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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Invention I (claims 1-12) in the reply filed on 19 May 2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 13-16 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected apparatus, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 19 May 2026.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) was/were filed on 10 May 2024, 02 July 2025, 29 September 2025, and 09 June 2026. The submissions are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97, and therefore are considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “sample cell compris[ing] a shutter between a cell enclosure and a collimator” of claim 5 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The following title is suggested: “APPARATUS TO MEASURE ELECTROPHORETIC MOBILITY VIA ACOUSTO-OPTIC MODULATION”, or something similar that is sufficiently descriptive.
Claim Interpretation
Regarding claims 1, 9, and 13, the claims recite “a long coherence length laser”, where “long” under certain circumstances may be a relative term. Examiner notes a definition is given within the disclosure (specification [0017]), where long coherence length laser means that “the coherence length of the laser exceeds the path length difference between reference and sample arms of an interferometer”.
Regarding claims 4, 12, and 16, the claim recites “a majority”, which may be seen as indefinite. Examiner notes that the specification provides an example for majority ranging between 50%-99.1%. While “majority” is not necessarily defined within the specification, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize majority as being anything above 50% and anything below 99.9%, and “majority” is interpreted as such.
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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2023/0236107 A1 by Mehran Vahdani Moghaddam et al. (herein after “Moghaddam”) in view of US 11,181,503 B1 by Robert Dickerman (herein after “Dickerman”). Examiner notes the reference Moghaddam was cited by applicant in the IDS filed 09 June 2026 and the reference Dickerman was cited by applicant in the IDS filed 10 May 2024.
Regarding claim 1, Moghaddam discloses an apparatus (Moghaddam fig. 1B discloses an apparatus, [0104] discloses the system as a dual pass detection system), comprising:
a laser (Moghaddam [0105] and fig. 1B discloses laser light source 200);
a splitter optically coupled to the laser (Moghaddam [0106] discloses a first beam splitter 204 which splits the beam; the splitter is in optical communication with the laser [optically coupled]
a first polarization maintaining acousto-optic modulator optically coupled to a reference arm of the splitter (Moghaddam [0112] and fig. 1B discloses an acousto-optic modulator (AOM) 250 which is optically coupled to the splitter 204, along a reference arm of the splitter, since [0106] and [0112] disclose beam 234 of fig. 1B as the reference beam; [0012] discloses that in an embodiment, at least the reference beam is s-polarized from its splitt at splitter 204 (i.e. the reference beam E-ref- is s-polarized, and thus the polarization doesn’t change through the AOM - there is also no explicit disclosure of any polarization changes by the components themselves, leading one of ordinary skill in the art to conclude that the modulator is “polarization maintaining”, or in other words “polarization unaffecting”, under the BRI of the claim));
a second polarization maintaining acousto-optic modulator optically coupled to an output of the first modulator (Moghaddam [0112] and fig. 1B discloses a second AOM 252 optically coupled to the output of the first modulator 250; the same reasoning as the preceding limitation regarding “polarization maintaining” applies here as well);
a sample cell to contain a sample and optically coupled to a sample arm output of the splitter (Moghaddam [0116] and fig. 1B show an interrogation beam 232 as an output from the splitter 204 [sample arm output of the splitter]; an interrogation zone 208 with one or more particles interacts with the interrogation beam 232; [0096] disclose “particle interrogation zone” as a cuvette and/or flow cell [i.e. a sample cell]; even though [0116] is in reference to fig. 5, the named components above are consistent with the embodiments of fig. 1B, and the passage is thus applicable to fig. 1B);
a combiner optically coupled to an output of [the second AOM] and to an output of the sample cell (Moghaddam [0109] and fig. 1B show a second beam splitter 218; [0109] and [0116] disclose that the reference beam 234 and scattering signal from the sample cell 236 caused by interaction with the interrogation beams 232 are combined via splitter 218 [combiner, and thus is optically coupled to an output of the sample cell and the last component in the reference path, the second AOM]); and
a photo detector to detect light output from the combiner, and to output an intensity signal, I (Moghaddam fig. 1B and [0109] discloses a photodetector 216, where the photo detector detects the combination of the reference beam 243 and scattered signal 236, combined via the beam splitter 218 [photo detector detects light output from the combiner]; [0103] discloses that the intensity of the interference between signal and reference beams is analyzed via a photodetector, and the signal obtained by photo detector 216 is indicated in fig. 1B as i2 [photo detector outputs an intensity signal, i2]).
Moghaddam does not explicitly disclose “a polarization maintaining attenuator optically coupled to an output of the second modulator, and a combiner optically coupled to an output of the attenuator”, but it does suggest this limitation: (Moghaddam [0033] discloses that the intensity of the reference beam may be attenuated with a beam attenuator disposed between the first and second beam splitter; the first beam splitter has been disclosed as the splitter above and the second beam splitter is disclosed above as the combiner; [0111] discloses the reference beam is passed through a neutral density filter to attenuate the beam intensity [i.e. the attenuator]; the attenuator is considered as “polarization maintaining” for the same reasons as disclosed above with respect to the AOMs – while [0111] appears to be in reference to fig. 1A, it would be obvious to incorporate the attenuator into the system of fig. 1B, optically coupling it to the output of the second AOM for the advantage of increasing the visibility of interference fringes at the detector plane, to enhance the signal to noise ratio (Moghaddam [0111]); the incorporation of the attenuator at the output of the second AOM provides the means by which the combiner is optically coupled to the output of the attenuator).
Moghaddam is silent to a long coherence length laser; a fiber splitter optically coupled to the laser; a polarization maintaining combiner; and a photo detector to detect light output from the combiner and to output a time-varying intensity signal, I, to be analyzed for shifts in frequency in the time-varying intensity signal to measure electrophoretic mobility in the sample.
However, Dickerman does address these limitations. Moghaddam and Dickerman are considered to be analogous to the present invention because they are interferometric optical systems for sample analysis.
Dickerman discloses “a long coherence length laser” (Dickerman fig. 2A discloses a polarized light source 202, where col 13 ll. 17-19 disclose the source 202 may be a laser; col 5 ll. 63 – col 6 ll. 13 discloses the use of a laser source with “longer coherence length” compared with simple laser diodes, given the use of modulators which continously vary the optical path in one arm of the interferometer (the use of modulators are disclosed in both Moghaddam and the claimed invention); a laser source with a “longer coherence length” in the context of Dickerman’s disclosure is consistent with the BRI of the claim given the “Claim Interpretation” section above);
“a fiber splitter optically coupled to the laser” (Dickerman col. 13 ll. 63 – col. 14 ll. 9 discloses additional illustrative examples of components which may be configured in the interferometers diagrammed within Dickerman, including fiber optic components [i.e. the splitter of coupled to the laser of Moghaddam may be a fiber splitter optically coupled to the laser, and fall within the embodiments of Dickerman);
“a polarization maintaining combiner” (Dickerman fig. 2A and col. 10 ll. 1-3 disclose non-polarizing beam splitter 214 is used to combine reference beam 216 and scattered beam 213 from the sample [polarization maintaining combiner]); and
“a photo detector to output a time-varying intensity signal, I, to be analyzed for shifts in frequency in the time-varying intensity signal to measure electrophoretic mobility in the sample” (Dickerman col. 4 ll. 45 – col 5 ll. 8 discloses the interferometer 110 (and interferometer A of fig. 2A) uses Doppler shifted light 116 [i.e. scattered light from sample in the interrogation arm] with un-shifted light from the source [i.e. reference light 216 along reference arm], where the recombined light may have beat frequency variations in light intensity, and recombined light with said beat frequency variations in light intensity are considered a light intensity beat signal [time-varying intensity signal], and may be sinusoidal; the beat signal is obtained by photodetectors (222 and 228 of fig. 2A); col. 5 ll. 35-44 discloses that the light intensity beat signals are due to particle speed and direction, that particle speed and direction are used to calculate distribution of electrophoretic mobility [shifts in frequency in time-varying intensity signal to measure electrophoretic mobility in the sample]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Moghaddam to incorporate a long coherence length laser, a fiber splitter optically coupled to the laser, a polarization maintaining combiner, and a photo detector to detect light output from the combiner and to output a time-varying intensity signal, I, to be analyzed for shifts in frequency in the time-varying intensity signal to measure electrophoretic mobility in the sample as suggested by Dickerman for the advantage of enabling the acquisition of longer, continuous photodetector signal data records, which allow for greater frequency resolution in spectra of the intensity signals (Dickerman col. 13 ll. 57-63).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moghaddam in view of Dickerman, and further in view of US 2012/0099113 A1 by Johannes F. de Boer et al. (herein after “Boer”).
Regarding claim 2, Moghaddam when modified by Dickerman discloses the apparatus of claim 1, but is silent to the apparatus further comprising at least one polarization maintaining fiber coupling any of the laser, the splitter, the modulators, the attenuator, the sample cell, and the combiner together.
However, Boer does address this limitation. Moghaddam, Dickerman, and Boer are considered to be analogous to the present invention because they are interferometric optical systems for sample analysis.
Boer discloses the apparatus of claim 1, “further comprising at least one polarization maintaining fiber coupling any of the laser, the splitter, the modulators, the attenuator, the sample cell, and the combiner together” (Boer fig. 1 and [0038] discloses a first AOM, a second AOM, and two polarizing beam splitters which split/combine signals from the first AOM and second AOM as part of a reference arm of an interferometric apparatus; the reference arm light/radiation is prepared by a “fiber based polarization controller” which splits polarized signals from the two AOMs and directs them to further components downstream [the fiber couples any of equivalents of the splitter, modulators, and combiner together, and is considered as being “polarization maintaining” given its description as a “fiber based polarization controller”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Moghaddam in view of Dickerman to incorporate at least one polarization maintaining fiber coupling any of the laser, the splitter, the modulators, the attenuator, the sample cell, and the combiner together as suggested by Boer for the advantage of enabling a complete determination of the complex 2×2 Jones matrix for polarization states reflected from the sample arm via simultaneous measurement of the sample arm orthogonal polarization states (Boer [0042]).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moghaddam in view of Dickerman, and further in view of US 2019/0011398 by John F. Miller (herein after “Miller”). Examiner notes the reference Miller was cited as US 10,690,625 B2 by applicant in the IDS filed 01 May 2024.
Regarding claim 3, Moghaddam when modified by Dickerman discloses the apparatus of claim 1, but is silent to the apparatus wherein any of the splitter, the modulators, the attenuator, and the combiner are fused together.
However, Miller does address this limitation. Moghaddam, Dickerman, and Miller are considered to be analogous to the present invention because they are interferometric optical systems for sample analysis.
Miller discloses the apparatus of claim 1, “wherein any of the splitter, the modulators, the attenuator, and the combiner are fused together” (Miller [0069] and fig. 5 discloses that a frequency shifter 126 and attenuator 114 of fig. 1 can be replaced by an acousto-optic modulator 540, which functions as a variable attenuator while imparting the desired modulation [modulator and attenuator are fused together]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Moghaddam in view of Dickerman to incorporate wherein any of the splitter, the modulators, the attenuator, and the combiner are fused together as suggested by Miller for the advantage of allowing necessary frequency difference between reference and sample beams to be generated by the modulator/attenuator combination, allowing replacement of other components in the apparatus (Miller [0069]), thereby decreasing the complexity of the system.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moghaddam in view of Dickerman, and further in view of US 2021/0278196 A1 by Eric Swanson et al. (herein after “Swanson”).
Regarding claim 4, Moghaddam when modified by Dickerman discloses the apparatus of claim 1, but is silent to the apparatus wherein the splitter comprises a split ratio wherein a majority of the laser light is directed to the sample cell.
However, Swanson does address this limitation. Moghaddam, Dickerman, and Swanson are considered to be analogous to the present invention because they are interferometric optical systems for sample analysis.
Swanson discloses the apparatus of claim 1, “wherein the splitter comprises a split ratio wherein a majority of the laser light is directed to the sample cell” (Swanson fig. 2 and [0067] discloses an optical system wherein a 90/10 splitter is shown to split transmission laser between the sample/probe arm and the reference arm [splitter comprises a split ratio where majority of laser light is directed to sample cell]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Moghaddam in view of Dickerman to incorporate wherein the splitter comprises a split ratio wherein a majority of the laser light is directed to the sample cell as suggested by Swanson for the advantage of imparting balance to dispersion and birefringence for light within the sample path (Swanson [0068]).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moghaddam in view of Dickerson, and further in view of US 2004/0079639 A1 by Sakuichiro Adachi et al. (herein after “Adachi”).
Regarding claim 5, Moghaddam when modified by Dickerman discloses the apparatus of claim 1, and Moghaddam further teaches wherein the sample cell comprises a cell enclosure and a collimator (Moghaddam fig. 1B shows flow cell 208, which has been referred to as a particle interrogation zone; [0096] discloses the particle interrogation zone may comprise a cuvette and/or a flow cell, where it is recognized that a cuvette comprises an enclosure for a sample cell within; [0109] discloses that scattered signal 236 from the sample is collimated by lens 214; the sample cell is considered as comprising both the flow cell and cuvette as the cell enclosure along with the lens 214 which collimates light scattered from the sample).
Moghaddam when modified by Dickerman is silent to the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the sample cell comprises a shutter between a cell enclosure and a collimator.
However, Adachi does address this limitation. Moghaddam, Dickerman, and Adachi are considered to be analogous to the present invention because they are optical systems for sample analysis using light scattered from a sample and/or flow cell.
Adachi discloses the apparatus of claim 1, “wherein the sample cell comprises a shutter between a cell enclosure and a collimator” (Adachi fig. 10 discloses a detection unit 300 for collection of data signals from a capillary 1 inside a flow cell 3 [analogous to the cell enclosure for sample cell], the detection unit 300 comprising a shutter 307; while the shutter 307 is not explicitly shown between the cell enclosure and the collimator [the collimator being lens 214 from Moghaddam], a prima facie case of obviousness exists under MPEP § 2144.04 VI “Rearrangement of Parts”, as it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to rearrange the detection unit 300 to replace the laser stopper 309 of fig. 10 with the shutter 307, thereby providing a controllable means of preventing a beam from reflecting or scattering outside its intended path, consistent with the disclosure of [0068] of Adachi).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Moghaddam in view of Dickerman to incorporate wherein the sample cell comprises a shutter between a cell enclosure and a collimator as suggested by Adachi for the advantage of ensuring safety for operators by preventing undesirable beams from reflecting or scattering outside via the shutter, while also enabling light to pass through when desired and be detected by a detector 310 after incident light interaction at detection points within the flow cell (Adachi [0068]-[0069]).
Claims 6-7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moghaddam in view of Dickerman, and further in view of US 2007/0236700 A1 by Seok-Hyun Yun et al. (herein after “Yun”).
Regarding claim 6, Moghaddam when modified by Dickerman discloses the apparatus of claim 1, but is silent to the apparatus further comprising at least one polarizer optically coupled between any of the splitter, the modulators, the attenuator, and the combiner.
However, Yun does address this limitation. Moghaddam, Dickerman, and Yun are considered to be analogous to the present invention because they are interferometric optical systems for sample analysis.
Yun discloses the apparatus of claim 1, “further comprising at least one polarizer optically coupled between any of the splitter, the modulators, the attenuator, and the combiner” (Yun [0058] and fig. 8 discloses an embodiment of a detection arrangement comprising a light source, sample arm, and reference arm, wherein a polarizer 460 is disposed in the reference arm downstream from and optically coupled to fiber splitter 20 which separates the arrangement into sample and reference arms; upon reflection and return to detectors 140/142, light along the sample arm is incident to attenuator 430, and thus, the polarizer is optically coupled between the splitter 20 and the attenuator 430).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Moghaddam in view of Dickerman to incorporate at least one polarizer optically coupled between any of the splitter, the modulators, the attenuator, and the combiner as suggested by Yun for the advantage of achieving a detected signal with a balanced relative intensity to address any noise imparted to the signal by the light source 10 (Yun [0056] and [0058]), i.e. reducing noise within the detected signals.
Regarding claim 7, Moghaddam when modified by Dickerman discloses the apparatus of claim 1, but is silent to the apparatus wherein at least one of the modulators comprises a polarizer.
However, Yun does address this limitation.
Yun discloses the apparatus of claim 1, “wherein at least one of the modulators comprises a polarizer” (Yun [0054], [0057] and figs. 7-8 disclose a polarization modulator 405 within the detection arrangement [one of the modulators comprises a polarizer]; the polarization modulator 405 is also related to the embodiments shown in fig. 6B or 6C, comprising an acousto-optic frequency shifter 250 [i.e. an acousto-optic modulator]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Moghaddam in view of Dickerman to incorporate wherein at least one of the modulators comprises a polarizer as suggested by Yun for the advantage of achieving a detected signal with a balanced relative intensity to address any noise imparted to the signal by the light source 10 (Yun [0056] and [0058]), i.e. reducing noise within the detected signals.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moghaddam in view of Dickerman, and further in view of 5,710,628 A by Paul Waterhouse et al. (herein after “Waterhouse”).
Regarding claim 8, Moghaddam when modified by Dickerman discloses the apparatus of claim 1, but is silent to the apparatus wherein the laser comprises an optical fiber launch to couple light to the splitter.
However, Waterhouse does address this limitation. Moghaddam, Dickerman, and Waterhouse are considered to be analogous to the present invention because they are optical systems for sample analysis using light having interacted with a sample and/or flow cell.
Waterhouse discloses the apparatus of claim 1, “wherein the laser comprises an optical fiber launch to couple light to the splitter” (Waterhouse fig. 3A and col. 4 ll. 42-60 discloses a radiation source including a laser 203 that is coupled using a fiber launch 204 which couples light into an optical fiber 205 and eventually to a splitter 207 [laser comprises optical fiber launch to couple light into the splitter]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Moghaddam in view of Dickerman to incorporate wherein the laser comprises an optical fiber launch to couple light to the splitter as suggested by Waterhouse for the advantage of utilizing a reliable means by which to couple light from a light source into an optical fiber, as is well known in the art.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moghaddam in view of Dickerman, and further in view of US 2005/0162653 A1 by David Reginald Carver et al. (herein after “Carver”).
Regarding claim 9, Moghaddam discloses an apparatus (Moghaddam fig. 1B discloses an apparatus, [0104] discloses the system as a dual pass detection system), comprising:
a laser (Moghaddam [0105] and fig. 1B discloses laser light source 200);
a splitter optically coupled to the laser (Moghaddam [0106] discloses a first beam splitter 204 which splits the beam; the splitter is in optical communication with the laser [optically coupled]);
a reference arm polarization maintaining acousto-optic modulator optically coupled to a reference arm output of the splitter (Moghaddam [0112] and fig. 1B discloses an acousto-optic modulator (AOM) 250 which is optically coupled to the splitter 204, along a reference arm of the splitter, since [0106] and [0112] disclose beam 234 of fig. 1B as the reference beam [reference arm acousto-optic modulator coupled to a reference arm of the splitter]; [0012] discloses that in an embodiment, at least the reference beam is s-polarized from its split at splitter 204 (i.e. the reference beam E-ref- is s-polarized, and thus the polarization doesn’t change through the AOM - there is also no explicit disclosure of any polarization changes by the components themselves, leading one of ordinary skill in the art to conclude that the modulator is “polarization maintaining”, or in other words “polarization unaffecting”, under the BRI of the claim);
a sample cell to contain a sample and optically coupled to a sample arm output of the splitter (Moghaddam [0116] and fig. 1B show an interrogation beam 232 as an output from the splitter 204 [sample arm output of the splitter]; an interrogation zone 208 with one or more particles interacts with the interrogation beam 232; [0096] disclose “particle interrogation zone” as a cuvette and/or flow cell [i.e. a sample cell]; even though [0116] is in reference to fig. 5, the named components above are consistent with the embodiments of fig. 1B, and the passage is thus applicable to fig. 1B);
a combiner optically coupled to an output of [the reference arm AOM] and to an output of the sample arm (Moghaddam [0109] and fig. 1B show a second beam splitter 218; [0109] and [0116] disclose that the reference beam 234 and scattering signal from the sample cell 236 caused by interaction with the interrogation beams 232 are combined via splitter 218 [combiner, and thus is optically coupled to an output of the sample cell and the last component in the reference path, the second AOM]), and
a photo detector to detect light output from the combiner, and to output an intensity signal, I (Moghaddam fig. 1B and [0109] discloses a photodetector 216, where the photo detector detects the combination of the reference beam 243 and scattered signal 236, combined via the beam splitter 218 [photo detector detects light output from the combiner]; [0103] discloses that the intensity of the interference between signal and reference beams is analyzed via a photodetector, and the signal obtained by photo detector 216 is indicated in fig. 1B as i2 [photo detector outputs an intensity signal, i2)
Moghaddam does not explicitly disclose “a polarization maintaining attenuator optically coupled to an output of the reference arm modulator, and a combiner optically coupled to the output of the attenuator”, but it does suggest this limitation: (Moghaddam [0033] discloses that the intensity of the reference beam may be attenuated with a beam attenuator disposed between the first and second beam splitter; the first beam splitter has been disclosed as the splitter above and the second beam splitter is disclosed above as the combiner; while fig. 1B, relied upon to teach the AOM optically coupled to an of the splitter, shows an embodiment where two AOMs 250 and 252 are shown, [0103] discloses that in Heterodyne detection systems (such as fig. 1B), one or more acousto-optic modulators are used to shift the frequency of the reference beam, therefore, having only a single AOM 250 is evidenced by the disclosure of Moghaddam; [0111] discloses the reference beam is passed through a neutral density filter to attenuate the beam intensity [i.e. the attenuator]; in the case where a single AOM 250 is disposed in the reference arm, the AOM would be both coupled to the reference arm output from the splitter upstream and to the attenuator downstream, as claimed; the attenuator is considered as “polarization maintaining” for the same reasons as disclosed above with respect to the AOM – while [0111] appears to be in reference to fig. 1A, it would be obvious to incorporate the attenuator into the system of fig. 1B, optically coupling it to the output of the single AOM for the advantage of increasing the visibility of interference fringes at the detector plane, to enhance the signal to noise ratio (Moghaddam [0111]); the incorporation of the attenuator at the output of the single AOM provides the means by which the combiner is optically coupled to the output of the attenuator).
Moghaddam is silent to a long coherence length laser; a fiber splitter optically coupled to the laser; a polarization maintaining combiner; and a photo detector to detect light output from the combiner and to output a time-varying intensity signal, I, to be analyzed for shifts in frequency in the time-varying intensity signal to measure electrophoretic mobility in the sample.
However, Dickerman does address these limitations. Moghaddam and Dickerman are considered to be analogous to the present invention because they are interferometric optical systems for sample analysis.
Dickerman discloses “a long coherence length laser” (Dickerman fig. 2A discloses a polarized light source 202, where col 13 ll. 17-19 disclose the source 202 may be a laser; col 5 ll. 63 – col 6 ll. 13 discloses the use of a laser source with “longer coherence length” compared with simple laser diodes, given the use of modulators which continously vary the optical path in one arm of the interferometer (the use of modulators are disclosed in both Moghaddam and the claimed invention); a laser source with a “longer coherence length” in the context of Dickerman’s disclosure is consistent with the BRI of the claim given the “Claim Interpretation” section above);
“a fiber splitter optically coupled to the laser” (Dickerman col. 13 ll. 63 – col. 14 ll. 9 discloses additional illustrative examples of components which may be configured in the interferometers diagrammed within Dickerman, including fiber optic components [i.e. the splitter of coupled to the laser of Moghaddam may be a fiber splitter optically coupled to the laser, and fall within the embodiments of Dickerman);
“a polarization maintaining combiner” (Dickerman fig. 2A and col. 10 ll. 1-3 disclose non-polarizing beam splitter 214 is used to combine reference beam 216 and scattered beam 213 from the sample [polarization maintaining combiner]); and
“a photo detector to output a time-varying intensity signal, I, to be analyzed for shifts in frequency in the time-varying intensity signal to measure electrophoretic mobility in the sample” (Dickerman col. 4 ll. 45 – col 5 ll. 8 discloses the interferometer 110 (and interferometer A of fig. 2A) uses Doppler shifted light 116 [i.e. scattered light from sample in the interrogation arm] with un-shifted light from the source [i.e. reference light 216 along reference arm], where the recombined light may have beat frequency variations in light intensity, and recombined light with said beat frequency variations in light intensity are considered a light intensity beat signal [time-varying intensity signal], and may be sinusoidal; the beat signal is obtained by photodetectors (222 and 228 of fig. 2A); col. 5 ll. 35-44 discloses that the light intensity beat signals are due to particle speed and direction, that particle speed and direction are used to calculate distribution of electrophoretic mobility [shifts in frequency in time-varying intensity signal to measure electrophoretic mobility in the sample]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Moghaddam to incorporate a long coherence length laser, a fiber splitter optically coupled to the laser, a polarization maintaining combiner, and a photo detector to detect light output from the combiner and to output a time-varying intensity signal, I, to be analyzed for shifts in frequency in the time-varying intensity signal to measure electrophoretic mobility in the sample as suggested by Dickerman for the advantage of enabling the acquisition of longer, continuous photodetector signal data records, which allow for greater frequency resolution in spectra of the intensity signals (Dickerman col. 13 ll. 57-63).
Moghaddam when modified by Dickerman is silent to a sample arm polarization maintaining acousto-optic modulator optically coupled to an output of the sample cell, and a polarization maintaining combiner optically coupled to an output of the sample arm modulator.
However, Carver does address this limitation. Moghaddam, Dickerman, and Carver are considered to be analogous to the present invention because they utilize optical modulation to investigate samples.
Carver discloses “a sample arm polarization maintaining acousto-optic modulator optically coupled to an output of the sample cell” (Carver title discloses an apparatus for measuring spectral absorbance using an optical modulator; fig. 4 and [0017] discloses a sample holder 17 [sample cell], and an optical modulator 12 [optical modulator], wherein the sample holder 17 is placed after the optical modulator [modulator optically coupled to an output of the sample cell]; [0051] and fig. 4 discloses a beam splitter 15 which splits light from light source 10 into a reference arm [going to reference photosensor 16] and a sample arm going to sample photosensor 18 [sample arm optic modulator optically coupled to an output of the sample cell]; based on the disclosure of Carver when combined with the disclosure of Moghaddam in view of Dickerman renders obvious a “sample arm polarization maintaining acousto-optic modulator”, modulator type being “polarization maintaining acoust-optic” is taught by the primary reference), “and a polarization maintaining combiner optically coupled to an output of the sample arm modulator” (Moghaddam when modified by Dickerman has disclosed the polarization maintaining combiner; the incorporation of the optical modulator placed after the sample cell of Carver discloses this limitation).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Moghaddam in view of Dickerman to incorporate a sample arm polarization maintaining acousto-optic modulator optically coupled to an output of the sample cell, and a polarization maintaining combiner optically coupled to an output of the sample arm modulator as suggested by Carver for the advantage of removing any inadvertent interactions between the sample and incident light modulated before interaction with the sample by shifting the optical modulator to between the photodetector and sample cell.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moghaddam in view of Dickerman, in view of Carver, and further in view of Boer.
Regarding claim 10, Moghaddam when modified by Dickerman and Carver discloses the apparatus of claim 9, but is silent to the apparatus further comprising at least one polarization maintaining fiber coupling any of the laser, the splitter, the modulators, the attenuator, the sample cell, and the combiner together.
However, Boer does address this limitation. Moghaddam, Dickerman, Carver, and Boer are considered to be analogous to the present invention because they are optical systems with sample and reference arms for sample analysis.
Boer discloses the apparatus of claim 9, “further comprising at least one polarization maintaining fiber coupling any of the laser, the splitter, the modulators, the attenuator, the sample cell, and the combiner together” (Boer fig. 1 and [0038] discloses a first AOM, a second AOM, and two polarizing beam splitters which split/combine signals from the first AOM and second AOM as part of a reference arm of an interferometric apparatus; the reference arm light/radiation is prepared by a “fiber based polarization controller” which splits polarized signals from the two AOMs and directs them to further components downstream [the fiber couples any of equivalents of the splitter, modulators, and combiner together, and is considered as being “polarization maintaining” given its description as a “fiber based polarization controller”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Moghaddam in view of Dickerman and Carver to incorporate at least one polarization maintaining fiber coupling any of the laser, the splitter, the modulators, the attenuator, the sample cell, and the combiner together as suggested by Boer for the advantage of enabling a complete determination of the complex 2×2 Jones matrix for polarization states reflected from the sample arm via simultaneous measurement of the sample arm orthogonal polarization states (Boer [0042]).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moghaddam in view of Dickerman, in view of Carver, and further in view of Miller.
Regarding claim 11, Moghaddam when modified by Dickerman and Carver discloses the apparatus of claim 9, but is silent to the apparatus wherein any of the splitter, the modulators, the attenuator, and the combiner are fused together.
However, Miller does address this limitation. Moghaddam, Dickerman, Carver, and Miller are considered to be analogous to the present invention because they are optical systems with sample and reference arms for sample analysis.
Miller discloses the apparatus of claim 9, “wherein any of the splitter, the modulators, the attenuator, and the combiner are fused together” (Miller [0069] and fig. 5 discloses that a frequency shifter 126 and attenuator 114 of fig. 1 can be replaced by an acousto-optic modulator 540, which functions as a variable attenuator while imparting the desired modulation [modulator and attenuator are fused together]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Moghaddam in view of Dickerman and Carver to incorporate wherein any of the splitter, the modulators, the attenuator, and the combiner are fused together as suggested by Miller for the advantage of allowing necessary frequency difference between reference and sample beams to be generated by the modulator/attenuator combination, allowing replacement of other components in the apparatus (Miller [0069]), thereby decreasing the complexity of the system.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moghaddam in view of Dickerman, in view of Carver, and further in view of Swanson.
Regarding claim 11, Moghaddam when modified by Dickerman and Carver discloses the apparatus of claim 9, but is silent to the apparatus wherein the splitter comprises a split ratio wherein a majority of the laser light is directed to the sample cell.
However, Swanson does address this limitation. Moghaddam, Dickerman, Carver, and Swanson are considered to be analogous to the present invention because they are optical systems with sample and reference arms for sample analysis.
Swanson discloses the apparatus of claim 9, “wherein the splitter comprises a split ratio wherein a majority of the laser light is directed to the sample cell” (Swanson fig. 2 and [0067] discloses an optical system wherein a 90/10 splitter is shown to split transmission laser between the sample/probe arm and the reference arm [splitter comprises a split ratio where majority of laser light is directed to sample cell]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Moghaddam in view of Dickerman and Carver to incorporate wherein the splitter comprises a split ratio wherein a majority of the laser light is directed to the sample cell as suggested by Swanson for the advantage of imparting balance to dispersion and birefringence for light within the sample path (Swanson [0068]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSHUA M CARLSON whose telephone number is (571)270-0065. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri. 8:00AM - 5:00PM.
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 R 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.
/JOSHUA M CARLSON/Examiner, Art Unit 2877
/TARIFUR R CHOWDHURY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2877
Prosecution Insights