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 Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis 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.
Claim(s) 60, 61, 62, 64, 65, 68, 72, 73, 74, 75, 78, 79 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Radu, Valentin, et al. "Dynamic quantum sensing of paramagnetic species using nitrogen-vacancy centers in diamond." ACS sensors 5.3 (2019): 703-710 (hereinafter Radu), and in view of Barton, Jan, et al. "Nanoscale dynamic readout of a chemical redox process using radicals coupled with nitrogen-vacancy centers in nanodiamonds." ACS nano 14.10 (2020): 12938-12950 (hereinafter Barton).
Regarding claim 60, Radu teaches a non-magnetic method for determining presence and/or concentration of at least one radical species in a sample (the method is shown in Fig. 1), the method comprising exciting at least one nitrogen vacancy (NV) center (p. 2 col 2 last para lines 14-15) in a diamond (Fig. 1 “diamond plate”) having at least one near-surface NV center (p. 2 col 2 last para lines 14-15), while the diamond is in contact with a sample (fig. 2) and “measuring fluorescence emitted from the at least one NV center in response to said excitation” (this refer to photoluminescence (PL) in p. 3 para 2 lines 1-2; also they are using fluorescence microscope, implying they are measuring fluorescent signals), “wherein the NV center comprises neutral NV0 states and negative NV- states” (p. 3 para 1 lines 2-10), such that the presence of the sample causes a decrease in a fluorescence rate of the NV- states (p. 3 para 1 last sentence; the reduced in photon means a decrease in a fluorescence rate) and an increase in a fluorescence rate of the NV0 states (even though they did not measure the NV0, an increase in NV- means that a decrease in NV0, see evidentiary reference US 20180059039 A1 para [0029]; NV0 and NV- are related to each other).
Radu fails to teach exciting with an illumination source at least one nitrogen vacancy (NV) center and containing or suspected of containing the at least one radical species.
Barton, from the same field of endeavor as Radu, teaches exciting with an illumination source at least one nitrogen vacancy (NV) center (p. 2 col 2 para 1 lines 6-9; a laser is used to excite the NV, see scheme 1) and containing or suspected of containing the at least one radical species (this is shown in scheme 1(E, F) description).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to apply the teaching of Barton to Radu to have with an illumination source at least one nitrogen vacancy (NV) center and containing or suspected of containing the at least one radical species in order to enable sensitive characterization of radical species and spatiotemporal detection of redox reactions in an aqueous environment under ambient conditions (p. 2 col 1 last para to col 2 para 1 line 1).
Regarding claim 61, Radu teaches the method according to claim 60, wherein the change in the emission rate is determined by: “-measuring the rate of fluorescence emitted from the diamond NV center(s) comprising NV- and NV0 centers following excitation and prior to contacting the diamond NV center(s) with the sample” (this entire limitation refers to Fig. 2 for “DI Water” only; p. 3 para 2 lines 5-12); “-measuring the rate of fluorescence emitted from the diamond NV center(s) comprising NV- and NV0 centers following excitation and after contacting the diamond NV center(s) with the sample containing or suspected of containing at least one radical species” (Fig. 2 shows 4 radical species); and “-determining the change in the NV- fluorescence emission rate and/or the NV0 fluorescence emission rate” (the plots of Fig. 2 represent the change in the NV- fluorescence emission rate);.
Radu does not containing or suspected of containing the at least one radical species and “wherein a decrease in the NV- fluorescence emission rate and/or an increase in the NV0 fluorescence emission rate provides an indication of presence of the at least one radical species in the sample”.
Barton, from the same field of endeavor as Radu, teaches containing or suspected of containing the at least one radical species (this is shown in scheme 1(E, F) description) and “wherein a decrease in the NV- fluorescence emission rate and/or an increase in the NV0 fluorescence emission rate provides an indication of presence of the at least one radical species in the sample” (the detection is based on the NV centers, scheme 1(E, F) description).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to apply the teaching of Barton to Radu to have containing or suspected of containing the at least one radical species and “wherein a decrease in the NV- fluorescence emission rate and/or an increase in the NV0 fluorescence emission rate provides an indication of presence of the at least one radical species in the sample” in order to enable sensitive characterization of radical species and spatiotemporal detection of redox reactions in an aqueous environment under ambient conditions (p. 2 col 1 last para to col 2 para 1 line 1).
Regarding claim 62, Radu teaches “the method according to claim 60, wherein measuring the rate of fluorescence emitted from the diamond NV center(s) prior to or after contacting with the sample comprises measuring a rate of emission from the NV- centers and/or measuring rate of emission from the NV0 centers” (this pertains to Fig. 2, “DI Water” for prior and the rest of the concentrations of species for after).
Regarding claim 64, Radu does not teach the method according to claim 60, wherein the excitation source is a light source.
Barton, from the same field of endeavor as Radu, teaches the method according to claim 60, wherein the excitation source is a light source (p. 2 col 2 para 1 lines 6-9; a laser is used to excite the NV, see scheme 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to apply the teaching of Barton to Radu to have the method according to claim 60, wherein the excitation source is a light source in order to excite NV centers on the nanodiamond (p. 2 col 2 para 1 lines 6-9).
Regarding claim 65, Radu does not teach the method according to claim 60, wherein the exciting comprises illuminating the diamond with a light having a wavelength between 380 and 638 nm, or between 380 and 480 nm.
Barton, from the same field of endeavor as Radu, teaches the method according to claim 60, wherein the exciting comprises illuminating the diamond with a light having a wavelength between 380 and 638 nm (532 nm laser is used, p. 8 col 2 para 4 line 3), or between 380 and 480 nm.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to apply the teaching of Barton to Radu to have the method according to claim 60, wherein the exciting comprises illuminating the diamond with a light having a wavelength between 380 and 638 nm, or between 380 and 480 nm in order to excite NV centers on the nanodiamond (p. 2 col 2 para 1 lines 6-9).
Regarding claim 68, Radu does not disclose the method according to claim 60, wherein the exciting or irradiating comprises illumination by green light and/or blue light.
Barton, from the same field of endeavor as Radu, teaches the method according to claim 60, wherein the exciting or irradiating comprises illumination by green light and/or blue light (532 nm laser is a green light, p. 8 col 2 para 4 line 3), or between 380 and 480 nm.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to apply the teaching of Barton to Radu to have the method according to claim 60, wherein the exciting or irradiating comprises illumination by green light and/or blue light in order to excite NV centers on the nanodiamond (p. 2 col 2 para 1 lines 6-9).
Regarding claim 72, Radu does not teach the method according to claim 60, for qualitatively or quantitatively determining presence of the radical species in the sample for studying radical related degradation; for providing mapping and tracking of radical-mediated intracellular signal transduction and cellular signaling; or for providing information on an origin, propagation and functioning of radicals in a sample.
Barton, from the same field of endeavor as Radu, teaches the method according to claim 60, for qualitatively or quantitatively determining presence of the radical species in the sample for studying radical related degradation (this is shown in scheme 1(E, F) description); for providing mapping and tracking of radical-mediated intracellular signal transduction and cellular signaling; or for providing information on an origin, propagation and functioning of radicals in a sample.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to apply the teaching of Barton to Radu to have the method according to claim 60, for qualitatively or quantitatively determining presence of the radical species in the sample for studying radical related degradation; for providing mapping and tracking of radical-mediated intracellular signal transduction and cellular signaling; or for providing information on an origin, propagation and functioning of radicals in a sample in order to enable sensitive characterization of radical species and spatiotemporal detection of redox reactions in an aqueous environment under ambient conditions (p. 2 col 1 last para to col 2 para 1 line 1).
Regarding claim 73, Radu teaches a device comprising a diamond sample holder (Fig. 1 “microscope coverslip”) for a diamond comprising at least one or a plurality of NV centers, , “a fluorescence detector and optionally at least one wavelength filter configured and operable to distinguish between fluorescence emission from NV- centers” (Fig. 1 “sCMOS”, p. 3 col 1 para 1 last sentence) and “fluorescence emission from NV0 centers” (even though they did not measure the NV0, an increase in NV- means that a decrease in NV0, see evidentiary reference US 20180059039 A1 para [0029]; NV0 and NV- are related to each other), wherein the NV center comprises neutral NV0 states and negative NV- states (p. 3 para 1 lines 2-10),.
Radu fails to teach a primary illumination source configured and operable to excite the NV center(s) and such that the presence of the at least one radical species causes a decrease in a fluorescence rate of the NV- states and an increase a fluorescence rate of the NVO states.
Barton, from the same field of endeavor as Radu, teaches a primary illumination source configured and operable to excite the NV center(s) (p. 8 col 2 para 4 line 3) and such that the presence of the at least one radical species causes a decrease in a fluorescence rate of the NV- states and an increase a fluorescence rate of the NVO states (the detection is based on the NV centers, scheme 1(E, F) description; note the detection is based on NV centers indicating an increase a fluorescence rate of the NVO states).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to apply the teaching of Barton to Radu to have a primary illumination source configured and operable to excite the NV center(s) and such that the presence of the at least one radical species causes a decrease in a fluorescence rate of the NV- states and an increase a fluorescence rate of the NVO states in order to enable sensitive characterization of radical species and spatiotemporal detection of redox reactions in an aqueous environment under ambient conditions (p. 2 col 1 last para to col 2 para 1 line 1).
Regarding claim 74, Radu teaches the device according to claim 73, wherein the device comprises: -the diamond sample holder (Fig. 1 “microscope coverslip”), -the fluorescence detector (Fig. 1 “sCMOS”, p. 3 col 1 para 1 last sentence), and “-the at least one wavelength filter configured and operable to distinguish between fluorescence emission from NV- centers and fluorescence emission from NV0 centers” (this is discussed in p. 3 col 1 para 1 lines 2-10).
Radu does not teach -the primary excitation source.
Barton, from the same field of endeavor as Radu, teaches the primary excitation source (532 nm laser is used, p. 8 col 2 para 4 line 3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to apply the teaching of Barton to Radu to have the primary excitation source in order to excite NV centers on the nanodiamond (p. 2 col 2 para 1 lines 6-9).
Regarding claim 75, Radu does not teach the device according to claim 73, wherein the primary illumination source is a light source configured for illuminating the diamond sample at a preselected wavelength.
Barton, from the same field of endeavor as Radu, teaches the device according to claim 73, wherein the primary illumination source is a light source configured for illuminating the diamond sample at a preselected wavelength (532 nm laser is used, p. 8 col 2 para 4 line 3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to apply the teaching of Barton to Radu to have the device according to claim 73, wherein the primary illumination source is a light source configured for illuminating the diamond sample at a preselected wavelength in order to excite NV centers on the nanodiamond (p. 2 col 2 para 1 lines 6-9).
Regarding claim 78, Radu does not teaches the device according to claim 73, for detecting presence and/or concentration of at least one radical species in a sample, wherein a surface region of the diamond sample having at least one near-surface nitrogen vacancy (NV) center contacted by a sample comprising or suspected of comprising at least one radical species is excited by the primary radiation and fluorescence emission is detected from the diamond.
Barton, from the same field of endeavor as Radu, teaches “the device according to claim 73, for detecting presence and/or concentration of at least one radical species in a sample, wherein a surface region of the diamond sample having at least one near-surface nitrogen vacancy (NV) center contacted by a sample comprising or suspected of comprising at least one radical species is excited by the primary radiation and fluorescence emission is detected from the diamond” (this entire limitation is shown in scheme 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to apply the teaching of Barton to Radu to have the device according to claim 73, for detecting presence and/or concentration of at least one radical species in a sample, wherein a surface region of the diamond sample having at least one near-surface nitrogen vacancy (NV) center contacted by a sample comprising or suspected of comprising at least one radical species is excited by the primary radiation and fluorescence emission is detected from the diamond in order to enable sensitive characterization of radical species and spatiotemporal detection of redox reactions in an aqueous environment under ambient conditions (p. 2 col 1 last para to col 2 para 1 line 1).
Regarding claim 79, Radu teaches the device comprising a diamond sample holder (Fig. description) for a diamond (Fig. 1 “diamond plate”) comprising at least one or a plurality of NV centers (p. 2 col 2 para 2 lines 1-8),
Barton, from the same field of endeavor as Radu, teaches a device arranged as a confocal device (p. 8 col 2 para 4 lines 1-4) for determining presence of at least one radical species in a sample (this is shown in scheme 1), “a primary excitation source configured and operable to excite the NV center(s)” (p. 8 col 2 para 4 lines 1-4), a fluorescence detector (p. 8 col 2 para 4 lines 7-9) and “at least one wavelength filter configured and operable to distinguish between fluorescence emission from NV- centers” (p. 8 col 2 para 4 lines 7-9; it detects NV- centers, Abstract lines 6-9) and fluorescence emission from NV0 centers (Barton device distinguishes NV- and NV0 since it measures NV- signals).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to apply the teaching of Barton to Radu to have with an illumination source at least one nitrogen vacancy (NV) center and containing or suspected of containing the at least one radical species in order to enable sensitive characterization of radical species and spatiotemporal detection of redox reactions in an aqueous environment under ambient conditions (p. 2 col 1 last para to col 2 para 1 line 1).
Claim(s) 66 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Radu and Barton as applied to claim(s) 60, 73 above, and in view of Huffman, D. R., et al., US 20160320306 A1 (hereinafter Huffman).
Regarding claim 66, Radu does not teach the method according to claim 63, wherein the exciting or irradiating comprises an excitation source comprising at least two illumination sources.
Huffman, from the same field of endeavor as Radu, teaches the method according to claim 63, wherein the exciting or irradiating comprises an excitation source comprising at least two illumination sources (Fig. 1E, para [0062] lines 1-7).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to apply the teaching of Huffman to Radu to have the method according to claim 63, wherein the exciting or irradiating comprises an excitation source comprising at least two illumination sources in order to compare with one or more reference spectra to determine a characteristic of the particle, such as a particle type or size (para [0062] last sentence).
Regarding claim 76, Radu does not teach the device according to claim 73, wherein detection is via a pinhole provided in an optical conjugate plane in front of the detector to eliminate out-of-focus emission signals.
Huffman, from the same field of endeavor as Radu, teaches the device according to claim 73, wherein detection is via a pinhole (para [0062] lines 13-18) provided in an optical conjugate plane in front of the detector to eliminate out-of-focus emission signals (the objective lens focused the signals and the microscope tube has the aperture of pinhole to focus the signals to the digital camera 240 as shown in Fig. 1E).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to apply the teaching of Huffman to Radu to have the device according to claim 73, wherein detection is via a pinhole provided in an optical conjugate plane in front of the detector to eliminate out-of-focus emission signals in order to analyzed and determine scattering or emission spectra corresponding to each of the particles illuminated and in order to compare with one or more reference spectra to determine a characteristic of the particle, such as a particle type or size (para [0062] last sentence).
Claim(s) 67 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Radu, Barton, and Huffman as applied to claim(s) 66, 68 above, and in view of Mariles, C., et al., US 20180252781 A1 (hereinafter Mariles).
Regarding claim 67, Radu does not teach the method according to claim 66, wherein each of the at least two illumination sources is configured to independently generate light of a wavelength between 380 and 638 nm.
Mariles, from the same field of endeavor as Radu, teaches the method according to claim 66, wherein each of the at least two illumination sources is configured to independently generate light of a wavelength between 380 and 638 nm (Fig. 7A, para [0028]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to apply the teaching of Mariles to Radu to have the method according to claim 66, wherein each of the at least two illumination sources is configured to independently generate light of a wavelength between 380 and 638 nm in order to change the charge state to form a pattern which is important for encoding information and long-term data storage (para [0006]).
Claim(s) 69, 70, 71 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Radu and Barton as applied to claim(s) 60, 68 above, and in view of Mariles.
Regarding claim 69, Radu fails to disclose the method according to claim 68, wherein blue laser illumination is over a period of time shorter than the time period of the green laser illumination.
Mariles, from the same field of endeavor as Radu, teaches the method according to claim 68, wherein blue laser illumination is over a period of time shorter than the time period of the green laser illumination (Fig. 8A shows blue laser “B1” has shorter duration than green laser “G2”; para [0107] lines 1-6).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to apply the teaching of Mariles to Radu to have the method according to claim 68, wherein blue laser illumination is over a period of time shorter than the time period of the green laser illumination in order to recharge the NV- (para [0107] lines 1-6) which is important for encoding information and long-term data storage (para [0006]).
Regarding claim 70, Radu fails to teach the method according to claim 68, wherein illumination comprises illumination by a green laser for a period of time and simultaneous illumination with a blue laser for a shorter period of time.
Mariles, from the same field of endeavor as Radu, teaches the method according to claim 68, wherein illumination comprises illumination by a green laser for a period of time and simultaneous illumination with a blue laser for a shorter period of time (Fig. 7C shows green lasers “G1 and G2” and blue laser “B1”; para [0106] lines 15-22; B1 has shorter time; since the time involve here are in microseconds, the illumination occurs instantaneously).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to apply the teaching of Mariles to Radu to have the method according to claim 68, wherein illumination comprises illumination by a green laser for a period of time and simultaneous illumination with a blue laser for a shorter period of time in order to assess the effect of blue excitation on the nuclear spin polarization (para [0106] lines 15-22) which is important for encoding information and long-term data storage (para [0006]).
Regarding claim 71, Radu does not to teach the method according to claim 60, the method comprising -irradiating the diamond with a green laser for a period of time; -irradiating the diamond with a blue laser while irradiation with a green laser continues; -ceasing irradiation with the blue laser and measuring fluorescence emission for a time period from the ceasing of the irradiation with the blue laser, while irradiation with the green laser continues.
Mariles, from the same field of endeavor as Radu, teaches the method according to claim 60, the method comprising -irradiating the diamond with a green laser for a period of time (Fig. 8A “G1”, para [0107] lines 1-10); -irradiating the diamond with a blue laser while irradiation with a green laser continues (Fig. 8A “B1”, para [0107] lines 1-10); “-ceasing irradiation with the blue laser and measuring fluorescence emission for a time period from the ceasing of the irradiation with the blue laser, while irradiation with the green laser continues” (Fig. 8B, sequence B1 to G2, para [0107] lines 8-10).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to apply the teaching of Mariles to Radu to have the method according to claim 60, the method comprising -irradiating the diamond with a green laser for a period of time; -irradiating the diamond with a blue laser while irradiation with a green laser continues; -ceasing irradiation with the blue laser and measuring fluorescence emission for a time period from the ceasing of the irradiation with the blue laser, while irradiation with the green laser continues in order to study the impact of NV- recharge on the 14N nuclear spin polarization (para [0107] lines 1-2) which is important for encoding information and long-term data storage (para [0006]).
Claim(s) 77 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Radu and Barton as applied to claim(s) 73 above, and in view of Forest, C., et al., US 20060176481 A1 (hereinafter Forest).
Regarding claim 77, Radu teaches the device according to claim 73, comprising a high pass filter having a cut-off frequency at 650nm (p. 3 col 1 para 1 last sentence) and/or a band pass filter having a cut-off frequency at 575-625 nm, positioned in an optical path between the filter cube and the detector (Fig. 1 “sCMOS”).
However, Radu does not explicitly teach a beam splitter.
Forest, from the same field of endeavor as Radu, teaches a beam splitter (Fig. 1A “Dichroic beamsplitter”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to apply the teaching of Forest to Radu to have a beam splitter in order to enhance the fluorescence signal with respect to any residual background (para [0043] lines 10-14).
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 ROBERTO FABIAN JR whose telephone number is (571)272-3632. The examiner can normally be reached M-F (8-12, 1-5).
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, Tarifur Chowdhury can be reached at (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 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.
/ROBERTO FABIAN JR/ Examiner, Art Unit 2877
/Kara E. Geisel/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2877