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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendments filed 09/08/2025, 10/16/2025, and 10/29/2025 are acknowledged and entered. Claims 41-61 are pending.
Claim 45 has been amended to overcome the previous claim objection, therefore, the previous claim objection of claim 45 is withdrawn.
The drawings have been amended to overcome the previous drawing objection, therefore, the previous drawing objection is withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 8-14, filed 09/08/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 41 and 57 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are not persuasive. The Examiner and the Applicant had an interview on 10/10/2025 to discuss the arguments and amendments filed on 09/08/2025, which were not persuasive. Please see the interview summary dated 10/10/2025 for details of the Examiner’s rebuttal to the Applicant’s arguments filed on 09/08/2025.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 7-8, filed 10/16/2025, with respect to the rejection of claim 41 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Please see reasons for allowance below.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 7-8, filed 10/16/2025, with respect to the rejection of claim 57 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Kamrat (US 2015/0330896 A1).
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 7-8, filed 10/29/2025, with respect to new added claim 61 has been fully considered and is persuasive. However, upon further consideration, a 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of claim 61 is made in view of Kamrat (US 2015/0330896 A1).
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
Light sensing arrangement in claim 41. Here the word “arrangement” is a generic placeholder for the term “means”, is modified by the functional language “to receive light patterns”, and further is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Light emitting element in claims 57, 59, and 61. Here the word “element” is a generic placeholder for the term “means”, is modified by the functional language “to emit light”, and further is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Light sensing elements in claims 57 and 61. Here the word “element” is a generic placeholder for the term “means”, is modified by the functional language “configured to detect light”, and further is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
Examples of structure corresponding to “light sensing arrangement” was found in paragraphs [0163] and [0314] of the PGPub. [0163] recites a CCD array as preferred light sensing arrangement. [0314] recites that a light sensing arrangement can comprise of a two-dimensional array of light sensing elements.
Examples of structure corresponding to “light emitting element” was found in paragraphs [0153] and [0316] of the PGPub. [0152-0158] recites that light emitted into the receiving end of the light pipe are LEDs. [0158] also broadly recites that any other suitable light source can be used. [0316] recites that the light emitting elements are LEDs.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 58 and 61 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Line 2 of Claim 58 recites the limitation "the axis" in “…and the axis along which the incident light beams are emitted…”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear whether “the axis” as recited in claim 58 is referring to “the same axis” in claim 57 or another axis altogether. As best understood and therefore interpreted, the axis of claim 58 is referring to “the same axis” in claim 57.
Regarding claim 61, the claim limitation “light sensing element” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. In the PGPub, only paragraphs [0307] and [0314] disclose anything regarding “light sensing elements.” [0307] recites that “the light sensing arrangement comprises an array of light sensing elements which are configured to detect light of the frequencies of the incident light beams”, however, no structure is provided for the light sensing elements, only that they are configured as an array. [0314] recites that “the light sensing arrangement comprises a two-dimensional array of light sensing elements”, however, no structure is provided for the light sensing elements, only that they are configured as a two-dimensional array. [0163] recites that “the light sensing arrangement 52 preferably takes the form of a CCD array”, therefore, it would appear that the Applicant means for the light sensing elements to be sensing elements from a CCD array, however, the disclosure does not clearly link CCD arrays to the light sensing elements. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
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.
Claims 57 and 59-60 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kamrat (US 2015/0330896 A1) in view of Jiang (CN 111290108 A, with portions of the translation cited below).
Regarding Claim 57, Kamrat teaches an analyzer (device shown in Fig. 1), comprising:
a holding arrangement to retain a slide carrier (Fig. 1: process liquid 10 would be held by a holding arrangement that could hold a slide carrier).
an illumination arrangement (Fig. 1: light sources 1) provided on a first side of the holding arrangement (Fig. 1: left side of process liquid 10); and
a light sensing arrangement (Fig. 1: light-sensitive detector 12) provided on a second side of the holding arrangement, substantially opposite to the first side (Fig. 1: light-sensitive detector 12 is on the right-hand side of the process liquid 10), wherein:
the illumination arrangement includes a light pipe (Fig. 1: fiber 3) that is configured to direct at least three incident light beams (Abstract: Different wavelengths of 486.1 nm, 589.3, and 656.3 nm are used; shown in Fig. 1) to be emitted from a single emitting end of the light pipe (Fig. 1: end of fiber 3) and towards the holding arrangement (Fig. 1: element that is holding process liquid 10) along the same axis extending between the emitting end and the slide carrier (See annotated Fig. 1 below: light is transmitted along the z-axis from the end of the fiber 3 to the process liquid 10. It is noted that the y-axis would be in the direction of being into the page and out of the page.), wherein the incident light beams have different frequencies from each other (Abstract and [0017]), the illumination arrangement including a first light emitting element, a second light emitting element, and a third light emitting element (Fig. 1: light sources 1 which includes three wavelengths (Abstract)),
the light sensing arrangement (Fig. 1: light-sensitive sensor 12) comprises an array of light sensing elements which are configured to detect light of the different frequencies of the incident light beams ([0027]: Light-sensitive sensor 12 can be a CCD camera.)
PNG
media_image1.png
404
312
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Kamrat appears to be silent to a difference between wavelengths of emitted light are the same or substantially.
As best understood and therefore interpreted, the light pipe 41 as described by the Applicant in Fig. 12 has an emitting end 48 that has a diameter that may be in the range of 20-50 microns ([0143 from the PGPub) where each incident beam interacts with electrons at the outer edge of a virus and because the wavelength of the light used is larger than the size of the electrons (i.e., electron cloud), diffraction of the light will take place which leads to an interference pattern on the light sensing arrangement ([0169] of the PGPub). It appears that the physics being described here could be described as an interference pattern which is produced by a single slit (single emitting end 48. An interference pattern produced by a single slit is described by the formula below (which is well known in physics):
W =
2
λ
D
a
where W is the width of the central fringe of the interference pattern,
λ
is the wavelength of light used, D is the distance from the slit to the screen, and “a” is the slit width.
It appears that in the Applicant’s invention, the variables D (Fig. 12: distance between light sensing arrangement 52 and emitting end 48) and “a” (slit width/emitting end 48) are fixed. Therefore, the only variables which could be changing are W and
λ
, where
λ
is chosen by the user. The Applicant discloses in ([0173] of the PGPub) that the preferred spacing between the frequencies/wavelengths (i.e., difference) emitted by the LEDs is the same or essentially the same, which is beneficial because the light patterns produced by the LEDs will contain consistent differences. It would appear that the consistent difference(s) that are being compared could come from the width of the central fringe (W) where W is proportionate to λ (W ~ λ).
Jiang, related to diffraction imaging, does teach that the wavelengths/frequencies chosen for analysis of the diffraction pattern are chosen so that a difference between a wavelengths are the same or substantially the same ([0075]: Selection of light wave wavelengths are selected to have equal wavelength intervals (e.g., 500, 550, 600, and 650)) where Jiang discloses that based on experience, it appears that having incident light with equal wavelength intervals best optimizes their analysis of the diffraction patterns ([0075]).
For comparison purposes, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have chosen wavelengths which would make this comparison simpler (i.e., the math appears to be simpler where the spacing between the wavelengths are the same or substantially the same, such as, 500 nm, 550 nm, 600 nm, and 650 nm), as disclosed by Jiang.
Regarding Claim 59, Kamrat modified by Jiang teaches the analyzer of claim 57.
Kamrat modified by Jiang further teaches that the illumination arrangement comprises separate light emitting elements (Kamrat, Fig. 1: lights sources 1), and the light pipe (Kamrat, Fig. 1: fiber 3) receives the incident light beams from the light emitting elements and directs the incident light beams along the same axis by transmitting each of the incident light beams through the single emitting end (See annotated Fig. 1 below: light is transmitted along the z-axis from the end of the fiber 3 to the process liquid 10. It is noted that the y-axis would be in the direction of being into the page and out of the page.).
PNG
media_image1.png
404
312
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 60, Kamrat modified Jiang teaches the analyzer of claim 57.
Kamrat modified by Jiang further teaches one or more processors on which an image recognition algorithm is implemented (Kamrat, [0030]: A calculating unit obtains images from the CCD camera where the calculating unit would necessary have a processor), and wherein information from the light sensing arrangement (Kamrat, Fig. 1: light-sensitive sensor 12 which can be a CCD camera) is transmitted to the one or more processors for analysis by the image recognition algorithm (Kamrat, [0030]).
Claim 58 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kamrat (US 2015/0330896 A1) and Jiang (CN 111290108 A, with portions of the translation cited), and further in view of Ozcan (US 2012/0248292 A1).
Regarding Claim 58, it appears that the aperture described by the Applicant’s disclosure is the opening (Fig. 9: aperture 33 or Fig. 19A: aperture 1018) where a slide carrier 22 (Fig. 9) or slide carrier 1017 (Fig. 19A), which holds the sample, is held in place ([0099]). Therefore, as best understood and interpreted, the aperture described is merely an opening/area where the sample is and where the incident light beams illuminates the sample. An apparatus for optically analyzing a sample would necessarily have an area/opening where the sample would be held where light is illuminated on the sample. An area/opening where the sample would be held where light is illuminated on the sample does not solve any long-standing problem in the art and is well known in the field of endeavor.
Therefore, regarding Claim 58, Kamrat modified by Jiang teaches the analyzer of claim 57.
Kamrat modified by Jiang appears to be silent to the holding arrangement has an aperture there through, and the axis along which the incident light beams are emitted by the illumination arrangement passes through the aperture.
Ozcan, related to particle detection, does teach that the holding arrangement (Fig. 7B: sample tray 108) has an aperture there through (Fig. 7B: area where sample tray 108 is movable into and out of the base 104), and the axis along which the incident light beams (Fig. 7B: light 126) are emitted by the illumination arrangement (Fig. 7B: illumination sources 120) passes through the aperture (Shown in Fig. 7B).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kamrat combined with Jiang so that the holding arrangement has an aperture there through, and the axis along which the incident light beams are emitted by the illumination arrangement passes through the aperture, as disclosed by Ozcan. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found this obvious as it is necessary for there to be an area/aperture where the sample is where light illuminates the sample for optical analysis.
Claim 61 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ozcan (US 2012/0248292 A1) in view of Kaduchak (US 20050190286 A1), and further in view of Jiang (CN 111290108 A, with portions of the translation cited below).
Regarding Claim 61, Ozcan teaches an analyzer (Fig. 7B: microscope 102), comprising:
a holding arrangement to retain a slide carrier (Fig 7B: sample tray 108 is movable into and out of the base 104 where the base 104 holds the sample tray 108);
an illumination arrangement (Fig. 7B: illumination sources 126) provided on a first side of the holding arrangement; and
a light sensing arrangement (Fig. 7B: image sensor 106) provided on a second side of the holding arrangement, substantially opposite to the first side (shown in Fig. 7B), wherein:
the illumination arrangement comprises at least a first light emitting element, a second light emitting element and a third light emitting element (Figs. 7B and 7D shows a plurality of light emitting elements which can be LEDs [0086]), each operable to emit an incident light beam towards the holding arrangement along a respective emission axis (Shown in annotated Fig. 7B below where the emission axis is along the z-axis);
the emission axes of the at least three light emitting elements are the same axis (Fig. 7B: light is transmitted along the z-axis), and this same axis extends between the illumination arrangement and the slide carrier (Fig. 7B: z-axis extends from the light sources 126 to the sample tray 108);
the light sensing arrangement comprises an array of light sensing elements (Fig. 7B: image sensor 106 which can be a CMOS or a CCD [0085]) which are configured to detect light of the different frequencies of the incident light beams.
PNG
media_image2.png
458
482
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Ozcan appears to be silent to the incident light beams have different frequencies from each other.
Kaduchak, related to imaging of particles on a semiconductor array sensor, does teach that the incident light beams have different frequencies from each other ([0016-0017]: Configurations includes different wavelengths of light for illumination and/or excitation.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Ozcan so that the incident light beams have different frequencies from each other, as disclosed by Kaduchak. The use of differing wavelengths/frequencies is known in the field of endeavor, therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have incident light beams with different frequencies/wavelengths from each other with the advantage of choosing a wavelength which best optimizes their optical measurements ([0017] from Kaduchak).
Ozcan modified by Kaduchak appears to be silent to a difference between wavelengths of emitted light are the same or substantially.
As best understood and therefore interpreted, the light pipe 41 as described by the Applicant in Fig. 12 has an emitting end 48 that has a diameter that may be in the range of 20-50 microns ([0143 from the PGPub) where each incident beam interacts with electrons at the outer edge of a virus and because the wavelength of the light used is larger than the size of the electrons (i.e., electron cloud), diffraction of the light will take place which leads to an interference pattern on the light sensing arrangement ([0169] of the PGPub). It appears that the physics being described here could be described as an interference pattern which is produced by a single slit (single emitting end 48. An interference pattern produced by a single slit is described by the formula below (which is well known in physics):
W =
2
λ
D
a
where W is the width of the central fringe of the interference pattern,
λ
is the wavelength of light used, D is the distance from the slit to the screen, and “a” is the slit width.
It appears that in the Applicant’s invention, the variables D (Fig. 12: distance between light sensing arrangement 52 and emitting end 48) and “a” (slit width/emitting end 48) are fixed. Therefore, the only variables which could be changing are W and
λ
, where
λ
is chosen by the user. The Applicant discloses in ([0173] of the PGPub) that the preferred spacing between the frequencies/wavelengths (i.e., difference) emitted by the LEDs is the same or essentially the same, which is beneficial because the light patterns produced by the LEDs will contain consistent differences. It would appear that the consistent difference(s) that are being compared could come from the width of the central fringe (W) where W is proportionate to λ (W ~ λ).
Jiang, related to diffraction imaging, does teach that the wavelengths/frequencies chosen for analysis of the diffraction pattern are chosen so that a difference between a wavelengths are the same or substantially the same ([0075]: Selection of light wave wavelengths are selected to have equal wavelength intervals (e.g., 500, 550, 600, and 650)) where Jiang discloses that based on experience, it appears that having incident light with equal wavelength intervals best optimizes their analysis of the diffraction patterns ([0075]).
For comparison purposes, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have chosen wavelengths which would make this comparison simpler (i.e., the math appears to be simpler where the spacing between the wavelengths are the same or substantially the same, such as, 500 nm, 550 nm, 600 nm, and 650 nm), as disclosed by Jiang.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 41-56 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding Claim 41, Vojnovic (US 2011/0136165 A1) teaches a method of analyzing a sample, the method comprising:
providing a sample on a substrate (Fig. 1A: cells are on an optically clear substrate or Fig. 10 shows an object 17 which would be on a substrate);
irradiating the sample (Fig. 10: object 17) with at least three incident beams of light (Fig. 10: multiple/three light sources 16), wherein each of the incident beams comprises light of a different frequency ([0180]: “The use of light source of different wavelengths (e.g., red, green, and blur for colour imaging, or other wavelengths including UV for fluorescence excitation).”; Claim 17), and is transmitted towards the sample (shown in Fig. 1a and Fig. 10) and wherein the sample is substantially transmissive at each of the different frequencies (Figs. 1a-1b: incident light is transmitted through the cells onto the CCD);
providing a light sensing arrangement (Figs. 1a-1b: CCD or Fig. 10: detector 18 which could be a CCD) to receive light patterns (diffraction patterns from [0012]) from the incident beams that have passed through the substrate (Shown in Figs. 1a-1b); and
analyzing properties of the sample ([0012]: Change in position of cells or recognition of individual cells can be observed by analyzing the diffraction pattern.; [0143-0145]: Different types of cells can be identified.) through identifying properties of the light patterns arising from diffraction (diffraction patterns from [0012]) of the light of the three incident beams by the sample (Fig. 10: three lights 16), wherein the incident beams comprise light of a first frequency, a second frequency and a third frequency ([0180]: “The use of light sources of different wavelengths (e.g. red, green and blue for colour imaging, or other wavelengths including UV for fluorescence excitation).” Different wavelengths/frequencies can be used for the light sources 16 in Fig. 10.; Claim 17).
In regards to the incident beams, Vojnovic appears to be silent to a difference in frequency between the first frequency and the second frequency is the same or substantially the same as a difference in frequency between the second frequency and the third frequency.
As best understood and therefore interpreted, the light pipe 41 as described by the Applicant in Fig. 12 has an emitting end 48 that has a diameter that may be in the range of 20-50 microns ([0143] from the PGPub) where each incident beam interacts with electrons at the outer edge of a virus and because the wavelength of the light used is larger than the size of the electrons (i.e., electron cloud), diffraction of the light will take place which leads to an interference pattern on the light sensing arrangement ([0169] of the PGPub). It appears that the physics being described here could be described as an interference pattern which is produced by a single slit (single emitting end 48). An interference pattern produced by a single slit is described by the formula below (which is well known in physics):
W =
2
λ
D
a
where W is the width of the central fringe of the interference pattern,
λ
is the wavelength of light used, D is the distance from the slit to the screen, and “a” is the slit width.
It appears that in the Applicant’s invention, the variables D (Fig. 12: distance between light sensing arrangement 52 and emitting end 48) and “a” (slit width/emitting end 48) are fixed. Therefore, the only variables which could be changing are W and
λ
, where
λ
is chosen by the user. The Applicant discloses in ([0173] of the PGPub) that the preferred spacing between the frequencies/wavelengths (i.e., difference) emitted by the LEDs is the same or essentially the same, which is beneficial because the light patterns produced by the LEDs will contain consistent differences. It would appear that the consistent difference(s) that are being compared could come from the width of the central fringe (W) where W is proportionate to λ (W ~ λ).
Jiang (CN 111290108 A, with portions of a translation cited below), related to diffraction imaging, does teach that the wavelengths/frequencies chosen for analysis of the diffraction pattern are chosen so that a difference in frequency between the first frequency and the second frequency is the same or substantially the same as a difference in frequency between the second frequency and the third frequency ([0075]: Selection of light wave wavelengths are selected to have equal wavelength intervals (e.g., 500, 550, 600, and 650)) where Jiang discloses that based on experience, it appears that having incident light with equal wavelength intervals best optimizes their analysis of the diffraction patterns ([0075]).
Vojnovic modified by Jiang does not teach irradiating the sample with at least three incident beams of light each emitted from a single emitting end of a light pipe and is transmitted towards the sample along the same axis extending between the emitting end and the sample.
Naniwae (US 2002/0159705 A1), related to a multi-wavelength semiconductor light source and an optical waveguide, does teach a multi-wavelength semiconductor light source where there are three incident beams of light (Fig. 2: visible semiconductor light emitting device 2-4) each emitted from a single emitting end of a light pipe (Fig. 2: common optical output waveguide 9) and is transmitted along the same axis extending between the emitting end and the sample (Sample is not shown in Fig. 2, however, the light is coupled to a common optical output waveguide to be outputted (claim 2).).
However, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would not have found it obvious to modify Vojnovic and Jiang to incorporate irradiating the sample with at least three incident beams of light each emitted from a single emitting end of a light pipe and is transmitted towards the sample along the same axis extending between the emitting end and the sample, as disclosed by Naniwae. Vojnovic requires that the cells are illuminated as shown in Fig. 10 to be able to determine a cell’s position in three-dimensional space ([0094-0095]) and it can be seen in Fig. 10 of Vojnovic that the three incident beams of light are not emitted from a single emitting end of a light pipe.
Kamrat (US 2015/0330896 A1), related to optical sample analysis, does teach irradiating the sample with at least three incident beams of light (Abstract: Different wavelengths of 486.1 nm, 589.3, and 656.3 nm are used; shown in Fig. 1) each emitted from a single emitting end of a light pipe (Fig. 1: end of fiber 3) and is transmitted towards the sample along the same axis extending between the emitting end and the sample (See annotated Fig. 1 below: light is transmitted along the z-axis from the end of the fiber 3 to the process liquid 10. It is noted that the y-axis would be in the direction of being into the page and out of the page.). However, Kamrat is related to measuring the Abbe number where three different wavelengths are directed through optics 8 and measuring window/prism 9 so that total reflection occurs at the interface between the prism 9 and the process liquid 10 ([0021] and 0027]). Kamrat teaches a CCD camera (Fig. 1: element 12) that receives totally reflected light, not light that has been transmitted through the sample then to a sensor. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would not have found it obvious to modify Kamrat with any of the above-mentioned prior art to teach detection of transmitted light through a sample because Kamrat specifically wants to have the measurement light be totally reflected (Abstract), rather than transmitted through the sample. Furthermore, Kamrat does not mention analyzing light patterns arising from diffraction of the three incident light beams.
PNG
media_image1.png
404
312
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Therefore, as to Claim 41, the prior art of record, taken either alone or in combination, fails to disclose or render obvious a method of analyzing a sample, the method comprising irradiating the sample with at least three incident beams of light each emitted from a single emitting end of a light pipe and is transmitted towards the sample along the same axis extending between the emitting end and the sample, in combination with the rest of the limitations in Claim 41.
Claims 42-56 are allowed by virtue of their dependence on claim 41.
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 JUDY DAO TRAN whose telephone number is (571)270-0085. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri. 9:30am-5:00pm 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, Michelle Iacoletti can be reached on (571) 270-5789. 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.
/JUDY DAO TRAN/Examiner, Art Unit 2877
/MICHELLE M IACOLETTI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2877