DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Amendment
1- The amendment filed on 11/18/2025 has been entered and fully considered. Claims 1 and 3-19 remain pending in the application, where the independent claims have been amended.
Response to Arguments
2- Applicants’ amendments and their corresponding arguments with respect to the rejections of the pending claims under 35 USC §103 have been fully considered but are found not persuasive to overcome the prior art used in the previous office action, despite the fact that the amendments have changed the scope of the invention and overcome the rejection as written in the previous office action mailed 6/30/2025. Although, the amendment overcomes the teachings of Nadkarni, Knowles appear to address the new limitation.
3- Therefore, the amendments necessitated, upon further consideration, new grounds of rejection using additional teachings from the same references used in the previous office action. The new limitations are addressed in the rejections here under in more details.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
4- 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 of this title, 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.
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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.
5- Claims 1, 3-15, 18-19, are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Knowles et al. (WO 2020104813, cited by Applicants) in view of Nadkarni (US 20120301967)
In addition, the functional recitation in the claims (e.g. "configured to" or "adapted to" or the like) that does not limit a claim limitation to a particular structure does not limit the scope of the claim. It has been held that the recitation that an element is "adapted to", "configured to", "designed to", or "operable to" perform a function is not a positive limitation but only requires the ability to so perform and may not constitute a limitation in a patentable sense. In re Hutchinson, 69 USPQ 139. (See MPEP 2111.04); see also In In re Giannelli, 739 F.3d 1375, 1378, 109 USPQ2d 1333, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
Also, it should be noted that it has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed device is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed device from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations Ex-parte Masham 2 USPQ2d 1647 1987).
The claimed system in the instant application is capable of performing the claimed functionality, as is the prior art used in the present office action. The Examiner notes that where the patent office has reason to believe that a functional limitation asserted to be critical for establishing novelty in the claimed subject matter may, in fact, be an inherent characteristic of the prior art, it possesses the authority to require the applicant to prove that the subject matter shown to be in the prior art does not possess the characteristic relied on. In re Swinehart and sfiligoj, 169 USPQ 226 (C.C.P.A. 1971).
As to amended claims 18-19, 1-2, Knowles teaches an interferometric scattering optical microscope system, and its method of use, for characterizing one or more particles in a fluid (Figs. 1-8 and Abstract), the system comprising: a particle detection region (114) wherein, in use, the particle detection region comprises one or more particles in a fluid (Figs. 1-2 for ex.; particles 120 in fluid 118); a source of illuminating light (202); a source of reference light, wherein the reference light and illuminating light are coherent with one another (202 + cover slip); an objective lens (112) to direct the illuminating light to illuminate the particle detection region through an interface (cover slip) such that the illuminating light is scattered by the one or more particles, wherein the objective lens is configured to capture the reference light and the scattered light (Figs. 1-2); an imaging device (130: the optoelectrical camera system); an optical system to provide the reference light and the scattered light to the imaging device such that the reference light and the scattered light interfere at the imaging device (126/128); (claim 19) wherein the particle detection region has a boundary defined by an interface (116a or either surface of the coverslip); wherein the source of reference light comprises the interface (see claims 1/18); and
a processor configured to: capture a succession of images of the interference, process the succession of images of the interference to determine a succession of image correlation values (p. 8 ll. 5-16; p.19; coherence/polarization values), wherein the succession of image correlation values defines a decorrelation over time of the captured succession of images of the interference; and determine a property of the one or more particles from the succession of image correlation values defining the decorrelation over time (p. 8 ll. 5-16, p.19; changes in polarization is interpreted as a decorrelation of the polarization and coherence relationship between the two beams); wherein the property of the one or more particles comprises size, shape, or molecular weight (p. 16, 6th parag.; wherein the size of individual particles appears to be determined).
Knowles does not teach expressly determine the property by fitting a decorrelation function to the succession of image correlation values, even though, the decorrelation function is claimed in such a broad fashion that, under BRI, it can be interpreted as a drop in the (cross- or auto-) correlation function, obtained by the Fourier Transform of the interference signals (p. 8 ll.5-16). Knowles also does not teach explicitly wherein the objective lens is configured to direct the illuminating light to illuminate the particle detection region through the interface such that the illuminating light is reflected from the interface to generate the reference light.
Nadkarni in a similar field of endeavor teaches an interference-based opto-medical imaging system (Abstract, Figs. 1-16; ¶ 6, 40, 43-45) in which a speckle intensity decorrelation curves, i.e. functions, are calculated from image data at different images, i.e. successive images, defined by curve decays, i.e. decorrelation, (Fig. 5A, ¶ 48, 53) to determine blood clotting properties. Moreover, the claimed interface that reflects the illumination light to generate the reference light is taught by any of the interfaces of the coverslip (figs 1-2, 4 for ex.) or the glass wall (414) of the chamber (figs. 1-2, 4). Moreover, beam splitter 126/410 can be considered as the reflecting interface that generates the reference light in the interference, similarly to the element 126 in Fig. 1 of the instant application.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to use the method of Knowles according to Nadkarni so that determine the property by fitting a decorrelation function to the succession of image correlation values; wherein the objective lens is configured to direct the illuminating light to illuminate the particle detection region through the interface such that the illuminating light is reflected from the interface to generate the reference light, with the advantage taught by Nadkarni of effectively determining the properties of the sample measured (¶ 17-18, 21).
(claims 3-5, 7, 9-15) The combination of Knowles and Nadkarni teaches the method of claims 1-1.
Moreover Knowles teaches wherein determining the property of the one or more particles comprises determining a size of the one or more particles (p. 16-2nd – 6th parags.) by fitting the decorrelation function to the succession of image correlation values, wherein the decorrelation function is dependent upon a diffusion coefficient for the one or more particles in the fluid (p. 11; Section “Example implementations” and p.22 Section “Applications”; the diffusion coefficient is considered in conjunction with the polarization changes in p. 19, p. 13-3rd parag.);
(claim 4) further comprising locating a focal plane of the objective lens above the interface (Fig. 8), and wherein the decorrelation function is substantially independent of a distance of the one or more particles from the focal plane in a direction along an optical axis of the objective lens (the polarization change, construed as the decorrelation function, is independent of the distance from the particles to the focal plane);
(claim 5) further comprising locating a focal plane of the objective lens adjacent to or below the interface (Fig. 8; the focal plane is adjacent to the coverslip), and wherein the decorrelation function comprises an average decorrelation value over at least a region beyond the interface (given the 112 issues, no clear construction of the limitation was possible);
(claims 7) wherein fitting the decorrelation function comprises identifying which of one or more basis functions best fits the succession of image correlation values, wherein each of the basis functions is defined by the size of the one or more particles (Fig. 5 and p. 14 parags. 4-5; in iSCAT, contrast measurements and fitting thereof are plotted as basis functions of the polarization changes, i.e. decorrelation function);
(claim 9) wherein the decorrelation function is also dependent upon an intensity of the scattered light (Fig. 5), and wherein determining a property of the one or more particles further comprises determining a concentration (p. 16 parag. 6 for ex.) or count and/or molecular weight of the one or more particles in the fluid by fitting the decorrelation function (the determination is based on fitted contrast estimation such as in Fig. 5);
(claim 10) wherein fitting the decorrelation function to the succession of image correlation values includes fitting an offset representing a noise level (Fig. 5 and p. 14 parags. 4-5);
(claim 11) comprising capturing the succession of images of the interference with the imaging device at a frame rate greater than a threshold frame rate (p. 10 1st parag; p. 16 5th parag.), wherein the threshold frame rate is such that, on average, one of the particles does not diffuse in a z-direction by more than l/4 between captured images, where l is a wavelength of the illuminating light and the z-direction is defined by an optical axis of the objective lens (p. 6 last parag.- p. 7 1st parag.);
(claim 12) wherein processing the succession of images of the interference comprises combining images of the interference before determining the succession of image correlation values, wherein the combining comprises combining images separated in time by no more than a characteristic time of the decorrelation (p. 8 2nd parag.; image subtraction is used in the data processing).
(claims 13-15) wherein processing the succession of images of the interference comprises determining a square root of an intensity of the images of the interference before determining the succession of image correlation values (p. 12; the square root of light power, i.e. intensity, is used in the calculation of the characteristics of image intensities); (claim 14) wherein processing the succession of images of the interference comprises performing a space-frequency transform to transform each of the images to a frequency space image before determining the succession of image correlation values and (Claim 15) comprising spatially filtering the frequency space image to attenuate spatial frequencies greater than a maximum expected spatial frequency (p. 8 ll. 5-16; also Fourier transform is used, p. 6 parags. 1-3, with frequency filtering).
As to claim 6, the combination of Knowles and Nadkarni teaches a method as claimed in claim 3.
The combination does not teach expressly wherein the succession of images spans a time period sufficient to allow the one or more particles to, on average, diffuse a distance of at least half that between the interface and the focal plane or diffuse a distance equal to a depth of field of the objective lens.
However, one PHOSITA would find it obvious to select the imaging time to span a period substantially equal to the time taken by the particle(s) to diffuse inside a depth of field of the objective lens in order to optimize the image sharpness of the particle(s). See MPEP 2143 Sect. I. B-D. A reminder: “Lens depth of field (DOF) is the area of a scene that appears sharp when a lens is focused on a specific point” (Google search. See link in the Conclusion).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to use the method of Knowles and Nadkarni so that the succession of images spans a time period sufficient to allow the one or more particles to, on average, diffuse a distance equal to a depth of field of the objective lens, with the advantage of effectively optimizing the image sharpness of the particle(s), and the measurement of the particles.
As to claim 8, the combination of Knowles and Nadkarni teaches a method as claimed in claim 7.
The combination does not teach expressly wherein each of the basis functions is integrated over the region between the interface and the focal plane.
However, and as explained in the rejection of claims 4 and 7 and using Fig. 5, measurement of contrast would be obvious to be measured between the coverslip and the focal plane, where image sharpness can be optimized (See MPEP 2143 Sect. I. B-D).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to use the method of Knowles and Nadkarni so that each of the basis functions is integrated over the region between the interface and the focal plane, with the advantage of effectively optimizing the image sharpness of the particle(s), and the measurement of the particles.
6- Claims 16-17 are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Knowles and Nadkarni in view of Zhou et al. (CN 112511062)
As to claims 16-17, the combination of Knowles and Nadkarni teaches a method as claimed in claim 14.
The combination does not teach expressly further comprising estimating a flow rate measure of the fluid from a succession of the frequency space images, and using the flow rate measure to compensate for a flow of the fluid; (claim 17) wherein estimating the flow rate measure comprises determining a ratio of two of the frequency space images, wherein the ratio defines a phase angle, and wherein compensating for the flow of the fluid comprises adjusting a phase angle of one or more of the frequency space images.
However, in a field of signal processing Zhou teaches electronic correction modules calculating phase angle based on a flow frequency ratio (¶ 24, 119-121).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to use the method of Knowles and Nadkarni in view of Zhou so that estimating a flow rate measure of the fluid from a succession of the frequency space images, and using the flow rate measure to compensate for a flow of the fluid; wherein estimating the flow rate measure comprises determining a ratio of two of the frequency space images, wherein the ratio defines a phase angle, and wherein compensating for the flow of the fluid comprises adjusting a phase angle of one or more of the frequency space images, with the advantage of effectively adjusting speed evaluations.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicants’ disclosure:
https://www.canon.ge/pro/infobank/depth-of-field/#:~:text=When%20any%20lens%20is%20focused,%2C%20f/11%20and%20ISO6400.
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).
The examiner has pointed out particular references contained in the prior art of record in the body of this action for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. Applicant should consider the entire prior art as applicable as to the limitations of the claims. It is respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the response, to consider fully the entire references as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMED AMARA whose telephone number is (571)272-7847. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday: 9:00-17:00.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Tarifur Chowdhury can be reached on (571)272-2287. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Mohamed K AMARA/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2877