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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 15 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 15 recites “[t]he system of claim 16,” but claim 16 is a subsequently presented method claim rather than a system claim. Appropriate correction is required. Applicant may amend claim 15 to depend from claim 14, rewrite claim 15 in independent form, or otherwise place the claim in proper dependent form.
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 1–14 and 16–20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter regarded as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, the claim recites “a dichroic mirror positioned within the housing.” However, the claim does not previously introduce or otherwise identify a “housing.” It is therefore unclear whether “the housing” refers to the recited mirror cage or to a separate, unclaimed structure. Accordingly, the scope of claim 1 is indefinite. Claims 2–14 incorporate the indefinite limitation of claim 1, and claim 16 expressly requires “the optical system of claim 1,” such that claims 16–20 likewise incorporate the indefinite limitation.
For purposes of applying the prior art, the recited “housing” is interpreted as referring to the recited mirror cage.
Regarding claim 7, the claim recites “the at least one filter,” but neither claim 7 nor claim 1, from which claim 7 depends, previously introduces an “at least one filter.” It is therefore unclear what filter is being referenced and where that filter is located within the claimed system. Accordingly, claim 7 is indefinite.
Regarding claim 11, the claim recites a neutral-density filter positioned between the energy sensor and “the mirror cube.” However, neither claim 11 nor claim 1 previously introduces a “mirror cube.” Claim 1 instead recites a “mirror cage” and a “dichroic mirror.” It is therefore unclear whether “the mirror cube” is intended to refer to the mirror cage, the dichroic mirror, or another component. Accordingly, claim 11 is indefinite.
Regarding claim 19, the claim recites measuring light received through “the at least one filter.” However, neither claim 19 nor claim 16, including the optical system of claim 1 incorporated therein, previously introduces an “at least one filter.” It is therefore unclear what filter is being referenced and where the filter is positioned in the claimed optical path. Accordingly, claim 19 is indefinite.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-8 and 10-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miranda et al. (Biomedical Optical Express, 2021, IDS) (Miranda) in view of Barrero et al. (Sensors, 2022) (Barrero).
Regarding claim 1, Miranda discloses an optical system comprising a light source, an energy sensor, a fiber-optic cable optically connected through a collimating coupling system (page 4691, par 4), an avalanche photodiode (page 4692, par 0), and a dichroic mirror (page 4691, par 3-4). Specifically, Miranda discloses a 405-nm diode laser as the excitation light source (page 4691, par 3) and states that, “[t]o sample the power of the excitation beam over time, a beam splitter … redirected 10% of the light towards a power meter.” (page 4691, par 3). Miranda further teaches that the excitation light is “redirected by a dichroic mirror … to a fiber coupling system,” where the light is focused into a tapered optical fiber (page 4691, par 3). Miranda teaches that emission light collected by the tapered fiber returns through the fiber coupling system, is “collimated by the fiber coupling system,” and passes through the dichroic mirror (page 4691, par 4). The collected light is thereafter focused onto an avalanche photodiode (page 4692, par 0). Miranda’s Figure 1(a) depicts the fiber coupler and associated optical fiber on one side of the dichroic mirror and the APD detection path on the opposite side of the dichroic mirror, corresponding respectively to the claimed second fiber-optic cable connected through a second collimator and APD positioned on opposing third and fourth sides.
However, Miranda does not explicitly teach a mirror cage in which the light source is optically connected to a first side through a first fiber-optic cable and first collimator, with the energy sensor connected to an opposite second side.
Barrero teaches constructing an optical system using “optomechanical 30 mm cage elements” and matching optical components (Fig. 1, page 2, par 3). Barrero teaches that an excitation laser is coupled into the cage system through a “single-mode FC/PC or FC/APC fiber optic patch cable” connected to a “fixed-focus collimation package,” thereby generating a collimated laser beam along an optical axis of the cage system (Fig. 1A, page 6, par 1). Barrero further teaches a single-edge dichroic beam splitter positioned at an angle within the cage assembly (Fig. 1A, page 6, par 4) and a laser-power monitor in the form of a Si photodiode (page 7, par 1) . Barrero’s Figure 1 depicts the fiber-coupled excitation source and collimator on one side of the cage-mounted dichroic beam splitter and the laser-power-monitoring photodiode on the opposite side, thereby teaching the claimed first and second opposing sides. (Barrero, page. 4–7, Fig. 1 and Table 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to implement Miranda’s dichroic optical arrangement using Barrero’s optomechanical cage architecture, including coupling the excitation source to a first side through Barrero’s fiber-optic cable and fixed-focus collimator and positioning Miranda’s power-monitoring sensor on the opposite side, while retaining Miranda’s fiber-coupling path and APD detection path on the other opposing sides. Miranda and Barrero are analogous art because both concern fiber-coupled optical systems that use a dichroic element to route excitation light toward a target, collect target-responsive light for detection, and monitor excitation power. Barrero teaches that its cage construction provides sturdy construction, flexibility, compatibility, and easy extension (page 5, par 3), and further teaches that the fiber-coupled fixed-focus collimator avoids the need for a complex fiber-launch assembly and its associated alignment requirements (page 6, par 2). A person of ordinary skill therefore would have been motivated to use Barrero’s cage and fiber-coupled input arrangement in Miranda’s system to improve mechanical rigidity, optical alignment, and modularity while preserving Miranda’s excitation, power-monitoring, fiber-coupling, and APD-detection functions.
The resulting combination would comprise a cage-mounted dichroic mirror having:
a light source optically connected to a first side of the mirror cage via a first fiberoptic cable and a first collimator;
an energy sensor optically connected to a second side of the mirror cage opposite the first side;
Miranda’s tapered fiber optic cable optically connected to a third side of the mirror cage via a second collimator; and
Miranda’s avalanche photodiode (APD) optically connected to a fourth side of the mirror cage opposite the third side,
thereby rendering the subject matter of claim 1 obvious.
Regarding claim 2, Miranda discloses that wherein the second fiber optic cable comprises a tapered fiber optic cable (Fig. 1c, page 4691, par 2).
Regarding claim 3, Barrero discloses that wherein the dichroic mirror is positioned at an angle of 45 degrees relative to at least one of the first side, the second side, the third side, or the fourth side (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 4, Barrrro discloses that wherein the dichroic mirror is planar, concave or convex (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 5, Miranda discloses that wherein the light source comprises a laser (page 4691, par 3).
Regarding claim 6, Miranda discloses that wherein the laser is configured to provide light in the range of 400 to 600 nm (405 nm) (page 4691, par 3).
Regarding claim 7, Miranda discloses that wherein the at least one filter is configured to focus light on the APD (page 4691, par 4).
Regarding claim 8, Miranda discloses that wherein the dichroic mirror is configured to reflect light in the range of 400 to 600 nm (Fig. 1, page 4691, par 3).
Regarding claim 10, Barrero teaches that its Raman excitation laser is coupled to the cage system using “a single-mode FC/PC or FC/APC fiber optic patch cable,” which is connected to a fixed-focus FC-coupled collimator (page 6, par 1). Barrero further teaches constructing the system using compatible, readily extendable optical components and fiber coupling for both excitation and detection (Table 1, abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide both the first and second fiber-optic cables of the combined system with FC/PC connections, as taught by Barrero, in order to standardize the fiber connections, permit repeatable coupling to the respective collimators, and provide compatibility and easy extension of the cage-mounted optical system. Accordingly, Miranda in view of Barrero teaches or suggests wherein the first and second fiber-optic cables comprise FC/PC fiber-optic cables.
Regarding claim 11, Miranda teaches measuring a sampled portion of the excitation light using a power meter (page 4691, par 3), and Barrero teaches positioning a Si-photodiode laser-power monitor to receive light transmitted through the dichroic beam-splitter cube (page 6, par 4).
Barrero further teaches that a neutral-density filter may be inserted into a detector arm “to avoid saturation of the CMOS camera sensor.” (page 7, par 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to similarly position a neutral-density filter in the optical path between Barrero’s dichroic mirror cube and the power-monitoring energy sensor. The neutral-density filter would predictably attenuate the sampled excitation light to prevent saturation of the energy sensor and place the measured power within the sensor’s useful operating range. Accordingly, Miranda in view of Barrero renders obvious a neutral-density filter positioned between the energy sensor and the mirror cube.
Regarding claim 12, Miranda teaches that emission light collected through the tapered optical fiber returns through the dichroic mirror, is spatially filtered through a pinhole, passes through two emission filters, and is thereafter focused directly onto an APD (page 4691, par 4). Miranda’s Figure 1(a) similarly depicts the filtered free-space detection path extending from the dichroic mirror to the APD without an intervening fiber-optic cable.
Barrero teaches mounting optical components in a 30-mm cage assembly and incorporating a Raman edge filter into the cage-mounted detection arm to remove residual excitation light (Fig. 1, page 7, par 5)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art implementing Miranda’s APD detection path in Barrero’s cage system to mount Miranda’s emission filters within a cage-compatible filter-mount or lens-tube portion positioned between the fourth side of the mirror cage and the APD. Such an arrangement would maintain alignment of the filters and APD while suppressing residual excitation light before detection. Accordingly, the combination teaches or suggests the APD directly connected to the fourth side of the mirror cage through a portion housing at least one filter.
Regarding claim 13, Barrero teaches that collected Raman light passes through a cage-mounted Raman edge filter and confocal pinhole and is thereafter collected by an optical fiber bundle that carries the detected light to a remotely positioned spectrometer. Barrero further states that the system may use “different fiber bundles or single-core multimode fibers” when a different detector system is used (page 7–8).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use Barrero’s fiber-coupled detection arrangement to connect Miranda’s APD indirectly to the fourth side of the mirror cage, with the collected light passing through the filter-housing portion and then through a third fiber-optic cable to the APD. Barrero expressly teaches that detector-side fiber coupling increases system flexibility and accommodates different detector systems. The modification would predictably permit the APD to be positioned remotely from the mirror cage while retaining the filtering and fluorescence-detection functions taught by Miranda. Accordingly, Miranda in view of Barrero renders obvious the APD indirectly connected to the fourth side of the mirror cage via a portion housing at least one filter and a third fiber-optic cable.
Regarding claim 14, Miranda in view of Barrero teaches the optical system of claim 1 as set forth above.
Miranda further teaches an automated micropipette-electrode guidance system comprising a micropipette electrode connected to the optical system through the second fiber-optic cable. Miranda states that “gold-coated tapered optical fibers aligned concentrically and proximally to the micropipette tip were utilized for automated neuronal approach” and that an Optopatcher was modified “to properly position the tapered optical fiber within the micropipette electrode.” Miranda further teaches that the single fiber is coupled to the excitation source and optical detector and extends into the micropipette electrode (Fig. 1, page 4691–4692).
Accordingly, Miranda in view of Barrero renders obvious an automated micropipette-electrode guidance system comprising the optical system of claim 1 and a micropipette electrode connected to the optical system through the second fiber-optic cable.
Regarding claim 15, for purposes of examination, the claim is treated as though it were intended to depend from claim 14. Miranda teaches that the micropipette system is configured for simultaneous emission and collection of light from the micropipette electrode. Miranda teaches that “[t]he single fiber was coupled to an excitation source and optical detector” and that “the excitation and emission are locally delivered and captured at the electrode aperture.” Miranda further teaches that excitation light exits the tapered optical fiber through the micropipette tip and that emission light is collected by the same tapered fiber and returned to the optical detector. During automated scanning, the laser remains on while photon counts are obtained at the respective scan positions. Thus, excitation light is emitted and responsive fluorescence is collected through the micropipette electrode at the same time (Fig. 1, page 4691–4692).
Regarding claim 17, Miranda in view of Barrero teaches supplying the first portion of light to the micropipette electrode through the recited optical path.
Barrero teaches supplying laser light through a single-mode fiber-optic patch cable and a fixed-focus fiber collimator, which generates a collimated laser beam that is directed through the cage system to the dichroic beam splitter. Barrero, pp. 5–6, Fig. 1 and Table 1.
Miranda teaches that the excitation light is redirected by the dichroic mirror to a fiber-coupling system, where the light is focused into the tapered optical fiber positioned within the micropipette electrode. Miranda further teaches that the excitation light travels through the tapered fiber and exits through the micropipette tip onto the sample. The fiber-coupling system corresponds to the claimed second collimator, and the tapered optical fiber corresponds to the claimed second fiber-optic cable. Miranda, pp. 4691–4692, Fig. 1(a).
Thus, in the combined system, light is supplied through the light source, Barrero’s first fiber-optic cable and first collimator, the dichroic mirror, Miranda’s fiber-coupling system or second collimator, and Miranda’s tapered second fiber-optic cable to the micropipette electrode.
Regarding claim 18, Barrero teaches measuring light supplied by the light source that was transmitted through the dichroic mirror. Barrero teaches that its dichroic beam splitter transmits approximately 0.5% of the 532-nm excitation radiation and that this transmitted portion is detected by a Si-photodiode used as a laser-power monitor (Fig. 1, Table1, page. 6-7).
The Si-photodiode corresponds to the claimed energy sensor, and the approximately 0.5% portion transmitted through the dichroic mirror corresponds to the claimed second portion of light. Accordingly, Miranda in view of Barrero teaches the additional limitation of claim 18.
Regarding claim 19, Miranda teaches measuring light received from the micropipette electrode through the second fiber-optic cable, the second collimator, the dichroic mirror, and at least one filter.
Specifically, Miranda teaches that emission light collected at the micropipette tip travels back through the tapered optical fiber, is collimated by the fiber-coupling system, and passes through the dichroic mirror. Miranda further teaches that the collected light is spatially filtered through a pinhole, passes through two emission filters, and is thereafter focused onto the APD. (Fig. 1a, page 4691–4692).
The tapered optical fiber corresponds to the second fiber-optic cable, the fiber-coupling system corresponds to the second collimator, and either of Miranda’s emission filters corresponds to the recited at least one filter.
Regarding claim 20, Miranda teaches that the supplied light is within the range of 400 to 600 nm and is supplied by a laser. Miranda expressly discloses an ultra-compact diode laser operated at a wavelength of 405 nm and used as the excitation source (page 4691).
Because 405 nm falls within the claimed range of 400 to 600 nm, Miranda teaches the additional limitation of claim 20.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Miranda in view of Diaz Barrero, and further in view of Heinz et al. (US 2012/0221252) (Heinz).
Regarding claim 9, Miranda in view of Barrero teaches the optical system of claim 1 as set forth above. Miranda in view of Barrero does not explicitly teach a plurality of gaskets positioned between the first collimator and the mirror cage, the second collimator and the mirror cage, and the APD and the mirror cage.
Heinz teaches an optical detection system having an optics housing containing excitation optics, emission optics, input/output optics, and a beam splitter. Heinz teaches that “O-ring 410 provides a light-tight seal between the excitation housing 402 and the optics housing 434,” (par [0126]), that “O-ring 426 provides a light-tight seal between the detector housing 418 and the optics housing 434,” (par [0127]), and that “O-ring 452 provides a light-tight seal between the interface cap 456 and the optics housing 434.” (par [0128], Figs. 15-16). Thus, Heinz teaches providing a plurality of O-ring gaskets at respective excitation-component, input/output-component, and photodetector-component interfaces with a central optical housing.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide Heinz’s O-ring gaskets at the corresponding mating interfaces between Barrero’s mirror cage and the first collimator, the second collimator, and Miranda’s APD. Miranda, Barrero, and Heinz are analogous art because each relates to an optical excitation-and-detection system in which excitation light and collected light are routed through optical components and detected by a photodetector. Barrero teaches constructing the optical system from modular cage elements and associated optical components, thereby providing mating interfaces between the cage and the respective optical components. Heinz expressly teaches placing O-rings at corresponding optical-component-to-housing interfaces to provide light-tight seals. One of ordinary skill therefore would have been motivated to provide such gaskets at the component-to-cage interfaces of the Miranda-Barrero system to prevent ambient or stray light from entering the optical paths and thereby improve the reliability and signal-to-noise performance of the optical measurements.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to XIAOYUN R XU, Ph. D. whose telephone number is (571)270-5560. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-5pm.
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, Lyle Alexander can be reached at 571-272-1254. 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.
/XIAOYUN R XU, Ph.D./ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1797
Prosecution Insights