequencies and scattering angles in accordance with Fourier transformation as taught by Lee et al. for purposes of analyzing target particles.
Therefore, Ozcan et al. in view of Sriene et al. and Lee et al renders claim 22 obvious.
VII.) Regarding applicant’s claim 23, as noted above, Ozcan et al. in view of Sriene et al. and Lee et al. renders claim 1 obvious from which claim 23 depends.
Claim 23 recites that the spatial-frequency information corresponds to an angular distribution of scattered light caused by the structures.
As noted above, Lee et al. teaches transforming light scattering to produce spatial frequencies that correspond to scattering angles.
Therefore, Ozcan et al. in view of Sriene et al. and Lee et al. renders claim 23 obvious.
VIII.) Regarding applicant’s claim 24, as noted above, Ozcan et al. in view of Sriene et al. and Lee et al. renders claim 23 obvious from which claim 24 depends.
Claim 24 recites that the controller assesses a size and/or size distribution of the structures by mapping scattering angle information, derived from the spatial-frequency information, to structure size.
Ozcan et al. in view of Sriene et al. and Lee et al. does not teach that the controller assesses a size and/or size distribution of the structures by mapping scattering angle information, derived from the spatial-frequency information, to structure size.
In Ozcan et al. in view of Sriene et al. and Lee et al. it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to use the controller of Ozcan et al. to assess a size and/or size distribution of the structures by mapping scattering angle information, derived from the spatial-frequency information, to structure size for purposes of analyzing target particles.
Therefore, Ozcan et al. in view of Sriene et al. and Lee et al. renders claim 24 obvious.
IX.) Regarding applicant’s claim 25, as noted above, Ozcan et al. in view of Sriene et al. and Lee et al. renders claim 1 obvious from which claim 25 depends.
Claim 25 recites that a center of an incident beam from the light source is positioned outside an active area of the sensor.
Ozcan et al. in view of Sriene et al. and Lee et al. does not teach that a center of an incident beam from the light source is positioned outside an active area of the sensor.
In Ozcan et al. in view of Sriene et al. and Lee et al. it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to position the center of the incident light beam with respect to the image sensor in any suitable alignment in which scattered light is received by the image sensor, it being not necessary to center the incident beam directly onto the image sensor.
Therefore, Ozcan et al. in view of Sriene et al. and Lee et al. renders claim 26 obvious.
X.) Regarding applicant’s claim 29, as noted above, Ozcan et al. in view of Sriene et al. and Lee et al. renders claim 1 obvious from which claim 29 depends.
Claim 29 recites that the controller assesses the structures based on the spatial-frequency information by: (i) acquiring a time series of frames from the sensor and (ii) subtracting a background corresponding to a structure-free medium.
Ozcan et al. in view of Sriene et al. and Lee et al. does not teach that the controller assesses the structures based on the spatial-frequency information by: (i) acquiring a time series of frames from the sensor and (ii) subtracting a background corresponding to a structure-free medium.
In Ozcan et al. in view of Sriene et al. and Lee et al. it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the controller of Ozcan et al. to assess the structures based on the spatial-frequency information by acquiring a time series of frames from the sensor for purposes of detecting target particles over a time period and subtracting a background corresponding to a structure-free medium for purposes of providing a reference base from which to access detection of the target particles that excludes non-particle interference.
Therefore, Ozcan et al. in view of Sriene et al. and Lee et al. renders claim 29 obvious.
XI.) Regarding applicant’s claim 30, as noted above, Ozcan et al. in view of Sriene et al. and Lee et al. renders claim 29 obvious from which claim 30 depends.
Claim 30 recites that the controller computes a standard deviation in time over a subsection of the sensor.
Ozcan et al. in view of Sriene et al. and Lee et al. does not teach that the controller computes a standard deviation in time over a subsection of the sensor.
In Ozcan et al. in view of Sriene et al. and Lee et al. it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to use the controller of Ozcan et al. to compute a standard deviation in time over a subsection of the sensor for purposes of normalizing responses of the image sensor.
Therefore, Ozcan et al. in view of Sriene et al. and Lee et al. renders claim 30 obvious.
2. Claims 15 and 18 are rejected under 35 USC as being unpatentable over Ozcan et al. in view of Sriene et al. and Lee et al.
As noted above, Ozcan et al. in view of Sriene et al. and Lee et al. teaches a computational cytometer that includes a system 10 shown in Figs. 1A-1C for analyzing structures 90 (cells) in a solution. [0025], [0028].
The system includes a light source 20 for illuminating the solution as shown in Fig. 1C and a sensor 22 for detecting light from the light source after interaction with the solution.
A controller 45 analyzes a response from the sensor to resolve speckle information to assess the structures in the solution. [0006], [0032].
Ozcan et al. does not teach a focusing optic that focus light on the image sensor 22.
Sriene et al. teaches detecting target particles using light scattering signals.[0053] In Fig. 1 Sriene et al. illustrates the use of focusing optic in front of light detector 115.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to modify Ozcan et al. in view of Sriene et al. to include a focusing optic in from of the image sensor as taught by Sriene et al. for purposes of focusing light onto the image sensor.
Ozcan et al. in view of Sriene et al. do not teach that imaging frequency information is obtained as spatial-frequency information across the sensor.
Lee et al. teaches Fourier transformation of light scattering to produce spatial frequencies that correspond to scattering angles. (page 3 “Theory and simulations”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to modify Ozcan et al. in view of Sriene et al to use imaging frequency information that is obtained as spatial-frequency information across the sensor in view of Lee et al. teaching that spatial frequencies that correspond to scattering angles.
I.) Regarding applicant’s claim 15, as noted above, Ozcan et al. in view of Sriene et al. and Lee et al. renders all the elements of claim 15 obvious
II.) Regarding applicant’s claim 18, as noted above, Ozcan et al. in view of Sriene et al. and Lee et al. renders claim 15 obvious from which claim 18 depends.
Claim 18 recites that the structures are cells, proteins or protein aggregates.
As noted above, Ozcan et al. teaches analyzing structures 90 (cells) in a solution. [0028]
Therefore, Ozcan et al. in view of Sriene et al. and Lee et al. renders claim 18 obvious.
3. Claims 4, 9 and 31 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Ozcan et al. in view of Sriene et al. and Lee et al. as applied to claim 2 above and further in view of International Patent Application Publication No. 2021/158700 to Ebrahimi et al. (cited by applicant)
I.) Regarding applicant’s claim 4, as noted above, Ozcan et al. in view of Sriene et al. and Lee et al. renders claim 2 obvious from which claim 4 depends.
Claim 4 recites that the controller assesses a viability of the cells.
Ozcan et al. teaches causing minimum damage to the target cells so that high viability is retained, but does not teach assessing viability of the cells. [0004]
Ebrahimi et al. teaches testing cell using dynamic laser speckle imaging and at [0023] teaches differentiating between dead and living bacterial cells is achieved based on the analyses of the dynamic laser speckle images.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Ozcan et al. in view of Sriene et al. and Lee et al. to analyze the speckle images to determine the viability of cells as taught by Ebrahimi et al. for purposes of confirming the viability of the cells.
Therefore, Ozcan et al. in view of Sriene et al., Lee et al. and Ebrahimi et al. renders claim 4 obvious.
II.) Regarding applicant’s claim 9, as noted above, Ozcan et al. in view of Sriene et al. and Lee et al. renders claim 1 obvious from which claim 9 depends.
Claim 9 recites that the sensor is an image sensor having a resolution of at least 1000 by 1000 pixels.
Ozcan et al. teaches a CMOS image sensor, but does not teach the resolution of the image sensor.
Ebrahimi et al. teaches an image sensor with a resolution of 1000 x 2000 pixels. [0046]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Ozcan et al. in view of Sriene et al. and Lee et al. to use an image sensor with a resolution of at least 1000 by 1000 pixels as taught by Ebrahimi et al. for proposes of imaging cells of interest.
Therefore, Ozcan et al. in view of Sriene et al., Lee et al. and Eberahimi et al. renders claim 9 obvious.
III.) Regarding applicant’s claim 31, as noted above Ozcan et al. in view of Sriene et al. and Lee et al. renders claim 1 obvious from which claim 31 depends.
Claim 31 recites that the controller assesses viability of cells by applying a spatial threshold to the spatial-frequency information based on a calibration that defines a pixel-space window corresponding to viable cells.
As noted above, Lee et al. teaches that spatial frequency information is related to scatting angles.
Further, Ebrahimi et al. teaches testing cell using dynamic laser speckle imaging and at [0023] teaches differentiating between dead and living bacterial cells is achieved based on the analyses of the dynamic laser speckle images.
It would thus have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to modify Ozcan et al. in view of Sriene et al. and Lee et al. to use the controller of Ozcan et al. to assess viability of cells by applying a spatial threshold to the spatial-frequency information based on a calibration that defines a pixel-space window corresponding to viable cells.
Therefore, Ozcan et al. in view of Sriene et al. and Lee et al. renders claim 31 obvious.
4. Claims 7, 8, 14, 16 and 17 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Ozcan et al. in view of Sriene et al. and Lee et al. as applied to claims 1 and 15 above and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0080369 to Kim et al. (cited by applicant)
I.) Regarding applicant’s claim 7, as noted above, Ozcan et al. in view of Sriene et al. and Lee et al. renders claim 1 obvious from which claim 7 depends.
Claim 7 recites that the light source has spatial coherence length of at least 5 micrometers.
Ozcan et al. teaches that the particles are illuminated with coherent light, but does not teach the coherence length of the light.
Kim et al. teaches that in laser speckle imaging the use of a laser with a good coherence may be used as the wave source to form speckle in the fluid and that the shorter the spectral bandwidth of the wave source that determines the coherence of the laser wave source, the greater the measurement accuracy.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Ozcan et al. in view of Sriene et al. and Lee et al. by conducting routine optimization experimentation to provide the light source with a suitable spatial coherence length based on Kim et al. teaching that measurement accuracy is dependent on the light coherence, and use a spatial coherence length of at least 5 micrometers for cells of interest.
Therefore, Ozcan et al. in view of Sriene et al., Lee et al. and Kim et al. renders claim 7 obvious
II.) Regarding applicant’s claim 8, as noted above, Ozcan et al. in view of Sriene et al. and Lee et al. renders claim 1 obvious from which claim 8 depends.
Claim 8 recites that the light source has temporal coherence length of at least 1 millimeter.
As noted above, Kim et al. teaches that in laser speckle imaging the use of a laser with a good coherence may be used as the wave source to form speckle in the fluid and that the shorter the spectral bandwidth of the wave source that determines the coherence of the laser wave source, the greater the measurement accuracy.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Ozcan et al. in view of Sriene et al. and Lee et al. by conducting routine optimization experimentation to provide the light source with a suitable temporal coherence length based on Kim et al. teaching that measurement accuracy is dependent on the light coherence, and use a temporal coherence length of at least 1 micrometers for cells of interest.
Therefore, Ozcan et al. in view of Sriene et al., Lee et al. and Kim et al. renders claim 8 obvious.
III.) Regarding applicant’s claim 14, as noted above, Ozcan et al. in view of Sriene et al. and Lee et al. renders claim 1 obvious from which claim 14 depends.
Claim 14 recites that the probe as claimed in claim 1, wherein the light source has temporal coherence length of at least 1 millimeter.
As noted above, Kim et al. teaches that in laser speckle imaging the use of a laser with a good coherence may be used as the wave source to form speckle in the fluid and that the shorter the spectral bandwidth of the wave source that determines the coherence of the laser wave source, the greater the measurement accuracy.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Ozcan et al. in view of Sriene et al. and Lee et al. by conducting routine optimization experimentation to provide the light source with a suitable temporal coherence length based on Kim et al. teaching that measurement accuracy is dependent on the light coherence, and use a temporal coherence length of at least 1 micrometers for cells of interest.
Therefore, Ozcan et al. in view of Sriene et al., Lee et al. and Kim et al. renders claim 14 obvious.
IV.) Regarding applicant’s claim 16, as noted above, Ozcan et al. in view of Sriene et al. and Lee et al. anticipates claim 15 from which claim 16 depends.
Claim 16 recites that light illuminating the solution has spatial coherence length of at least 5 micrometers.
As noted above, Kim et al. teaches that in laser speckle imaging the use of a laser with a good coherence may be used as the wave source to form speckle in the fluid and that the shorter the spectral bandwidth of the wave source that determines the coherence of the laser wave source, the greater the measurement accuracy.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Ozcan et al. in view of Sriene et al. and Lee et al. by conducting routine optimization experimentation to provide the light source with a suitable spatial coherence length based on Kim et al. teaching that measurement accuracy is dependent on the light coherence, and use a spatial coherence length of at least 5 micrometers for cells of interest.
Therefore, Ozcan et al. in view of Sriene et al., Lee et al. and Kim et al. renders claim 16 obvious
V.) Regarding applicant’s claim 17, as noted above, Ozcan et al. in view of Sriene et al. and Lee et al. anticipates claim 15 from which claim 17 depends.
Claim 17 recites that light illuminating the solution has temporal coherence length of at least I millimeter.
As noted above, Kim et al. teaches that in laser speckle imaging the use of a laser with a good coherence may be used as the wave source to form speckle in the fluid and that the shorter the spectral bandwidth of the wave source that determines the coherence of the laser wave source, the greater the measurement accuracy.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Ozcan et al. in view of Sriene et al. and Lee et al. by conducting routine optimization experimentation to provide the light source with a suitable temporal coherence length based on Kim et al. teaching that measurement accuracy is dependent on the light coherence, and use a temporal coherence length of at least 1 micrometers for cells of interest.
Therefore, Ozcan et al. in view of Sriene et al., Lee et al. and Kim et al. renders claim 17 obvious.
5. Claims 26-28 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Ozcan et al. in view of Sriene et al., Lee et al. as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2004/0011975 to Nicoli et al.
I.) Regarding applicant’s claim 26, as noted above Ozcan et al. in view of Sriene et al., Lee et al. render claim 1 obvious from which claim 26 depends.
Claim 26 recites that the flow cell includes a first sample window and a second sample window defining a volumetric sample detection region therebetween.
Ozcan et al. teaches that sample holder 14 may include a capillary, tube, flow cell, or microfluidic channel. [0025]
However, Ozcan et al. in view of Sriene et al. and Lee et al, does not teach that the flow cell includes first and second windows that define a sample detection region.
Nicoli et al. teaches a flow cell used in particle counting light scattering techniques, that as shown in Fig. 1 includes windows 10 and 18 between which a sample is analyzed. [0004]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to use a flow in Ozcan et al. in view of Sriene et al. and Lee as taught by Ozcan et al. and include first and second windows that define a volumetric sample detection region therebetween as taught by Nicoli et al.
Therefore, Ozcan et al. in view of Sriene et al., Lee et al. and Nicoli et al. renders claim 26 obvious.
II.) Regarding applicant’s claim 27, as noted above Ozcan et al. in view of Sriene et al., Lee et al. and Nicoli et al. renders claim 26 obvious from which claim 27 depends.
Claim 27 recites that an exterior surface of the first sample window and an exterior surface of the second sample window each comprise an anti-reflective coating.
Ozcan et al. in view of Sriene et al., Lee et al. and Nicoli et al. does not teach that an exterior surface of the first sample window and an exterior surface of the second sample window each comprise an anti-reflective coating.
In Ozcan et al. in view of Sriene et al., Lee et al. and Nicoli et al. it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the windows with an anti-reflective coating so that light directed and intended to reach samples to be analyzed is not reflected by the windows.
Therefore, Ozcan et al. in view of Sriene et al., Lee et al. and Nicoli et al. renders claim 27 obvious.
III.) Regarding applicant’s claim 28, as noted above Ozcan et al. in view of Sriene et al., Lee et al. and Nicoli et al. renders claim 26 obvious from which claim 28 depends.
Claim 28 recites that volumetric sample detection region has a pathlength between opposing window surfaces of between 0.1 millimeter and 1 millimeter.
Ozcan et al. in view of Sriene et al., Lee et al. and Nicoli et al. does not teach that the volumetric sample detection region has a pathlength between opposing window surfaces of between 0.1 millimeter and 1 millimeter.
It would have been obvious to modify Ozcan et al. in view of Sriene et al., Lee et al. and Nicoli et al. so that the volumetric sample detection region has a pathlength between opposing window surfaces of between 0.1 millimeter and 1 millimeter, since changes in size are not patentable when they would not perform differently. (MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A)).
Therefore, Ozcan et al. in view of Sriene et al., Lee et al. and Nicoli et al. renders claim 28 obvious.
6.) Claim 32 is rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Ozcan et al. in view of Sriene et al., Lee et al. and Nicoli et al.
As noted above, Ozcan et al. in view of Sriene et al. and Lee et al. teaches a computational cytometer that includes a system 10 shown in Figs. 1A-1C for analyzing structures 90 (cells) in a solution. [0025], [0028].
The system includes a light source 20 for illuminating the solution as shown in Fig. 1C and a sensor 22 for detecting light from the light source after interaction with the solution.
A controller 45 analyzes a response from the sensor to resolve speckle information to assess the structures in the solution. [0006], [0032]
Ozcan et al. does not teach a focusing optic that focus light on the image sensor 22.
Sriene et al. teaches detecting target particles using light scattering signals.[0053] In Fig. 1 Sriene et al. illustrates the use of focusing optic in front of light detector 115.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to modify Ozcan et al. in view of Sriene et al. to include a focusing optic in from of the image sensor as taught by Sriene et al. for purposes of focusing light onto the image sensor.
Ozcan et al. in view of Sriene et al. do not teach that imaging frequency information is obtained as spatial-frequency information across the sensor.
Lee et al. teaches Fourier transformation of light scattering to produce spatial frequencies that correspond to scattering angles. (page 3 “Theory and simulations”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to modify Ozcan et al. in view of Sriene et al to use imaging frequency information that is obtained as spatial-frequency information across the sensor in view of Lee et al. teaching that spatial frequencies that correspond to scattering angles.
Ozcan et al. teaches that sample holder 14 may include a capillary, tube, flow cell, or microfluidic channel. [0025]
However, Ozcan et al. in view of Sriene et al. and Lee et al, does not teach that the flow cell includes first and second windows that define a sample detection region.
As noted above, Nicoli et al. teaches a flow cell used in particle counting light scattering techniques, that as shown in Fig. 1 includes windows 10 and 18 between which a sample is analyzed. [0004]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to use a flow in Ozcan et al. in view of Sriene et al. and Lee as taught by Ozcan et al. and include first and second windows that define a volumetric sample detection region therebetween as taught by Nicoli et al.
Aligning the image sensor at a focal plane so that an unscattered component of the coherent light is displaced away from an active area of the image sensor would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date since only scatter light is of interest to detect.
Subtracting a background corresponding to the fluid without the cells would have been obvious for purposes of removing any background interference, computing a fluctuation metric from a time series of the frames would have been obvious for purposes of analyzing samples over time periods, and determining a total cell count or density based on the fluctuation metric and the spatial-frequency distribution would have been obvious for purposes of quantify the cells.
Therefore, Ozcan et al. in view of Sriene et al., Lee et al. and Nicoli et al. renders claim 32 obvious.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-9, 14-18 and 22-32 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection that relied upon Sriene et al., Lee et al. and Nicoli et al. as necessitated by applicant’s amendments to the claims.
Conclusion
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 MICHAEL S. GZYBOWSKI whose telephone number is (571)270-3487. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5:00.
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, Charles Capozzi can be reached at 571-272-3638. 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.
/M.S.G./Examiner, Art Unit 1798
/CHARLES CAPOZZI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1798
Prosecution Insights