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 Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation is: analyzing device in claims 32-33.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
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) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-3, 10-11, 17-20, 25, 27, 29-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kukura (US 20190004299 A1) in view of Midtvedt (Size and Refractive Index Determination of Subwavelength Particle; cited by Applicant) and Mahmoodabadi (Point spread function in interferometric scattering microscopy (iSCAT). Part I: aberrations in defocusing and axial localization; cited by Applicant).
Regarding claim 1, Kukura teaches a method of determining nanoparticle properties of nanoparticles included in a sample, comprising the steps of
- collecting sequential frames of images (paragraph 68) by employing an interferometric microscope device (figure 1; abstract), wherein the sample (3) is illuminated with illumination light from a coherent light source device (4; paragraph 42) and the images are created by scattering light (paragraph 48) from the nanoparticles (paragraphs 127, 133, and 70) superimposed with non-scattered reference light (paragraph 49), said scattering light and reference light having a wavelength larger than a cross-sectional dimension of the nanoparticles (paragraphs 70, 37, and 42),
- tracking the nanoparticles in the sequential frames of images (paragraphs 2, 73, 163, and 166), wherein at least one interferometric point spread function (iPSF) feature of each of the nanoparticles is established (paragraph 127) and nanoparticle trajectory motion data are determined for each nanoparticle, comprising the nanoparticle positions in each frame (paragraphs 2, 73, 163, and 166),
- for each nanoparticle, calculating an interferometric nanoparticle contrast from the at least one iPSF feature of the nanoparticle (paragraph 128),
- creating a two-parametric nanoparticle scatter plot, wherein each nanoparticle has a plot position based on the calculated parameter and the calculated interferometric nanoparticle contrast thereof and all the nanoparticles create a distribution of nanoparticle plot positions (figures, including figure 7), and
- analysing the distribution of nanoparticle plot positions for providing the nanoparticle properties (paragraph 89).
PNG
media_image1.png
530
414
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Kukura doesn’t explicitly teach - for each nanoparticle, calculating a nanoparticle size from the nanoparticle trajectory motion data of the nanoparticle; the scatter plot includes size.
Like Kukura, Midtvedt is also directed to interferometric microscopy and to particle tracking and teaches for each nanoparticle, calculating a nanoparticle size from the nanoparticle trajectory motion data of the nanoparticle (page 1908); the scatter plot includes size (figure 2). Additionally, Midtvedt teaches this provides the benefit of characterizing nanoparticles in diverse fields such as biotechnology and medicine (page 1908). As it is relevant to dependent claims, it is also noted that Midtvedt teaches determining size and refractive index and determining phase contrast and plotting the phase contrast with size in a 2d scatter plot (pages 1908 and 1911).
PNG
media_image2.png
936
414
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the above combination such that for each nanoparticle, calculating a nanoparticle size from the nanoparticle trajectory motion data of the nanoparticle; the scatter plot includes size – in order to more fully characterize particles, which is especially useful in a variety of fields such as biotechnology and medicine.
For the reasons given above, the examiner considers the above claim to be rendered obvious by the above combination. Alternatively, if one were to consider the interferometric nanoparticle contrast of the above combination as being distinct from the interferometric nanoparticle contrast defined on page 7 of Applicant’s specification, Mahmoodabadi is also directed to interferometric microscopy and teaches the interferometric nanoparticle contrast (and explicitly describes it the same way as Applicant’s specification) from at least one iPSF encodes precise information about the particles position (section 2). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the interferometric nanoparticle contrast be the interferometric nanoparticle contrast as defined on page 7 of Applicant’s specification in order to have precise determinations of the particle’s position.
Regarding claim 2, in the above combination the plot positions are determined by the nanoparticle sizes and values of a function of the maximum interferometric nanoparticle contrast of the nanoparticles (Kukura, figure 7, and Midtvedt, figure 2, and associated text).
Regarding claim 3, the above combination suggests but doesn’t explicitly teach the analysing step comprises at least one of - calculating at least one mean nanoparticle size of the nanoparticles , - calculating at least one standard deviation of nanoparticle sizes of the nanoparticles (suggested by the +/-6 nm in page 1909, column 1 of Midtvedt). Additionally, Official Notice is taken that it is well known in the art of measuring and testing to calculate a mean particle size and standard deviation. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the above combination such that the analysing step comprises at least one of - calculating at least one mean nanoparticle size of the nanoparticles , - calculating at least one standard deviation of nanoparticle sizes of the nanoparticles in order to provide a descriptive measure of the size distribution using only a few numbers (as opposed to providing only the full dataset of all the particle sizes).
Regarding claim 10, in the above combination the nanoparticles comprise at least two nanoparticle groups (Midtvedt, figure 2), - athe mean nanoparticle size the standard deviation of nanoparticle sizes the mean refractive index, athe standard deviation of refractive indices, a mean nanoparticle shape and/or a nanoparticle material of the nanoparticles of one of the nanoparticle groups differ from the mean nanoparticle size , the standard deviation of nanoparticle sizes , the mean refractive index, the standard deviation of refractive indices, the mean nanoparticle shape and/or the nanoparticle material of the nanoparticles of another one of the nanoparticle groups (Midtvedt, figure 2), and - the analysing step comprises identifying the nanoparticle groups (Midtvedt, figure 2).
Regarding claim 11, in the above combination the analysing step comprises - calculating the mean nanoparticle sizes , the standard deviations of nanoparticle sizes , the mean refractive indices, the standard deviations of refractive indices, the mean nanoparticle shapes and/or the nanoparticle materials of the nanoparticle groups (Midtvedt, figure 2).
Regarding claim 17, Kukura doesn’t explicitly teach the analysing step comprises at least one of - applying a pattern recognition on the distribution of nanoparticle plot positions, and - applying a machine-learning-based data analysis on the distribution of nanoparticle plot positions.
Official Notice is taken that it is well known in the art of optical measuring and testing to use either pattern recognition or machine-learning on data.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the above combination such that the analysing step comprises at least one of - applying a pattern recognition on the distribution of nanoparticle plot positions, and - applying a machine-learning-based data analysis on the distribution of nanoparticle plot positions – in order to speed up the time spent by user and reduce the workload of the user while still providing precise data analysis.
Regarding claim 18, Kukura implies the nanoparticles comprise at least one of - nanoparticles with a characteristic dimension in a range from 5 nm to 500 nm, - spherical nanoparticles , - non-spherical nanoparticles , - inorganic nanoparticles , - organic nanoparticles , - nanoparticles with surface layers, and - nanoparticles with a multi-layer structure (for example, it is implicit that the particles mentioned in paragraphs 96 are either spherical or non-spherical, also it contains surface layer).
Regarding claim 19, Kukura teaches flowing the sample through the field of view of the interferometric microscope device (paragraphs 133 and 154-155).
Regarding claim 20, Kukura teaches a multi-wavelength measurement is executed , wherein - the step of collecting sequential frames of the interference patterns is conducted with the illumination light having at least two different wavelengths, and - the step of analysing the distribution of nanoparticle plot positions is executed at the different wavelengths (mixture of wavelengths in paragraph 37).
Regarding claim 25, Kukura teaches a step of - estimating a nanoparticle concentration in the sample (paragraphs 27, 31, and 89).
Regarding claim 27, the above combination comprises one of the foregoing claims, including at least one of - analysing the trajectory motion data to determine viscoelastic properties of the sample , and - analysing the trajectory motion data to determine a geometry of the nanoparticles geometry (the size of the particles referenced above with respect to parent claim is a geometry of the particles).
Regarding claim 29, Kukura teaches controlling a balance between portions of the scattering light from the nanoparticles and the reference light (paragraph 62).
Regarding claim 30, in the above combination the at least one iPSF feature comprises at least one of - an iPSF contrast, in particular-_a height of a central lobe of the iPSF, - an integrated iPSF, in particular-_an overall brightness of the iPSF, and- an iPSF shape, and-in particular shape features in a central lobe and side lobes of the iPSF (Mahmoodabadi, section 2).
Regarding claim 31, in the above combination the interferometric nanoparticle contrast is an interferometric scattering (iSCAT) contrast (Mahmoodabadi, section 2).
Regarding claims 32-33, Kukura teaches a test apparatus comprising
– an interferometric microscope device (figure 1, abstract) comprising a coherent light source device (4; paragraph 42), imaging optics (figure 1), a sample receptacle (flow chambers and flow cells, e.g. in paragraph 133) and a detector camera device (paragraph 65), wherein the coherent light source device is arranged for illuminating the sample in the sample receptacle with illumination light, and the detector camera device is arranged for collecting sequential frames of images created by superimposing scattering light (paragraph 48) from the nanoparticles (paragraphs 127, 133, and 70) and non-scattered reference light, said scattering light and reference light having a wavelength larger than a cross-sectional dimension of the particles (paragraphs 70, 37, and 42), and
– an analysing device (an analysing device is implied by the software in Labview in paragraph 126 because the software is running on a device) being arranged for establishing at least one interferometric point spread function (iPSF) features of the nanoparticles (paragraph 127), tracking the nanoparticles in the sequentialframes of the images and determining nanoparticle trajectory motion data for each nanoparticle , comprising the nanoparticle positions in each frame (paragraphs 2, 73, 163, and 166), wherein
- the analysing device further is arranged for calculating an interferometric nanoparticle contrast from the at least one iPSF feature of each nanoparticle (paragraph 128), creating a two-parametric nanoparticle scatter plot , wherein each nanoparticle has a plot position determined by the calculated parameter and the calculated interferometric nanoparticle contrast thereof and all nanoparticles create a distribution of nanoparticle plot positions (figures, including figure 7), and analysing the distribution of nanoparticle plot positions for providing the nanoparticle properties (paragraph 89).
Kukura doesn’t explicitly teach - for each nanoparticle, calculating a nanoparticle size from the nanoparticle trajectory motion data of the nanoparticle; the scatter plot includes size.
Like Kukura, Midtvedt is also directed to interferometric microscopy and to particle tracking and teaches for each nanoparticle, calculating a nanoparticle size from the nanoparticle trajectory motion data of the nanoparticle (page 1908); the scatter plot includes size (figure 2). Additionally, Midtvedt teaches this provides the benefit of characterizing nanoparticles in diverse fields such as biotechnology and medicine (page 1908). As it is relevant to dependent claims, it is also noted that Midtvedt teaches determining size and refractive index and determining phase contrast and plotting the phase contrast with size in a 2d scatter plot (pages 1908 and 1911).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the above combination such that for each nanoparticle, calculating a nanoparticle size from the nanoparticle trajectory motion data of the nanoparticle; the scatter plot includes size – in order to more fully characterize particles, which is especially useful in a variety of fields such as biotechnology and medicine.
For the reasons given above, the examiner considers the above claim to be rendered obvious by the above combination. Alternatively, if one were to consider the interferometric nanoparticle contrast of the above combination as being distinct from the interferometric nanoparticle contrast defined on page 7 of Applicant’s specification, Mahmoodabadi is also directed to interferometric microscopy and teaches the interferometric nanoparticle contrast (and explicitly describes it the same way as Applicant’s specification) from at least one iPSF encodes precise information about the particles position (section 2). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the interferometric nanoparticle contrast be the interferometric nanoparticle contrast as defined on page 7 of Applicant’s specification in order to have precise determinations of the particle’s position.
Claims 4-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kukura, Midtvedt, and Mahmoodabdi as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ginsberg (US 20190310307 A1).
Regarding claim 4, Kukura doesn’t explicitly teach for each nanoparticle , calculating a scattering cross section from the interferometric nanoparticle contrast thereof
Ginsberg is also directed to interferometric microscopy and teaches the scattering cross-section scales with the particle size raised to the third power (paragraph 52) and the scattering cross-section is a function of interferometric contrast (paragraphs 52 and 47).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the above combination such that for each nanoparticle, calculating a scattering cross section from the interferometric nanoparticle contrast thereof – in order to provide another way of referring to the effective size of the particle under similar measurement conditions, while also providing complementary information about the scattering properties of the particle.
Regarding claim 5, in the above combination the plot positions are determined by the nanoparticle sizes and values of a function of the scattering cross sections (a) of the nanoparticles (Kukura, figure 7, and Midtvedt, figure 2, and associated text).
Regarding claim 6, the above combination comprises a step of for each nanoparticle, determining an effective refractive index from its size and scattering cross section using a generalized Mie theory (Midtvedt, page 1909, column 2 and Ginsberg, paragraph 52)
Regarding claim 7, in the above combination plot positions are determined by the nanoparticle sizes and values of the effective refractive index (n) of the nanoparticles (since particles with different refractive index will have different contrast and therefore different location on the plot, as evidenced by Ginsberg, above citations, for example) .
Regarding claim 8, the above combination suggests but doesn’t explicitly teach the analysing step comprises at least one of - calculating at least one mean nanoparticle size of the nanoparticles , - calculating at least one standard deviation of nanoparticle sizes of the nanoparticles (suggested by the +/-6 nm in page 1909, column 1 of Midtvedt). Additionally, Official Notice is taken that it is well known in the art of measuring and testing to calculate a mean particle size and standard deviation. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the above combination such that the analysing step comprises at least one of - calculating at least one mean nanoparticle size of the nanoparticles , - calculating at least one standard deviation of nanoparticle sizes of the nanoparticles in order to provide a descriptive measure of the size distribution using only a few numbers (as opposed to providing only the full dataset of all the particle sizes).
Claims 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kukura, Midtvedt, and Mahmoodabdi as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Carr (US 20050226129 A1).
Regarding claim 9, Kukura doesn’t explicitly teach the analysing step comprises - calculating a surface layer that is accumulated on the nanoparticle surfaces.
Carr is also directed to particle detection and analysis and teaches an analysing step comprises - calculating a surface layer that is accumulated on the nanoparticle surfaces (paragraph 36).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the above combination such that the analysing step comprises calculating a surface layer that is accumulated on the nanoparticle surfaces in order to determine information about surface coatings and functionalized layers (e.g. see Carr, paragraph 36).
Claims 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kukura, Midtvedt, and Mahmoodabdi as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Tao (US 20200096472 A1).
Regarding claim 12, in the above combination the analysing step comprises - creating a nanoparticle size histogram (Midtvedt, figure 2B) and an interferometric nanoparticle contrast histogram (Kukura, figure 11).
Kukura doesn’t explicitly teach decomposing at least one of the nanoparticle size histogram and the interferometric nanoparticle contrast histograms.
Like Kukura (and like the instant application), Tao is directed to particle detection and teaches decomposing the nanoparticle size histogram (paragraphs 79 and 84; interpreted in light of Applicant’s specification).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the above combination such that the analysing step comprises decomposing at least one of the nanoparticle size histogram and the interferometric nanoparticle contrast histograms in order to communicate the sizes of the nanoparticles in a way that is illustrative of the size distribution.
Regarding claim 13, the above combination is directed to the other of the alternative in claim 12 (that is, the size histogram), whereas claim 13 only further limits the contrast histogram.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kukura, Midtvedt, and Mahmoodabdi as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Liu (US 20150204728 A1) and Tao
Regarding claim 16, in the above combination the analysing step comprises - creating a nanoparticle size histogram (Midtvedt, figure 2B).
Kukura doesn’t explicitly teach an effective refractive index (n) histogram and decomposing at least one of the nanoparticle size histogram and the effective refractive index histograms.
Like Kukura (and like the instant application), Tao is directed to particle detection and teaches decomposing the nanoparticle size histogram (paragraphs 79 and 84; interpreted in light of Applicant’s specification).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the above combination such that the analysing step comprises decomposing at least one of the nanoparticle size histogram and the interferometric nanoparticle contrast histograms in order to communicate the sizes of the nanoparticles in a way that is illustrative of the size distribution.
The above combination doesn’t explicitly teach effective refractive index histograms.
Like Kukura (and like the instant application), Liu is directed to interference microscopy and teaches refractive index histograms (paragraph 204).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the above combination such that the analysing step includes creating effective refractive index histograms in order to communication the distribution of refractive indices in the population in a way that is visually clear.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kukura, Midtvedt, and Mahmoodabdi as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Bodzin (US 20030139886 A1).
Regarding claim 21, Kukura doesn’t explicitly teach the nanoparticle properties include spectroscopic information of the nanoparticles.
Like Kukura (and like the instant application), Bodzin is also directed to particle detection and teaches the nanoparticle properties include spectroscopic information of the nanoparticles (paragraph 43).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the above combination such that the nanoparticle properties include spectroscopic information of the nanoparticles in order to gain additional information about the type and structure of the nanoparticles.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kukura, Midtvedt, and Mahmoodabdi as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kato (US 20040051051 A1).
Regarding claim 22, Kukura doesn’t explicitly teach detecting sample fluorescence with the interferometric microscope device being provided with at least one spectral filter.
Like Kukura (and like the instant application), Kato is directed to particle detection and interference microscopy and teaches detecting sample fluorescence and providing at least one spectral filter (paragraphs 232 and 287).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the above combination such that it comprises detecting sample fluorescence with the interferometric microscope device being provided with at least one spectral filter in order to gain additional information about the type and structure of the nanoparticles.
Claims 23-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kukura, Midtvedt, and Mahmoodabdi as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Simpson (US 20220026331 A1).
Regarding claims 23-24, Kukura doesn’t explicitly teach the illumination light is linearly polarized (claim 23); the step of collecting sequential frames of the images is conducted at two orthogonal polarizations (claim 24).
Like Kukura (and like the instant application), Simpson is directed to particle detection and interference microscopy and provides a general teaching of the illumination light is linearly polarized (paragraphs 23 and 47); the step of collecting sequential frames of the images is conducted at two orthogonal polarizations (paragraphs 47, 33, 33, and 36).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the above combination such that the illumination light is linearly polarized; and the step of collecting sequential frames of the images is conducted at two orthogonal polarizations – in order to determine characteristics of the sample that are polarization dependent, such as anisotropies.
Claim 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kukura, Midtvedt, and Mahmoodabdi as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Shirai (US 20170016814 A1).
Regarding claim 26, Kukura doesn’t explicitly teach the coherent light source device is a pulsed light source device creating illumination light pulses.
Like Kukura (and like the instant application), Shirai is directed to particle detection and interference microscopy and provides a general teaching of a pulsed light source device creating illumination light pulses (paragraphs 45 and 79).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the above combination such that the coherent light source device is a pulsed light source device creating illumination light pulses in order to have greater control over the timing and intensity of the illumination of the sample.
Claim 28 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kukura, Midtvedt, and Mahmoodabdi as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Rao (US 20050273271 A1).
Regarding claim 28, Kukura doesn’t explicitly teach the step of collecting sequential frames of the images is conducted with at least two different temperatures of the sample.
Like Kukura (and like the instant application), Rao is directed to particle detection and interference microscopy and teaches conducting with at least two different temperatures of the sample (the different temperatures in paragraph 45 as well as the control in paragraph 13). Additionally, Rao teaches this provides the benefit of gaining information about the effect of various stimuli on the sample (paragraph 13).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the above combination such that it comprises the step of collecting sequential frames of the images is conducted with at least two different temperatures of the sample in order to gain information about the effect of temperature on the sample.
Claim 34 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kukura, Midtvedt, and Mahmoodabdi as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Boccara (US 20170307509 A1).
Regarding claim 34, Kukura doesn’t explicitly teach the frames of the image are collected synchronized with the illumination light pulses.
Like Kukura (and like the instant application), Boccara is directed to particle detection and teaches the frames of the image are collected synchronized with the illumination light pulses (paragraph 28 and claim 5).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the above combination such that the frames of the image are collected synchronized with the illumination light pulses in order to assure accurate data by knowing when the detected light corresponds to illuminated light.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 14-15 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art of record (taken alone or in combination) fails to anticipate, “… for each nanoparticle, calculating an interferometric nanoparticle contrast from the at least one iPSF feature of the nanoparticle, for each nanoparticle, calculating a nanoparticle size from the nanoparticle trajectory motion data of the nanoparticle, - creating a two-parametric nanoparticle scatter plot, wherein each nanoparticle has a plot position based on the calculated nanoparticle size and the calculated interferometric nanoparticle contrast thereof and all the nanoparticles create a distribution of nanoparticle plot positions, and - analysing the distribution of nanoparticle plot positions for providing the nanoparticle properties… wherein the analysing step comprises - creating a nanoparticle size histogram and a nanoparticle scattering cross section histogram and decomposing at least one of the nanoparticle size histogram and the nanoparticle scattering cross section histograms,” in combination with the other claimed limitations.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RUFUS L PHILLIPS whose telephone number is (571)270-7021. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th, 2 -10 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, Michelle Iacoletti can be reached at (571) 270-5789. 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.
/RUFUS L PHILLIPS/ Examiner, Art Unit 2877