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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
Acknowledgement is made of receipt of Information Disclosure Statement(s) (PTO-1449) filed 02/21/2024 and 03/14/2024. An initialed copy is attached to this Office Action.
Response to Amendment
The amendment to Claim(s) 1-12, the addition of claim 13, Specification (Abstract), and the Specification (added cross-reference to related applications), filed 02/21/2024, are acknowledged and accepted.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 5, 6, 12, and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Mickolajczyk et al., (hereafter Mickolajczyk) (US 2016/0238830 A1), of record.
With respect to Claim 1, Mickolajczyk discloses an optical slide to receive a biological sample for the purpose of total internal reflection microscopy imaging, the optical slide comprising: an optically transparent base substrate (110a, Figure 1); and a stack of layers (120a-150a, Figure 1) of dielectric materials (¶[0025]) wherein said stack (120a-150a, Figure 1) is arranged directly on the base substrate (110a, Figure 1) and formed of a succession of pairs of alternating thin layers of a first dielectric material (Al2O3 and ZnO,¶[0025]) of high refractive index (¶[0019]-[0020]) and of a second dielectric material (MgF2 (magnesium fluoride), ¶[0025]) of low refractive index (¶[0019]-[0020]) capable of producing an optical resonance (¶[0024]) at a predetermined angle of incidence (¶[0024]) and illumination wavelength (¶[0024]) of the optical slide in total reflection mode (¶[0024]).
With respect to Claim 2, the optical slide according to claim 1, wherein: -the first dielectric material (Al2O3 and ZnO,¶[0025]) has a high refractive index between 1.8 and 3.5 (ZnO (zinc oxide has a refractive index of 2.0, ¶[0019] and [0025]); - the second dielectric material (MgF2 (magnesium fluoride), ¶[0025]) has a low refractive index between 1.2 and 1.7 (MgF2 (magnesium fluoride) has a refractive index of 1.38 (well-known in the art), ¶[0019] and [0025]).
With respect to Claim 5, the optical slide according to claim 1, wherein said stack (120a-150a, Figure 1) has a total thickness less than 10 micrometres, (¶[0019]).
With respect to Claim 6, the optical slide according to claim 1, wherein said stack (120a-150a, Figure 1) comprises a number of thin layers typically between 4 and 20 (see Figures 1 and 4).
With respect to Claim 12. a method for manufacturing an optical slide to receive a biological sample for the purpose of total internal reflection microscopy imaging, wherein the method comprises: depositing on an optically transparent base substrate (110a, Figure 1) a plurality of alternating and successive thin layers of a first dielectric material (Al2O3 and ZnO,¶[0025]) and of a second dielectric material (MgF2 (magnesium fluoride), ¶[0025]) so as to form a dielectric multilayer stack (120a-150a, Figure 1) capable of producing an optical resonance (¶[0024]) at a predetermined angle of incidence (¶[0024]) and illumination wavelength (¶[0024]) of the optical slide in total reflection mode (¶[0016] and [0024]).
With respect to Claim 13, the optical slide according to claim 5, wherein the total thickness is between 0.2 and 4.0 micrometres (¶[0025]).
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.
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(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Mickolajczyk (US 2016/0238830 A1), of record, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Gao et al., (hereafter Gao) (“Polarization multiplexed fluorescence enhancer using a pixelated one-dimensional photonic band gap structure” OPTICS LETTERS, OPTICAL SOCIETY OF AMERICA, US, Vol. 37, No. 13, 01 July 2012 (2012-07-01),, pages 2640-2642, XP001576868), of record, and Ding et al., (hereafter Ding) (US 2018/0258523 A1).
With respect to Claim 3, Mickolajczyk teaches the optical slide according to claim 1, wherein the layer of said stack (120a-150a, Figure 1) positioned to be in contact with the sample (¶[0024].
Mickolajczyk fails to teach a third biocompatible dielectric material (see Figures 1a and 1c) having an absorption coefficient between 1x10-8 and 1x10-2.
Mickolajczyk teaches a waveguide for TIR microscopy and Gao teaches fluorescence enhancement using photonic crystals which can be used in TIR microscopy.
Geo teaches a third biocompatible dielectric material (see Figures 1a and 1c).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective date of the invention to modify the teachings of Mickolajczyk having the TIR microscope with the teachings of Gao having the third biocompatible dielectric material for the purpose of increased reflectivity and better broadband performance.
Mickolajczyk in view of Gao fail to teach the dielectric material having an absorption coefficient between 1x10-8 and 1x10-2.
Ding teaches a coated substrate having dielectric material which can be used in TIR microscopy.
Ding teaches the dielectric material having an absorption coefficient between 1x10-8 and 1x10-2 (¶[0028]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective date of the invention to modify the teachings of Mickolajczyk in view of Gao having the TIR microscope with the teachings of Ding having the dielectric material having an absorption coefficient between 1x10-8 and 1x10-2 for the purpose of thermal stability, ¶[0028].
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Mickolajczyk (US 2016/0238830 A1), of record, as applied to claim 1 above, and in view of Gao (“Polarization multiplexed fluorescence enhancer using a pixelated one-dimensional photonic band gap structure” OPTICS LETTERS, OPTICAL SOCIETY OF AMERICA, US, Vol. 37, No. 13, 01 July 2012 (2012-07-01),, pages 2640-2642, XP001576868), of record, and Ding (US 2018/0258523 A1) and in further view of Hendrix et al., (hereafter Hendrix) (US 12,317,620)
With respect to Claim 4, Mickolajczyk in view of Gao and Ding teach the optical slide according to claim 3 and the first dielectric material.
Mickolajczyk in view of Gao and Ding fail to teach wherein the first dielectric material is based on Nb₂O₅, the dielectric second material is based on SiO₂ and the third biocompatible dielectric material is based on SiO₂ or SiOx.
Mickolajczyk in view of Gao and Ding teach a waveguide for TIR microscopy and Hendrix teaches an optical filter which can be used on the waveguide in TIR microscopy.
Hendrix teaches a third biocompatible dielectric material (see Figure 4a) wherein the first dielectric material is based on Nb₂O₅ (niobium pentoxide Nb₂O₅, column 7, lines 22-48), the dielectric second material is based on SiO₂ (silicon dioxide SiO₂, column 7, lines 22-48) and the third biocompatible dielectric material is based on SiO₂ or SiOx (silicon dioxide SiO₂, column 7, lines 22-48).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective date of the invention to modify the teachings of Mickolajczyk in view of Gao and Ding having the TIR microscope with the teachings of Hendrix having the first, second and third dielectric material based in the compounds above for the purpose of having a low optical loss and reduce the effect of shift of the transmission wavelength with an angle of incidence, column 7, lines 22-48.
Claim(s) 7-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Mickolajczyk (US 2016/0238830 A1), of record, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Brozik et al., (hereafter Brozik) (US 2022/0229280 A1).
With respect to Claim 7, Mickolajczyk teaches a total internal reflection microscopy system comprising: an optical slide comprising: an optically transparent base substrate (110a, Figure 1); and a stack of layers (120a-150a, Figure 1) of dielectric materials, wherein said stack (120a-150a, Figure 1) is arranged directly on the base substrate (110a, Figure 1) and formed of a succession of pairs of alternating thin layers of a first dielectric material (Al2O3 and ZnO,¶[0025]) of high refractive index (ZnO (zinc oxide has a refractive index of 2.0, ¶[0025]) and of a second dielectric material (MgF2 (magnesium fluoride), ¶[0025]) of low refractive index (MgF2 (magnesium fluoride) has a refractive index of 1.38 (well-known in the art), ¶[0025]) capable of producing an optical resonance (¶[0024]) at a predetermined angle of incidence (¶[0024]) and illumination wavelength (¶[0024]) of the optical slide in total reflection mode;
Mickolajczyk fails to teach a light source configured to emit a light beam; and a microscope lens configured to form the light beam towards the optical slide; wherein the optical slide and the microscope lens are configured so that the angle of incidence is: greater than or equal to a critical angle of total internal reflection, and less than or equal to a limit value defined depending on the numerical aperture of the microscope lens.
Mickolajczyk teaches a waveguide for TIR microscopy and Brozik teaches an optical microscope.
Brozik teaches a light source (¶[0018]) configured to emit a light beam (laser light, ¶[0018]); and a microscope lens (H, Figure 1) configured to form (¶[0018]) the light beam towards the optical slide (sample, ¶[0018]); the system being characterised in that wherein the optical slide (sample, ¶[0018]) and the microscope lens (H, Figure 1) are configured so that the angle of incidence (¶[0020]) is: greater than or equal to a critical angle of total internal reflection (¶[0020]), and less than or equal to a limit value defined depending on the numerical aperture (¶[0020]) of the microscope lens (H, Figure 1).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective date of the invention to modify the teachings of Mickolajczyk having the TIR microscope with the teachings of Brozik having a light source configured to emit a light beam; and a microscope lens configured to form the light beam towards the optical slide, for the purpose of increasing optical resolution, ¶[0020].
With respect to Claim 8, Mickolajczyk further teaches wherein the angle of incidence (¶[0024]) is between 62 and 80 degrees (see Figure 2).
With respect to Claim 9, Mickolajczyk teaches the total internal reflection microscopy system according to claim 7.
Mickolajczyk fails to teach wherein the microscope lens has a numerical aperture typically greater than or equal to 1.45.
Mickolajczyk teaches a waveguide for TIR microscopy and Brozik teaches an optical microscope.
Brozik teaches wherein the microscope lens has a numerical aperture typically greater than or equal to 1.45, (1.57, ¶[0020]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective date of the invention to modify the teachings of Mickolajczyk having the TIR microscope with the teachings of Brozik having wherein the microscope lens has a numerical aperture typically greater than or equal to 1.45 for the purpose of increasing optical resolution, ¶[0020].
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Mickolajczyk (US 2016/0238830 A1), of record, in view of Brozik (US 2022/0229280 A1), as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of (hereafter) Buckland (US 9,402,539).
With respect to Claim 10, Mickolajczyk in view of Brozik teach the total internal reflection microscopy system according to claim 7 and the microscope lens.
Mickolajczyk in view of Brozik fail to teach wherein the microscope lens has a variable numerical aperture.
Mickolajczyk teaches a waveguide for TIR microscopy, Brozik teaches an optical microscope, and Buckland teaches surgical microscope.
Buckland teaches wherein the microscope lens has a variable numerical aperture (numerical aperture is adjusted, column 27, lines 33-36).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective date of the invention to modify the teachings of Mickolajczyk in view of Brozik having the TIR microscope with the teachings of Buckland having the microscope lens has a variable numerical aperture for the purpose of image brightness.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Mickolajczyk (US 2016/0238830 A1), of record, in view of Buckland (US 9,402,539).
With respect to Claim 11, Mickolajczyk teaches the total internal reflection microscopy system according to claim 1 and the microscope lens.
Mickolajczyk fails to teach wherein the microscope lens has a variable focus.
Mickolajczyk teaches a waveguide for TIR microscopy and Buckland teach surgical microscope.
Buckland teaches wherein the microscope lens has a variable focus (focus is adjusted, column 27, lines 33-36).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective date of the invention to modify the teachings of Mickolajczyk having the TIR microscope with the teachings of Buckland having the microscope lens has a variable focus for the purpose of optimum focus is targeted for better image clarity.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TAMARA Y WASHINGTON whose telephone number is (571)270-3887. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thur 730-530 EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Stephone Allen can be reached at 571-272-2434. 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.
/TYW/Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2872
/STEPHONE B ALLEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2872