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 § 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 6 and 17-19 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.
Claim 6 recites the limitations “the area” and “the X- and Y-dimensions” in line 2, and “the range” in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim Since claim 6 depends on claim 1, and claim 1 does not previously recite “X- and Y- dimensions”.
Claim 17, line 2 recites “a substrate receiving area configured to receive a substrate that comprises first and second surfaces, wherein the second surface is coated with a metallic layer that is configured to create surface plasmon resonance when incident light is introduced toward the second surface at a suitable incident angle via the first surface of the substrate, and wherein the metallic layer comprises at least a first set of analyte binding moieties” This intended use language does recite the elements recite thereafter in lines 2-7 as positive structural elements of the system and therefore does not provide antecedent basis for “the substrate,” “metallic layer,”and “analyte binding moieties.”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
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.
Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2023/0112565 to Tao et al. (cited by applicant)
Tao et al. discloses a system that as that includes a “metal (e.g., gold) coated glass substrate 102.” [0075] The substrate is coated with capture molecules, such that the specific binding of a target analyte in a sample solution can be detected and identified. [0037].
In use, incident light at an angle is selected to create surface plasmon resonance on the metallic layer. [0038] The incident angle is selected to achieve total reflection of the light, thereby scattering light from the surface and from the target molecules bound to the surface. Light scatted by the surface and by the target molecules bound to the surface form a series of images. (Abstract)
Tao et al. teaches that the incident light causes heating of the substrate surface that can lead to instability of the optical system and structure of the target molecules. This problem can be overcome as described by using the same fluidics for flowing in and out sample molecules to cool down the heating. [0080]
Therefore, Tao et al. teaches that the incident light that creates surface plasmon resonance on the metallic layer can be used to heat and control the heat in a selected heating space within the detection field, allowing for the temperature in the selected heating space within the detection field to be substantially uniformly changed as desired.
Tao et al. further teaches that surface plasmon resonance (SPR) imaging system has several unique features. First, the evanescent field intensity is localized within ˜100 nm from the SPR sensor surface (e.g., gold-coated glass slide). [0082]
The system of Tao et al. shown in Fig. 1B is identical to applicant’s system shown in applicant’s Fig. 1B.
I.) As noted above, Tao et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 1.
Therefore, Tao et al. anticipates claim 1.
II.) Regarding applicant’s claim 2, as noted above Tao et al. anticipates claim 1 from which claim 2 depends.
Claim 2 recites that a temperature within the detection field that is outside of the selected heating space is substantially unchanged.
In Tao et al. since the space in the detection file is heated, that would leave areas outside of the detection field substantially unchanged.
Therefore, Tao et al. anticipates claim 2.
III.) Regarding applicant’s claim 3, as noted above Tao et al. anticipates claim 1 from which claim 3 depends.
Claim 3 recites flowing a fluidic material over the first surface of the substrate in the selected heating space, which fluidic material is substantially free of plasmonic metallic nanoparticles.
Tao et al. teaches analyte molecules and polystyrene nanoparticles and does not teach plasmonic metallic nanoparticles.
Therefore, Tao et al. anticipates claim3
IV.) Regarding applicant’s claim 4, as noted above Tao et al. anticipates claim 1 from which claim 4 depends.
Claim 4 recites that the Z-dimension extends above the metallic layer about 100 nm.
As noted above, Tao et al. teaches that surface plasmon resonance (SPR) imaging system has several unique features. First, the evanescent field intensity is localized within ˜100 nm from the SPR sensor surface (e.g., gold-coated glass slide). [0071]
Therefore, Tao et al. anticipates claim 4
V.) Regarding applicant’s claim 5, as noted above Tao et al. anticipates claim 1 from which claim 5 depends.
Claim 5 recites that the selected heating space comprises X- and Y-dimensions and wherein the method comprises introducing the incident light toward the second surface of the substrate such that an area defined by the X- and Y- dimensions of the selected heating space is within a range of about 1 to about 1000 µm2.
Tao et al. teaches that the antibody coated surface coverage was about 1000 μm2. [0113]
Therefore, Tao et al. anticipates claim 5.
VI.) Regarding applicant’s claim 6, as noted above Tao et al. anticipates claim 1 from which claim 6 depends.
Claim 6 recites changing a focus level of the incident light to adjust the area defined by the X- and Y-dimensions of the selected heating space within the range of about 1 to about 1000 µm2.
As noted above Tao et al. teaches that the antibody coated surface coverage was about 1000 μm2. [0113] This coverage area corresponds to the detection area that would be heated by Tao et al. as noted above.
Therefore, Tao et al. anticipates claim 6.
VII.) Regarding applicant’s claim 7, as noted above Tao et al. anticipates claim 1 from which claim 7 depends.
Claim 7 recites that the metallic layer comprises gold (Au).
As noted above, Tao et al. teaches a metallic layer that comprises gold.
Therefore, Tao et al. anticipates claim 7.
VIII.) Regarding applicant’s claim 8, as noted above Tao et al. anticipates claim 1 from which claim 8 depends.
Claim 8 recites that the selected heating space comprises at least one analyte and wherein the method comprises detecting light scattered by the analyte to produce an analyte imaging data set.
As noted above, Tao et al. teaches that light scatted by the surface and by the target molecules, including analytes, bound to the surface form a series of images. (Abstract)
Therefore, Tao et al. anticipates claim 8.
IX.) Regarding applicant’s claim 9, as noted above Tao et al. anticipates claim 8 from which claim 9 depends.
Claim 9 recites that the analyte comprises one or more biomolecules.
As noted above Tao et al. teaches analytes which broadly includes biomolecules.
Therefore, Tao et al. anticipates claim 9.
2. Claims 17-19 are rejected under 35 USC 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Tao et al.
As noted above, Tao et al. discloses a system that as that includes a “metal (e.g., gold) coated glass substrate 102.” [0075] The substrate is coated with capture molecules, such that the specific binding of a target analyte in a sample solution can be detected and identified. [0037].
In use, incident light at an angle is selected to create surface plasmon resonance on the metallic layer. [0038] The incident angle is selected to achieve total reflection of the light, thereby scattering light from the surface and from the target molecules bound to the surface. Light scatted by the surface and by the target molecules bound to the surface form a series of images. (Abstract)
Tao et al. teaches that the incident light causes heating of the substrate surface that can lead to instability of the optical system and structure of the target molecules. This problem can be overcome as described by using the same fluidics for flowing in and out sample molecules to cool down the heating. [0080]
Therefore, Tao et al. teaches that the incident light that creates surface plasmon resonance on the metallic layer can be used to heat and control the heat in a selected heating space within the detection field, allowing for the temperature in the selected heating space within the detection field to be substantially uniformly changed as desired.
Tao et al. further teaches that surface plasmon resonance (SPR) imaging system has several unique features. First, the evanescent field intensity is localized within ˜100 nm from the SPR sensor surface (e.g., gold-coated glass slide). [0071]
The system of Tao et al. shown in Fig. 1B is identical to applicant’s system shown in applicant’s Fig. 1B.
Tao et al. further teaches controller 128 can be configured to control one or more components of system 100 (e.g., cameras 108, 114, SLD 111), to control fluid flow to and away from system 100, and to process data or images collected one or more components of system 100 (e.g., cameras 108, 114). In some cases, controller 128 can be used to correct for mechanical drift in system 100. [0077]
I.) Regarding applicant’s claim 17, as noted above Tao et al. teaches all the elements of claim 17.
Therefore, Tao et al. anticipates claim 17.
II.) Regarding applicant’s claim 18, as noted above Tao et al. anticipates claim 17 from which claim 18 depends.
Claim 18 recites a fluid device comprises the substrate.
As noted above, Tao et al. teaches a glass substrate.
Therefore, Tao et al. anticipates claim 18.
III.) Regarding applicant’s claim 19, as noted above Tao et al. anticipates claim 17 from which claim 19 depends.
Claim 19 recites that the fluidic material is substantially free of plasmonic metallic nanoparticles when the fluid sample that comprises the analyte is disposed on the second surface of the substrate.
As noted above, Tao et al. teaches analyte molecules and polystyrene nanoparticles and does not teach plasmonic metallic nanoparticles.
Therefore, Tao et al. anticipates claim 19.
3. Claim 20 stands rejected under 35 USC 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Tao et al.
As noted above, Tao et al. discloses a system that as that includes a “metal (e.g., gold) coated glass substrate 102.” [0075] The substrate is coated with capture molecules, such that the specific binding of a target analyte in a sample solution can be detected and identified. [0037]. The substrate is located in a substrate receiving area to be aligned with the optics as shown in Fig. 1a.
In use, incident light at an angle is selected to create surface plasmon resonance on the metallic layer. [0038] The incident angle is selected to achieve total reflection of the light, thereby scattering light from the surface and from the target molecules bound to the surface. Light scatted by the surface and by the target molecules bound to the surface form a series of images. (Abstract)
Tao et al. teaches that the incident light causes heating of the substrate surface that can lead to instability of the optical system and structure of the target molecules. This problem can be overcome as described by using the same fluidics for flowing in and out sample molecules to cool down the heating. [0080]
Therefore, Tao et al. teaches that the incident light that creates surface plasmon resonance on the metallic layer can be used to heat and thereby control the heat in a selected heating space within the detection field, allowing for the temperature in the selected heating space within the detection field to be substantially uniformly changed as desired for optimization.
As noted above, Tao et al. teaches that the antibody coated surface coverage was about 1000 μm2. [0113]
The system of Tao et al. shown in Fig. 1B is identical to applicant’s system shown in applicant’s Fig. 1B.
I.) As noted above, Tao et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 20.
Therefore, Tao et al. anticipates claim 20.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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.
4. Claims 13-16 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Tao et al.
I.) Regarding applicant’s claim 13, as noted above Tao et al. anticipates claim 1 from which claim 13 depends.
Claim 13 recites adjusting a power density of the incident light such that the temperature in the selected heating space within the detection field is substantially uniformly changed to a selected temperature.
Tao et al. does not teach adjusting a power density of the incident light such that the temperature in the selected heating space within the detection field is substantially uniformly changed to a selected temperature.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Tao et al. to adjust the power density of the incident light such that the temperature in the selected heating space within the detection field is substantially uniformly changed to a selected temperature, for purposes of providing consistent, uniform detection of target molecules across the detection area.
Therefore, Tao et al. renders claim 13 obvious.
II.) Regarding applicant’s claim 14, as noted above Tao et al. anticipates claim 13 from which claim 14 depends.
Claim 14 recites that the power density of the incident light is no more than about 3 kW/cm2.
Tao et al. teaches that he incident light intensity is 3 kW/cm2 or less.
Therefore, Tao et al. renders claim 14 obvious.
III.) Regarding applicant’s claim 15, as noted above Tao et al. anticipates claim 13 from which claim 15 depends.
Claim 15 recites that the selected temperature is in a range of about 33 °C to about 80 °C.
Tao et al. does not teach that the selected temperature is in a range of about 33 °C to about 80 °C.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to conduct routine engineering optimization experimentation and modify Tao et al. to use a suitable temperature, including one in the range of about 33 °C to about 80 °C to detect desired target molecules.
Therefore, Tao et al. renders claim 15 obvious.
IV.) Regarding applicant’s claim 16, as noted above Tao et al. anticipates claim 1 from which claim 16 depends.
Claim 16 recites that the incident light comprises is 660 nm p-polarized light.
Tao et al. teaches a wavelength of 670 nm and p-polarized light. [0101], [0105]
Therefore Tao et al. renders claim 16 obvious.
5. Claims 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Tao et al. as applied to claim 9 above and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0220653 to Nesterov et al.
I.) Regarding applicant’s claim 10, as noted above Tao et al. anticipates claim 9 from which claim 10 depends.
Claim 10 recites that one or more cells comprise the biomolecules.
Tao et al. does not teach cell imaging.
Nesterov et al. teaches that TRPV family members can be detected using surface plasmon resonance. [0103]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Tao et al. to detect TRPV1 using surface plasmon resonance, in view of Nesterov et al. teaching such detection is possible together with surface plasmon resonance.
Therefore, Tao et al. in view of Nesterov et al. renders claim 10 obvious.
II.) Regarding applicant’s claim 11, as noted above Tao et al. anticipates claim 9 from which claim 11 depends.
Claim 11 recites that the biomolecules comprise transient receptor potential vanilloid 1 (TRPV1) ion channels.
Tao et al. does not teach detecting TRPV1.
As noted above, Nesterov et al. teaches that TRPV family members can be detected using surface plasmon resonance. [0103]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Tao et al. to detect TRPV1 using surface plasmon resonance, in view of Nesterov et al. teaching such detection is possible together with surface plasmon resonance.
Therefore, Tao et al. in view of Nesterov et al. renders claim 11 obvious.
6. Claim 12 is rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Tao et al. as applied to claim 9 above and further in view of U.S. Patent No. 10,620,195 to Prins et al.
I.) Regarding applicant’s claim 12, as noted above Tao et al. anticipates claim 8 from which claim 12 depends.
Claim 12 recites that the analyte comprises one or more fluorescent labels and wherein the method further comprises detecting fluorescent light emitted from the analyte.
Tao et al. does not teach the analyte comprises one or more fluorescent labels and wherein the method further comprises detecting fluorescent light emitted from the analyte.
Prins et al. teaches that analyte detection and be done using plasmonic detection and fluorescence. (column 4, lines 24-43)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Tao et al. to include fluorescent labels on analytes for purposes of detecting the analytes by optical fluorescence detection as taught by Prins et al. in addition to the light scattering of the surface plasmonic resonance of Tao et al. for proposes of conclusive detection using both detection methods.
Therefore, Tao et al. in view of Prins et al. renders claim 12 obvious.
7. Claims 1-9 and 13-16 are rejected under USC 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al. (“Quantification of Single-Molecule Protein Binding Kinetics in Complex Media with Prism-Coupled Plasmonic Scattering Imaging,” CS Sensors 2021 6 (3), 1357-1366), published March 15, 2021 (cited by applicant) in view of Zhang et al. (“Plasmonic scattering imaging of single proteins and binding kinetics,” Nature Methods| VOL 17 | October 2020 | 1010–1017) (cited by applicant) (hereafter “Zhang II”).
Zhang et al. teaches directing p-polarized incident light toward a gold-coated glass side as shown in Fig. 1a on page 1358. Zhang et al. teaches that the surface plasmonic waves are excited by p-polarized light from the bottom of a gold-coated glass slide coupled to a prism and scattering of plasmonic waves by a particle or protein (Es) and by the gold surface (Eb) is collected from the top to form a PSM image.
Zhang et al. does not teach that a temperature in a selected heating space within the detection field is substantially uniformly changed, wherein the first surface of the substrate is coated with a metallic layer and wherein the selected heating space comprises a Z-dimension that extends above the metallic layer about 110 nm or less, thereby modulating the temperature in the detection field.
Zhang II teaches that SPR has several unique features. First, the evanescent
field intensity is localized within ~100 nm from the SPR sensor surface (for example, gold-coated glass slide), making it immune to interference of molecules and impurities in the bulk solution, thus particularly suitable for studying surface binding. Second, there is a large enhancement (20–30 times) in the field near the sensor surface, which is responsible for the high sensitivity of SPR. (page 1010, paragraph bridging left- and right-hand columns)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Zhang et al. in view of Zhang II to provide an evanescent field intensity that is localized within about 100 nm from the SPR sensor surface to optimize sensitivity.
I.) Regarding applicant’s claim 1, as noted above, Zhang et al. in view of Zhang II teaches all the limitations of claim 1.
Therefore, Zhang et al. in view of Zhang II renders claim 1 obvious.
II.) Regarding applicant’s claim 2, as noted above Zhang et al. in view of Zhang II renders claim 1 obvious from which claim 2 depends.
Claim 2 recites that a temperature within the detection field that is outside of the selected heating space is substantially unchanged.
In Zhang et al. in view of Zhang II since the space in the detection file is heated, that would leave areas outside of the detection field substantially unchanged.
Therefore, Zhang et al. in view of Zhang II renders claim 2 obvious.
III.) Regarding applicant’s claim 3, as noted above Zhang et al. in view of Zhang II renders claim 1 obvious from which claim 3 depends.
Claim 3 recites flowing a fluidic material over the first surface of the substrate in the selected heating space, which fluidic material is substantially free of plasmonic metallic nanoparticles.
Zhang et al. teaches that polystyrene nanoparticles were dissolved in phosphate buffered saline (PBS) buffer were flowed over the bare gold surface, and the binding events were recorded over time. (page 1359, right-hand column)
Therefore, Zhang et al. in view of Zhang II renders claim 3 obvious.
IV.) Regarding applicant’s claim 4, as noted above Zhang et al. in view of Zhang II renders claim 1 obvious from which claim 4 depends.
Claim 4 recites that Z-dimension extends above the metallic layer about 100 nm.
As noted above, Zhang II teaches an evanescent field intensity is localized within ~100 nm from the SPR sensor surface (for example, gold-coated glass slide), provides high sensitivity.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Zhang et al. to provide an evanescent field intensity that is localized within about 100 nm from the SPR sensor surface as taught by Zhang II for purposes of optimizing sensitivity.
Therefore Zhang et al. in view of Zhang II renders claim 4 obvious.
V.) Regarding applicant’s claim 5, as noted above Zhang et al. in view of Zhang II renders claim 1 obvious from which claim 5 depends.
Claim 5 recites that the selected heating space comprises X- and Y-dimensions and wherein the method comprises introducing the incident light toward the second surface of the substrate such that an area defined by the X- and Y-dimensions of the selected heating space is within a range of about 1 to about 1000 µm2.
Zhang et al. in view of Zhang II does not teach that the selected heating space comprises X- and Y-dimensions and wherein the method comprises introducing the incident light toward the second surface of the substrate such that an area defined by the X- and Y-dimensions of the selected heating space is within a range of about 1 to about 1000 µm2.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to scale the apparatus of Zhang et al. in view of Zhang II appropriately to process/test a desired amount of sample material, including a size that comprises introducing the incident light toward the second surface of the substrate such that an area defined by the X- and Y-dimensions of the selected heating space is within a range of about 1 to about 1000 µm2.
Note, mere scaling up of a prior art process capable of being scaled up would not establish patentability. (MPEP 2144.01(IV)(A))
Therefore, Zhang et al. in view of Zhang II renders claim 5 obvious.
VI.) Regarding applicant’s claim 6, as noted above Zhang et al. in view of Zhang II renders claim 1 obvious from which claim 6 depends.
Claim 6 recites changing a focus level of the incident light to adjust the area defined by the X- and Y-dimensions of the selected heating space within the range of about 1 to about 1000 µm2.
Zhang et al. in view of Zhang II does not teach changing a focus level of the incident light to adjust the area defined by the X- and Y-dimensions of the selected heating space within the range of about 1 to about 1000 µm2.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to scale the apparatus of Zhang et al. in view of Zhang II appropriately to process/test a desired amount of sample material, including changing a focus level of the incident light to adjust the area defined by the X- and Y-dimensions of the selected heating space within the range of about 1 to about 1000 µm2.
Note, mere scaling up of a prior art process capable of being scaled up would not establish patentability. (MPEP 2144.01(IV)(A))
Therefore, Zhang et al. in view of Zhang II renders claim 6 obvious.
VII.) Regarding applicant’s claim 7, as noted above Zhang et al. in view of Zhang II renders claim 1 obvious rom which claim 7 depends.
Claim 7 recites that the metallic layer is gold (Au).
As noted above, Zhang et al. and Zhang II each teaches a gold-coated glass slide.
Therefore, Zhang et el. in view of Zhang II renders claim 7 obvious.
VIII.) Regarding applicant’s claim 8, as noted above Zhang et al. in view of Zhang II renders claim 1 obvious from which claim 8 depends.
Claim 8 recites that the selected heating space comprises at least one analyte and wherein the method comprises detecting light scattered by the analyte to produce an analyte imaging data set.
Zhang et al. teaches analyzing analytes. (Abstract)
Therefore, Zhang et al. in view of Zhang II renders claim 8 obvious.
IX.) Regarding applicant’s claim 9, as noted above Zhang et al. in view of Zhang II renders claim 8 obvious from which claim 9 depends.
Claim 9 recites that the analyte comprises one or more biomolecules.
As noted above Zhang et al. teaches analytes which broadly includes biomolecules.
Therefore, Zhang et al. in view of Zhang II renders claim 9 obvious.
X.) Regarding applicant’s claim 13, as noted above Zhang et al. in view of Zhang II renders claim 1 obvious from which claim 13 depends.
Claim 13 recites adjusting a power density of the incident light such that the temperature in the selected heating space within the detection field is substantially uniformly changed to a selected temperature.
Zhang et al. in view of Zhang II does not teach adjusting a power density of the incident light such that the temperature in the selected heating space within the detection field is substantially uniformly changed to a selected temperature.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Zhang et al. in view of Zhang II to adjust the power density of the incident light such that the temperature in the selected heating space within the detection field is substantially uniformly changed to a selected temperature, for purposes of providing consistent, uniform detection of target molecules across the detection area.
Therefore, Zhang et al. in view of Zhang II renders claim 13 obvious.
XI.) Regarding applicant’s claim 14, as noted above Zhang et al. in view of Zhang II renders claim 13 obvious from which claim 14 depends.
Claim 14 recites that the power density of the incident light is no more than about 3 kW/cm2.
Zhang et al. teaches that an incident light intensity of 2.5 kW/cm2. (Fig. 1 ledger)
Therefore, Zhang et al. in view of Zhang II renders claim 14 obvious.
XII.) Regarding applicant’s claim 15, as noted above Zhang et al. in view of Zhang II renders claim 13 obvious from which claim 15 depends.
Claim 15 recites that the selected temperature is in a range of about 33 °C to about 80 °C.
Zhang et al. in view of Zhang II does not teach that the selected temperature is in a range of about 33 °C to about 80 °C.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to conduct routine engineering optimization experimentation and modify Zhang et al. in view of Zhang II to use a suitable temperature, including one in the range of about 33 °C to about 80 °C to detect desired target molecules.
Therefore, Zhang et al. in view of Zhang II renders claim 15 obvious.
XIII.) Regarding applicant’s claim 16, as noted above Zhang et al. in view of Zhang II renders claim 1 obvious from which claim 16 depends.
Claim 16 recites that the incident light comprises is 660 nm p-polarized light.
Zhang et al. teaches a wavelength of 660 nm and p-polarized light. (Fig. 1 and page 1364, “Experimental Setup”)
Therefore Zhang et al. in view of Zhang II renders claim 16 obvious.
8. Claims 17-19 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al.
As noted above, Zhang et al. teaches directing p-polarized incident light toward a gold-coated glass side as shown in Fig. 1a on page 1358. Zhang et al. teaches that the surface plasmonic waves are excited by p-polarized light from the bottom of a gold-coated glass slide coupled to a prism and scattering of plasmonic waves by a particle or protein (Es) and by the gold surface (Eb) is collected from the top to form a PSM image.
Zhang et al. does not teach that a temperature in a selected heating space within the detection field is substantially uniformly changed, wherein the first surface of the substrate is coated with a metallic layer and wherein the selected heating space comprises a Z-dimension that extends above the metallic layer about 110 nm or less, thereby modulating the temperature in the detection field.
Zhang et al. teaches that the incident intensity was optimized considering both signal-to noise ratio and heating effect, and the camera exposure time was optimized for good image contrast while avoiding saturation for each measurement.
Zhang et al. does not teach a controller that comprises or is capable of accessing, computer readable media comprising non-transitory computer-executable instructions, which, when executed by at least one electronic process perform: disposing a fluidic sample that comprises the analyte on the second surface of the substrate; introducing the incident light from the light source at the suitable incident angle toward the second surface of the substrate; introducing the incident light toward the second surface of the substrate such that an area defined by X- and Y-dimensions of a selected heating space within the detection field disposed at least proximal to the second surface of the substrate is within a range of about 1 to about 1000 µm2; adjusting a power density of the incident light such that a temperature in the selected heating space within the detection field is substantially uniformly changed to a selected temperature; and, detecting light scattered by the surface-bound analytes over a duration to produce an analyte imaging data set to thereby at least detect the surface-bound analytes using the detector when the substrate is received in the substrate receiving area.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to automate the process steps that Zhang et al. teaches since broadly providing an automatic or mechanical means to replace a manual activity which accomplished the same result is not sufficient to distinguish over the prior art. (MPEP 2144.04(III). Incorporating a controller, capable of accessing, computer readable media comprising non-transitory computer-executable instructions to perform the automated process steps would have been obvious to one skilled in the art.
Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to scale the apparatus of Zhang et al. appropriately to process/test a desired amount of sample material, including a size that comprises introducing the incident light toward the second surface of the substrate such that an area defined by the X- and Y-dimensions of the selected heating space is within a range of about 1 to about 1000 µm2.
I.) Regarding applicant’s claim 17, as noted above Zhang et al. teaches or renders all the elements of claim 17.
Therefore, Zhang et al. renders claim 17 obvious.
II.) Regarding applicant’s claim 18, as noted above Zhang et al. renders claim 17 obvious from which claim 18 depends.
Claim 18 recites a fluid device comprises the substrate.
As noted above, Zhang et al. teaches a glass substrate.
Therefore, Zhang et al. renders claim 18 obvious.
III.) Regarding applicant’s claim 19, as noted above Zhang et al. renders claim 17 obvious from which claim 19 depends.
Claim 19 recites that the fluidic material is substantially free of plasmonic metallic nanoparticles when the fluid sample that comprises the analyte is disposed on the second surface of the substrate.
As noted above, Zhang et al. teaches analyte molecules and polystyrene nanoparticles and does not teach plasmonic metallic nanoparticles.
Therefore, Zhang et al. renders claim 19 obvious.
9. Claim 20 stands rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al. in view of Zhang II.
As noted above, Zhang et al. teaches detecting analytes in a fluid sample by directing p-polarized incident light toward a gold-coated glass side as shown in Fig. 1a on page 1358. Zhang et al. teaches that the surface plasmonic waves are excited by p-polarized light from the bottom of a gold-coated glass slide coupled to a prism and scattering of plasmonic waves by a particle or protein (Es) and by the gold surface (Eb) is collected from the top to form a PSM image.
Zhang teaches that SPR has several unique features. First, the evanescent
field intensity is localized within ~100 nm from the SPR sensor surface (for example, gold-coated glass slide), making it immune to interference of molecules and impurities in the bulk solution, thus particularly suitable for studying surface binding. Second, there is a large enhancement (20–30 times) in the field near the sensor surface, which is responsible for the high sensitivity of SPR. (page 1010, paragraph bridging left- and right-hand columns)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Zhang et al. in view of Zhang to provide an evanescent field intensity that is localized within about 100 nm from the SPR sensor surface to optimize sensitivity.
Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to scale the apparatus of Zhang et al. appropriately to process/test a desired amount of sample material, including a size that comprises introducing the incident light toward the second surface of the substrate such that an area defined by the X- and Y-dimensions of the selected heating space is within a range of about 1 to about 1000 µm2.
10. Claims 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al. in view of Zhang II as applied to claim 9 above and further in view of Nesterov et al.
I.) Regarding applicant’s claim 10, as noted above Zhang et al. in view of Zhang II renders claim 9 obvious from which claim 10 depends.
Claim 10 recites that one or more cells comprise the biomolecules.
Zhang et al. in view of Zhang II does not teach cell imaging.
Nesterov et al. teaches that TRPV family members can be detected using surface plasmon resonance. [0103]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Zhang et al. in view of Zhang II to detect TRPV1 using surface plasmon resonance, in view of Nesterov et al. teaching such detection is possible together with surface plasmon resonance.
Therefore, Zhang et al. in view of Zhang II and Nesterov et al. renders claim 10 obvious.
II.) Regarding applicant’s claim 11, as noted above Zhang et al. in view of Zhang II renders claim 9 obvious from which claim 11 depends.
Claim 11 recites that the biomolecules comprise transient receptor potential vanilloid 1 (TRPV1) ion channels.
Zhang et al. in view of Zhang II does not teach detecting TRPV1.
As noted above, Nesterov et al. teaches that TRPV family members can be detected using surface plasmon resonance. [0103]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Zhang et al. in view of Zhang II to detect TRPV1 using surface plasmon resonance, in view of Nesterov et al. teaching such detection is possible together with surface plasmon resonance.
Therefore, Zhang et al. in view of Zhang II and Nesterov et al. renders claim 11 obvious.
11. Claim 12 is rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al. in view of Zhang II as applied to claim 9 above and further in view of Prins et al.
I.) Regarding applicant’s claim 12, as noted above Zhang et al. in view of Zhang II renders claim 8 obvious from which claim 12 depends.
Claim 12 recites that the analyte comprises one or more fluorescent labels and wherein the method further comprises detecting fluorescent light emitted from the analyte.
Zhang et al. in view of Zhang II does not teach the analyte comprises one or more fluorescent labels and wherein the method further comprises detecting fluorescent light emitted from the analyte.
Prins et al. teaches that analyte detection and be done using plasmonic detection and fluorescence. (column 4, lines 24-43)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Zhang et al. in view of Zhang II to include fluorescent labels on analytes for purposes of detecting the analytes by optical fluorescence detection as taught by Prins et al. in addition to the light scattering of the surface plasmonic resonance of Tao et al. for proposes of conclusive detection using both detection methods.
Therefore, Zhang et al. in view of Zhang II and Prins et al. renders claim 12 obvious.
Conclusion
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