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.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-3, 5, 8, and 13-15 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 should be corrected to “the excitation laser and the second laser” (lines 10-11).
Claim 2 should be corrected to “The process according to Claim 1” (lines 1-2), “[[a]] the photoresist” (line 8), “[[a]] the volume” (lines 8-9), “[[a]] the light-emitting material” (lines 9-10), “the change” (line 10), “the photopolymerization” (lines 10-11), “the beam” (line 14), “[[a]] the excitation laser” (lines 14-15), “their locations” (line 19), “[[the]] a next incremental data set” (line 32), “[[the]] a data set just previously replicated.”
Claim 3 should be corrected to “The process according to Claim 2, said process” (lines 1-3), “the registered light signal data” (line 4), “[[a]] the model” (line 5), “the several polymerization starting points” (line 9), “[[the]] a desired geometry” (line 12),“the final replicated model
Claim 5 should be corrected to “the light-emitting material” (lines 1-2) “a polymerized or a non-polymerized region” (line 4).
Claim 8 should be corrected to “[[the]] a desired model” (line 4), “[[the]] a distance between the layers” (line 4), “[[the]] a former case” (lines 4-5).
Claim 13 should be corrected to “[[are]] is scanned with the characterization laser” (line 3).
Claim 14 should be corrected to “the light-emitting material” (line 2).
Claim 15 should be corrected to “The ,
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the emission of light signals” in lines 9-10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of examination, the limitation would be interpreted as “emission of light signals.”
Claims 1-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being dependent from claim 1.
Claim 2 recites the limitation “the Multi-Photon Lithography fabrication parameters” in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of examination, the limitation would be interpreted as “Multi-Photon Lithography fabrication parameters.”
Claim 3 recites the limitation “reconstructing a mesh over these points” in line 15. It is unclear whether the underlined limitation means (1) points where the polymerization process was started (claim 3 line 6), (2) points where the polymerization did not occur (claim 3 lines 11-12), or (3) both. For the purpose of examination, either of these interpretations would read on the claim.
Claims 7, 10, 13, 16, 18-19, and 24 recite the limitation “the characterization laser (beam)” (respectively, in claim 7 line 2, claim 10 line 2, claim 13 line 3, claim 16 line 1, claim 18 line 1, claim 19 line 1, claim 24 lines 2-3). There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, and/or it is unclear whether the underlined limitation means (1) the same as “an excitation laser” (claim 1 line 2), (2) the same as “a second laser” (claim 1 line 9), or (3) another new laser. For the purpose of examination, either of these interpretations would read on the claim.
Claim 7 recites the limitation “the excitation beam” in lines 4-5. It is unclear whether the limitation means (1) the same as “a beam of an excitation laser” (claim 1 line 2; i.e., beam by the excitation laser), or (2) the same as “the characterization laser beam” or “an irradiation” (claim 7 lines 2-3; i.e., beam by the characterization laser). For the purpose of examination, either of these interpretations would read on the claim.
Claim 9 recites the limitation “the laser” in line 3. It is unclear whether the limitation means (1) the same as “an excitation laser” (claim 1 line 2, claim 9 lines 1-2), or (2) the same as “a second laser” (claim 1 line 9). For the purpose of examination, either of these interpretations would read on the claim.
Appropriate correction or clarification is required.
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.
Claims 1, 4-6, 9-13, and 17-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kostenko* (WO 2021116501 A1) (*citation is based on the equivalent US publication, US 20220363010 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Kostenko teaches a multi-photon Lithography process ([0004-0009]: a volumetric microlithography improving the speed of fabrication of multiphoton lithography), comprising
directing and guiding a beam of an excitation laser into and through a volume of a photoresist in order to trigger a polymerization process in the volume of the photoresist which has been affected by the beam of the excitation laser ([0090-0097]: exposure system 102 which includes light source such as a laser and is movable in x, y, z directions, photosensitive medium 109, and sequence of exposure images 118 polymerization; figs. 1A, 1B),
wherein the photoresist comprises a light-emitting material that is sensitive to changes in the volume that occur during photo-polymerization ([0048]: fluorescence light induced during the illumination may be measured similar the method used in confocal microscopy in order to compute an updated concentration of the photosensitive compound in the medium; here, it is implied that the photosensitive medium comprises a light-emitting (e.g., fluorescent) material);
scanning the volume of the photoresist which has been affected by the beam of the excitation laser and its vicinities, between 0 and 10000000 μs after excitation with the excitation laser, with a second laser, thereby triggering the emission of light signals in the volume of the photoresist which has been affected by both lasers ([0135-0136]: an exposure system comprising two illumination systems 702, 704; [0048, 0111]: the light transmitted through the build volume measured by transmission microscopy or the fluorescence light induced during the illumination measured in confocal microscopy in real-time during the fabrication process to optimize the sequence of exposure images; figs. 1A, 1B, 7; here, it is at least implied that the two illumination systems 702 and 704 (i.e., “excitation laser” and “a second laser,” respectively, as recited) are illuminated at the same time (i.e., 0 μs after excitation with the excitation laser) and the light transmitted is “the emission of light signals”; AND/OR, the fluorescence light induced during the illumination is “the emission of light signals” and a laser1 in confocal microscopy can be “a second laser”), and
determining/inferring the volume of polymerized photoresist based on [the intensity] of the emitted light signals ([0048]: the light transmitted through the build volume or the fluorescence light induced during the illumination may be measured similar the method used in transmission microscopy or confocal microscopy in order to compute an updated absorptivity or concentration of the photosensitive compound (thus, a volume of polymerized photoresist can be inferred) in the medium; [0111]: a monitoring system 226 measuring the transmitted radiation, scattered radiation, or fluorescence radiation so as to measure the change in absorptivity, refractive index, or concentration of photosensitive compounds in every point of the build volume before, during, or after the exposure).
Kostenko is silent about the bracketed limitation(s) as presented above, i.e., the determining/inferring is based on “the intensity” of the emitted light signals. However, it would have been implied or at least obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that changes in both the intensity and the wavelength of the fluorescence radiation would be considered when the fluorescence radiation is measured for the determination/inference the concentration of the photosensitive compound.
Regarding claim 4, Kostenko teaches the process according to claim 1, wherein the photoresist is a positive or a negative photoresist ([0022]: the photoresist may be a photopolymeric photoresist, a photo-decomposing photoresist, a photo-crosslinking photoresist, or any other type of suitable photoresist).
Regarding claim 5, Kostenko teaches the process according to claim 1, wherein the light emitting material is a fluorescent compound, which exhibits polymerization sensitive fluorescence, in such a way that a different fluorescence signal can be registered depending on whether it is emitted from a polymerized or non-polymerized region ([0048, 0111]: fluorescence light induced during the illumination may be measured similar the method used in confocal microscopy in order to compute an updated concentration of the photosensitive compound in the medium in every point of the build volume before, during, or after the exposure, and in general, such measurements can be used either during the initialization of the fabrication process, in real-time during the fabrication process to optimize the sequence of exposure images, or at the end, for quality control; of note, here, it is implied that the light emitting material is a fluorescent compound as fluorescent light is induced during illumination; also, it is implied or at least obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that “compute an updated concentration of the photosensitive compound in the medium in every point of the build volume before, during, or after the exposure” involves measuring/storing the measured respective fluorescent signals in every point for computation (i.e., determination) of a level and a region of polymerization).
Regarding claim 6, Kostenko teaches the process according to claim 1, wherein the excitation laser beam is formed as a train of modulated laser pulses ([0010]: the computation may also be based on optical specifications of the exposure system, typically expressed as a point spread function, optical transfer function, or impulse response, determining a geometry of light propagation inside the build volume; [0018, 0019, 0032]: impulse response of the exposure system).
Regarding claims 9 and 17, Kostenko teaches the process according to claim 1, wherein the excitation laser beam triggers polymerization in a volume of the photoresist, which has been affected by the laser including the close vicinity of the laser focus ([0108-0109, 0112]: in order to reduce or eliminate the effects of such stray radiation, light of a second wavelength forming a negative pattern may be used to inhibit the chemical reaction and increase the resolution of the target structure), but does not specifically teach that the close vicinity of the laser focus is in a radius of ±1-5000 nm (claim 9) and in a radius of ±1-1500 nm (claim 17).
Here, although Kostenko is silent about the dimension of the close vicinity of the laser focus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing invention to modify the dimension of the close vicinity of laser focus, through routine optimization and experimentation, to get a desired radius of the close vicinity that is affected by the laser excitation in consideration of several operation parameters such as chemical reaction rate of photosensitive medium, wavelength/intensity of excitation laser beam, a depth of focus, etc. in order to fabricate a 3D printed object with a desired precision and accuracy within a reasonable time (Kostenko: derived from [0049-0059]). See MPEP 2144..05, II (A).
Regarding claims 10 and 18-19, Kostenko teaches the process according to claim 1, but does not specifically teach that the characterization laser ([0048, 0111]: monitoring system 111, 226 measuring fluorescence radiation, similar to a confocal microscopy set-up) has a power in the range of 0.1-100 mW (claim 10), 1-80 mW (claim 18), or 5-70 mW (claim 19).
Here, although Kostenko is silent about the power of the characterization laser, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing invention to modify the power of the characterization laser, through optimization and experimentation, to get a desired level of fluorescence signal for detecting concentration of photosensitive compounds, balancing high signal-to-noise ratio against photodamaging, photobleaching, or detector saturation (Kostenko: derived from [0048, 0111]). See MPEP 2144..05, II (A).
Regarding claims 11 and 20-21, Kostenko teaches the process according to claim 1, but does not specifically teach that the excitation laser ([0090-0097]: exposure system 102) has a power in the range of 0.1-80 mW (claim 11), 1-50 mW (claim 20), or 5-30 mW (claim 21).
Here, although Kostenko is silent about the power of the excitation laser, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing invention to modify the power of the excitation laser, through optimization and experimentation, to be sufficient to initiate polymerization of the photosensitive medium in consideration of the optical/chemical properties of photosensitive medium so as to fabricate a 3D printed object with a desired precision and accuracy within a reasonable time (Kostenko: derived from [0010, 0017, 0023, 0101]). See MPEP 2144..05, II (A).
Regarding claims 12 and 22-23, Kostenko teaches the process according to claim 1, wherein the excitation laser has a scanning speed in the range of 10-20000 μm/s, 50-12000 μm/s, or 80-12000 μm/s ([0101]: typical scanning speeds may be 100 micros per second). Here, the disclosed range anticipates the recited ranges.
Regarding claims 13 and 24, Kostenko teaches the process according to claim 1, but does not specifically teach that the volume of the photoresist which has been affected by the beam of the excitation laser are scanned with the characterization laser, between 100 and 400000 μs (claim 13) or between 200 and 100000 μs (claim 24) after excitation with the excitation laser.
Here, although Kostenko is silent about a specifically delayed time for scanning with the characterization laser after excitation with the excitation laser, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing invention to modify the delayed time, through routine optimization and experimentations, to be long enough for the photosensitive medium to undergo polymerization upon the excitation with the excitation laser but short enough not to delay overall 3D printing process. See MPEP 2144..05, II (A).
Claims 2, 7-8, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kostenko* (WO 2021116501 A1) (*citation is based on the equivalent US publication, US 20220363010 A1) as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Rolland (US 20160136889 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Kostenko teaches the process according to Claim 1, said process comprising the steps:
a) providing a representation of a model to be replicated ([0096]: an input 3D model of a 3D target structure; fig. 1A);
b) deconstructing the model to be replicated into a layer- or path-based representation ([0096]: the processor may convert an input 3D model of a 3D target structure into a voxel representation (a 3D array of volume elements); [0100]: a sequence of exposure images 118 S0(x, y, z) for different focal lengths as computed by the computation module; fig. 1A);
c) providing a first set of values for the Multi-Photon Lithography fabrication parameters ([0096-0097, 0100]: the processor may convert an input 3D model of a 3D target structure into a voxel representation (a 3D array of volume elements) of the target polymerization rate Po (x, y, z), i.e. the speed of polymerization at voxel positions of the 3D target structure that is required to form the desired 3D target structure, and the processor of the computer may be configured to determine a sequence of exposure images 118 S0 (x, y, z) for a given target polymerization rate P0 (x, y, z) for different focal length);
d) providing a photoresist casted or coated onto a substrate, thereby providing a volume of the photoresist wherein the photoresist comprises a light-emitting material, that is sensitive to changes in the volume that occur during photo- polymerization ([0090, 0092]: the planar shaped photosensitive medium may be implemented as a photoresist layer on a substrate, e.g. a transparent substrate. Alternatively, the planar shaped photosensitive medium 109 may be a liquid photo-polymerizable medium in a planar shaped container; figs. 1A-B); wherein the sequence of steps a)-d) can deliberately be changed (as cited in each of the steps a, b, c, and d);
e) using the layer- or path-based representation of the model and the first set of values for the MPL fabrication parameters to direct and guide a beam of an excitation laser into and through the volume of the photoresist as claimed in claim 1 ([0097, 0100]: the control module subsequently executes an exposure process based on determined sequence of exposure images 118 S0 (x, y, z) for a given target polymerization rate P0 (x, y, z) at respective focal lengths);
f) scanning the volume of the photoresist which has been affected by the beam of the excitation laser in step e) and its vicinities as claimed in claim 1 ([0048, 0111]: the light transmitted through the build volume measured by transmission microscopy or the fluorescence light induced during the illumination measured in confocal microscopy in real-time during the fabrication process to optimize the sequence of exposure images; figs. 1A, 1B);
g) [registering the light signals together with at least the coordinates of their location of emission yielding in registered light signal data];
h) determining/inferring the volume of polymerized photoresist based on the intensity of [the registered light signal] as claimed in claim 1 ([0048, 0111]);
i) comparing the volume of polymerized photoresist determined in step h) with the corresponding volume in the layer- or path-based representation of the model, resulting in a satisfactory or a non-satisfactory reproduction of the volume ([0048, 0111]: measurements can be used in real-time during the fabrication process to optimize the sequence of exposure images);
j) adjusting the first set of values for the MPL fabrication parameters if the comparison in step i) is non-satisfactory, yielding in an adjusted set of values for the MPL fabrication parameters; or maintaining the first set of values for the MPL fabrication parameters if the comparison in step i) is satisfactory ([0048, 0111]: measurements can be used in real-time during the fabrication process to optimize the sequence of exposure images);
k) recursively performing steps e)-j) with either the adjusted set of values for the MPL fabrication parameters or the maintained set of values for the MPL fabrication parameters and the next incremental data set of the representation of the model adjacent to the data set just previously replicated so as to progressively direct and guide the beam of the excitation laser into and through the volume of the photoresist until the model has been replicated ([0048, 0111]: measurements can be used in real-time during the fabrication process to optimize the sequence of exposure images).
Kostenko does not specifically teach the bracketed limitation(s) as presented above, i.e., registering the light signals together with at least the coordinates of their location of emission yielding in registered light signal data, and determining/inferring the volume of polymerized photoresist based on the intensity of “the registered light signal,” but Rolland teaches the limitation(s) as follows:
Rolland teaches the methods and apparatus of 3D fabrication can features to implement process control, including feedback and feed-forward control to enhance the speed and/or reliability of the method ([0002, 0150]). Rolland teaches the recursively performing the steps of e) through j) as recited to maintain the gradient of polymerization zone via feedback and feed-forward control in response to a monitored parameter in connection with a set of process parameters or instructions previously determined, a serious of test runs or “trial and error” ([0150-0159]). Here, it is implied or at least obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the monitored parameter is registered or characterized in connection with its process parameters/instructions such that the actual output (i.e., measured variables) aligns with a desired target (i.e., set points of process parameters or instructions) in order to quantify errors and allow corrective feedback and feed-forward control.
In the same field of endeavor of three-dimensional fabrication, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing invention to modify the real-time fabrication monitoring method by monitoring fluorescence light induced during the illumination of Kostenko to further include known steps of registering the monitored parameter and using the registered data to derived a desired control over the process as taught by Rolland in order to obtain known results or a reasonable expectation of successful results of ensuring real-time process control and instant detecting of errors or deviations from a desired target operation.
Regarding claims 7 and 16, modified Kostenko teaches the process according to claim 2, wherein the characterization laser beam is a pulsed or continuous wave beam of laser light with an irradiance that is able to promote photon emission in the photoresist volume that was excited and modified by the excitation beam, and that is able to promote photon emission through excitation of a fluorescent transition (Kostenko: [0048, 0111]: the fluorescence light induced during the illumination measured in confocal microscopy in order to compute an updated absorptivity or concentration of the photosensitive compound (thus, a volume of polymerized photoresist can be inferred) in the medium in real-time during the fabrication process to optimize the sequence of exposure images; here, a laser2 in confocal microscopy can be “the characterization laser beam”).
Regarding claim 8, modified Kostenko teaches the process according to claim 2, wherein in the deconstruction the model is sliced or decomposed in a number of coplanar layers or a set of 3D lines, or any other equivalent representation, with information of the intersection of each of these layers or lines and the desired model and the distance between the layers in the former case (Kostenko: [0009]: the method may also comprise computing, based on a shape of the 3D target structure and, preferably, properties of the photosensitive medium and/or specifications of the exposure system, a sequence of exposure images, where each exposure image of the sequence of exposure images is associated with a plane of the plurality of planes in the build volume, and controlling the exposure system to position a focal plane of the exposure system at the depth in the build volume associated with the respective plane and to illuminate the build volume with the exposure image associated with the respective plane; [0015, 0029-0036]).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kostenko* (WO 2021116501 A1) (*citation is based on the equivalent US publication, US 20220363010 A1) as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Strehmel** (Strehmel et al., “New Intramolecular Fluorescence Probes That Monitor Photoinduced Radical and Cationic Cross-Linking,” Macromolecules, 1999, vol. 32, pp. 7476–7482) (** listed in IDS filed on 03/28/2024).
Regarding claim 14, Kostenko teaches the process according to claim 1, but does not specifically teach that the light emitting material is 7-Diethylamino-3-thenoyl-coumarin (DETC), trans,trans-1,4-bis[2-(2′,5′-dimethoxy)phenyl-ethenyl)-2,3,5,6-tetrafluorobenzene, 7-Dimethylamino-4-trifluoromethyl-coumarin or 4-Dimethylamino-4′-nitrostilbene.
Strehmel teaches fluorescence probes that monitor photoinduced radical and cationic cross-linking reaction due to its solvatochromic behavior (abstract). The probes includes 7-Diethylamino-3-thenoyl-coumarin (DETC), trans,trans-1,4-bis[2-(2′,5′-dimethoxy)phenyl-ethenyl)-2,3,5,6-tetrafluorobenzene (abstract), 7-Dimethylamino-4-trifluoromethyl-coumarin or 4-Dimethylamino-4′-nitrostilbene (pg. 7476).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing invention to modify the photosensitive medium of Kostenko to further include a known fluorescent probe for monitoring a level of curing as taught by Strehmel in order to obtain known results or a reasonable expectation of successful results of accurately monitoring a level of polymerization upon irradiation with an excitation laser so as to facilitate 3D object fabrication with improved accuracy and precision.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3 and 15 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Saha (US 20190126537 A1) teaches additive manufacturing systems and methods for high-rate additive manufacturing with submicron features using a multiphoton process ([0003], fig. 1).
Kim (US 20090278058 A1) teaches multiphoton excitation microscopy/ microfabrication, and in particular to axial resolution for two-photon wide-field illumination microscopy and microfabrication ([0003], fig. 1).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to INJA SONG whose telephone number is (571)270-1605. The examiner can normally be reached Mon. - Fri. 8 AM - 5 PM.
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, Xiao (Sam) Zhao can be reached at (571)270-5343. 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.
/INJA SONG/Examiner, Art Unit 1744
1 It is evidenced that the confocal microscopy comprises a laser as an illumination source (page. 2nd para., Elliott, “Confocal Microscopy” Principles and Modern Practices” Curr Protoc Cytom., 2020 March 01; 92(1)).
2 It is evidenced that the confocal microscopy comprises a laser as an illumination source (page. 2nd para., Elliott, “Confocal Microscopy” Principles and Modern Practices” Curr Protoc Cytom., 2020 March 01; 92(1)).