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
The examiner acknowledges applicant’s claim for domestic benefit corresponding to the
371 of PCT/CA2022/051772 filed 02 December 2022 which claims the benefit of U.S. provisional application 63/285808 filed 03 December 2021.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-21 are pending in the application.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 31 May 2024 and 16 July 2024 were filed in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements have been considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: “fixed output 22” in paragraphs 0031 and 0039, “Stokes beam 26” in paragraph 0031, and “combined pump and Stokes beams 14, 66” in paragraph 0033. 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. 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 following guidelines illustrate the preferred layout for the specification of a utility application. These guidelines are suggested for the applicant’s use.
Arrangement of the Specification
As provided in 37 CFR 1.77(b), the specification of a utility application should include the following sections in order. Each of the lettered items should appear in upper case, without underlining or bold type, as a section heading. If no text follows the section heading, the phrase “Not Applicable” should follow the section heading:
(a) TITLE OF THE INVENTION.
(b) CROSS-REFERENCE TO RELATED APPLICATIONS.
(c) STATEMENT REGARDING FEDERALLY SPONSORED RESEARCH OR DEVELOPMENT.
(d) THE NAMES OF THE PARTIES TO A JOINT RESEARCH AGREEMENT.
(e) INCORPORATION-BY-REFERENCE OF MATERIAL SUBMITTED ON A READ-ONLY OPTICAL DISC, AS A TEXT FILE OR AN XML FILE VIA THE PATENT ELECTRONIC SYSTEM.
(f) STATEMENT REGARDING PRIOR DISCLOSURES BY THE INVENTOR OR A JOINT INVENTOR.
(g) BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION.
(1) Field of the Invention.
(2) Description of Related Art including information disclosed under 37 CFR 1.97 and 1.98.
(h) BRIEF SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION.
(i) BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE SEVERAL VIEWS OF THE DRAWING(S).
(j) DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE INVENTION.
(k) CLAIM OR CLAIMS (commencing on a separate sheet).
(l) ABSTRACT OF THE DISCLOSURE (commencing on a separate sheet).
(m) SEQUENCE LISTING. (See MPEP § 2422.03 and 37 CFR 1.821 - 1.825). A “Sequence Listing” is required on paper if the application discloses a nucleotide or amino acid sequence as defined in 37 CFR 1.821(a) and if the required “Sequence Listing” is not submitted as an electronic document either on read-only optical disc or as a text file via the patent electronic system.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding the title of the invention, it appears the word “SIMULATED” should instead read as ‘STIMULATED’, thus making the title read as ‘CHIRP MODULATION STIMULATED RAMAN SCATTERING MICROSCOPY’. If this is applicant’s intent, please amend accordingly.
Regarding the arrangement of the specification, the specification is missing the section “CROSS-REFERENCE TO RELATED APPLICATIONS”. Since this application claims priority to previous related applications, please amend accordingly.
Regarding paragraph 0031, line 1 of this paragraph recites “The tunable output 16 is passed through a half-wave plate 30a”. However, paragraph 0028 describes output 14 as tunable and output 16 as fixed. Further, Fig. 1a shows tunable output 16 passing through half-wave plate 30b instead of 30a. The examiner assumes line 1 of paragraph 0031 is supposed to read ‘The tunable output 14 is passed through a half-wave plate 30a’. If this is applicant’s intent, please amend accordingly.
Further regarding paragraph 0031, lines 3-4 recite “The fixed output 22 is passed through a half-wave plate 30a and a polarizing beam splitter (PBS) 32b”. However, paragraph 0028 describes the fixed output as being reference number 16. Further, Fig. 1a of the drawings show output 16 going through half-wave plate 30b instead of 30a. Thus, the examiner assumes lines 3-4 of paragraph 0031 is supposed to read ‘The fixed output 16 is passed through a half-wave plate 30b and a polarizing beam splitter (PBS) 32b’. Similarly, the examiner assumes lines 6-7 of paragraph 0039 is supposed to read as ‘fixed output 16 is passed through a half-wave plate 30b and a polarizing beam splitter (PBS) 32b’. If this is applicant’s intent, please amend accordingly.
Regarding paragraph 0032, line 4 recites the term “spit” which should be amended to recite ‘split’.
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it recites the legal phraseology term “said” throughout its description. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 18 objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate of claim 1. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Additionally, claims 18-21 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Further regarding claim 18, line 11 recites the limitation “for each beam” which should be amended to recite “for each signal” to provide proper antecedence in the claim since the term “beam” was not previously used in the claim. Claims 19-21 depend on claim 18 and are therefore also objected to.
Appropriate correction is required.
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(s) is/are:
“a second optical system configured to collect an interaction light signal resulting from an interaction of the at least one of the combined light pulses with the at least one of the particles” in claim 15.
“an analysis system comprising spectrally dispersive means, the analysis system configured to measure a plurality of spectral components of the interaction light signal” in claim 15. The examiner notes that despite claim 15 reciting that the analysis system comprises spectrally dispersive means, the “analysis system” is still being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) as the term “means” is a nonce term that does not impose any meaningful structural limitations onto the analysis system, and spectrally dispersive means are not known in the art to “measure a plurality of spectral components of the interaction light signal” by themselves.
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 § 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 15-17 and 19-21 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.
Regarding claim 15, lines 20-21 recite the limitation “the at least one of the particles”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 15 does not previously recite the analysis of particles of any kind with the combined light pulses. While claim 15 recites that a sample is exposed to combined light pulses, no relationship between the sample and the “at least one of the particles” is established in the claim. Are the at least one of the particles part of the sample under analysis? Are the at least one of the particles separate from the sample? Because these questions cannot be ascertained by one having ordinary skill in the art, claim 15 is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b). Claims 16-17 depend on claim 15 and are therefore also rejected to under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b). The examiner assumes claim 15 is supposed to recite that the sample for analysis comprises a plurality of particles and that the second optical system is configured to collect an interaction light signal resulting from an interaction of at least one of the combined light pulses and at least one particle of the plurality of particles. If this is applicant’s intent, please amend accordingly.
Regarding claim 19, lines 1-2 recite the limitation “wherein an amplifier configured to remove the second signal and amplify the first signal”. Claim 19 depends on the modulation method of claim 18 which comprises a plurality of steps to facilitate the suppression of noise and gathering of hyperspectral data (see claim 18). Claim 18 does not recite any apparatus that is used to perform the modulation method, nor any specific structural elements used to perform the various steps recited in claim 18. Claim 19 does not recite an additional method step, rather it introduces a structural element (i.e. “an amplifier”) configured to perform a specific function, which appears to be associated with an apparatus of some kind. When a single claim includes both an apparatus and method steps of using the apparatus, confusion arises as to when direct infringement of a claim occurs. See MPEP § 2173.05(p) II. Therefore, it is unclear if claim 19 is reciting an additional step of the modulation method of claim 18, or if claim 19 is directed to an apparatus of some sort. Thus, claim 19 is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b). Claims 20-21 depend on claim 19 and are therefore also rejected to under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b). The examiner assumes claim 19 is supposed to recite an additional method step that comprises removing the second signal and amplifying the first signal. If this is applicant’s intent, please amend accordingly.
Regarding claim 15, the claim limitation “an analysis system comprising spectrally dispersive means, the analysis system configured to measure a plurality of spectral components of the interaction light signal” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function.
It is unclear which structural element or elements make up the “analysis system” of claim 15. The only mention of the term “an analysis system” appears in the summary section of the specification in which the language of claim 15 is repeated verbatim. In terms of the spectrally dispersive means, the examiner assumes this component of the analysis system is referring to the dispersive glass (120 in Fig. 1a). When searching the remainder of the specification and the drawings for structure configured to “measure a plurality of spectral components of the interaction signal”, the structural element that appears to measure the plurality of spectral components of the interaction signal is the photodetector (150 in Fig. 1a). However, claim 15 claims a photodetector in addition to the analysis system, and further does not specify if the claimed photodetector is a component of the analysis system, or not.
The specification and drawings also recite the use of a microscope (130 in Fig. 1a) employing galvo mirrors to probe the sample with combined pump and Stokes light, and to collect light from the sample (paragraphs 0033 and 0041). While a skilled artisan would understand the microscope as spectrally measuring the sample by probing the sample and generating an interaction signal based on the probe light interacting with the sample, it is unclear if the microscope itself is “measuring a plurality of spectral components of the interaction signal” (emphasis added), since the microscope itself is responsible for producing the interaction signal and the photodetector (150) appears to be the component that measures the spectral components of the collected interaction signal.
Additionally, the specification recites that an objective lens is used to collect the light propagating from the sample (see paragraph 0034). This objective lens has been interpreted by the examiner as being the structural support for the claimed “second optical system” recited in claim 15. The specification does not specify if the objective lens recited in paragraph 0034 is a component of the microscope 130, or not. Assuming, arguendo, that the objective lens recited in paragraph 0034 is a component of microscope 130 (since the objective lens is not shown elsewhere in Fig. 1a), then it is unclear if the microscope 130 is the structural support for the “analysis system” or the “second optical system” of claim 15, and if the “second optical system” is a component of the “analysis system” or not.
Thus, in summation, it is unclear which structural component(s) recited in the specification and/or shown in the drawings provide support for “an analysis system comprising spectrally dispersive means, the analysis system configured to measure a plurality of spectral components of the interaction light signal” (emphasis added via bolded words, extra emphasis added via underlined words). Therefore, claim 15 is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. Claims 16-17 depend on claim 15 and are therefore also rejected to under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b).
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
For the purposes of compact prosecution, the examiner assumes that the claimed “analysis system” of claim 15 is directed to a combination of at least some the following elements shown in Fig. 1a and/or described in the specification:
dispersive glass 120, microscope 130 and corresponding components described in paragraph 0033, short-pass filter 140, photodetector 150, the objective lens recited in paragraph 0034
If this is applicant’s intent, please amend accordingly.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claims 15-17, the claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite based on the failure of the specification to disclose and/or specify the corresponding structure, material or act that performs the entire claimed function. The principal function of claims is to provide notice of the boundaries of the right to exclude by defining the limits of the invention, and means-plus-function claims rely on the disclosure to define those limits. Accordingly, an inadequate disclosure may give rise to both an indefiniteness rejection for a means-plus-function limitation and a failure to satisfy the written description and enablement requirements of section 112(a) or pre-AIA section 112, first paragraph. See MPEP § 2181 IV. The rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) for failing to comply with the written description requirement is made because an indefinite, unbounded limitation would cover all structure that can perform the claimed function. Because the specification has not clearly defined structure for the “analysis system comprising spectrally dispersive means, the analysis system configured to measure a plurality of spectral components of the interaction light signal”, this indicates that the applicant has not provided sufficient disclosure to show possession of the invention. Therefore, claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a). Claims 16-17 depend on claim 15 and are therefore also rejected to under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a).
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
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 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Vacca (US Patent No. 11,635,384 B2).
Regarding claim 15, Vacca teaches an imaging system (Fig. 2) comprising:
a light source system (Fig. 2 ultrafast pulsed laser amplifier module 210) configured to produce a first set of light pulses (Fig. 2 pump pulsed light 203, 215, 217, col. 13 lines 13-45) in a predefined first wavelength region (abstract, col. 6 lines 6-25, col. 15 line 36-col. 16 line 12) and a second set of light pulses (Fig. 2 Stokes pulsed light 205, 207, 209, 211, 213) in a predefined second wavelength region (abstract, col. 6 lines 6-25, col. 15 line 36-col. 16 line 12);
a modulator (Fig. 2 dispersion control units 206, 214) to positively chirp the first set of light pulses (see Fig. 3B, col. 17 lines 38-52) and negatively chirp the second set of light pulses (see Fig. 3B, col. 17 lines 53-63);
a first optical system (Fig. 2 dichroic mirror 216, col. 6 lines 43-48) coupled to the light source system (see Fig. 2, col. 6 lines 43-48), the first optical system comprising optics configured to combine the first set of chirped light pulses and the second set of chirped light pulses into a set of combined light pulses (Fig. 2 dichroic mirror 216, col. 6 lines 43-48, col. 13 lines 13-45), wherein each of the combined light pulses comprises a first pulse from the first set of chirped light pulses and a second pulse from the second set of chirped light pulses (col. 6 lines 43-48);
a sample holder (Fig. 2 flow cell 240, col. 13 lines 53-58) coupled to the first optical system (see Fig. 2) and configured to hold a sample comprising a plurality of particles for analysis (see Fig. 2, col. 13 line 46-col. 14 line 16), wherein at least a portion of the sample is exposed to a plurality of the combined light pulses (see Fig. 2, col. 13 lines 46-64);
a photodetector (Fig. 2 photodetector 252) configured to convert an optical signal resulting from an interaction of the plurality of the combined light pulses with the sample (col. 14 lines 58-65);
an amplifier (Fig. 2 spectral filter 246 and ND filter 248 are functionally equivalent to the claimed amplifier) configured to remove the second set of chirped light pulses (col. 14 lines 58-65);
a second optical system (Fig. 2 objective 232, dichroic mirror 242, spectral filter 244) configured to collect an interaction light signal resulting from an interaction of the at least one of the combined light pulses with at least one particle of the plurality of particles (col. 14 lines 34-47);
an analysis system (Fig. 2 spectrometer 250 and photodetector array 260) comprising spectrally dispersive means (Fig. 2 spectrometer 250, col. 14 line 47-49), the analysis system configured to measure a plurality of spectral components of the interaction light signal (col. 14 lines 47-57, col. 22 line 51-col. 23 line 7).
Regarding claim 16, Vacca teaches the imaging system of claim 15, as outlined above, and further teaches each set of light pulses is associated with a chirp having a first sign and a second sign (col. 17 lines 24-63).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-14 are allowed in view of the prior art.
Claim 17 is 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.
Claim 18 is objected to for being a substantial duplicate of claim 1, but would be allowable if amended to overcome the current objections of record. Claims 19-21 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 1, the prior art of record, taken alone or in combination, neither anticipates nor renders obvious a modulation method comprising steps of: a) generating a first signal having a first train of short pulses having a first frequency, and a second signal having a second train of short pulses having a second frequency, wherein each of the first signal and the second signal is associated with a negative or positive sign; b) maintaining a narrow frequency difference between the first frequency and the second frequency; c) imposing chirped modulation on the first signal and the second signal to achieve a desired spectral resolution, such that each signal is associated with a chirp having a first sign and a second sign; and d) switching between the first sign and the second sign for each signal over a frequency range, and detecting for each frequency of said frequency range, a spectral response resulting from a transfer of said modulation between the first signal and the second signal wherein the chirp sign of the first signal is different from the chirp sign of the second signal, thereby obtaining hyperspectral data of said spectral response over said frequency range (emphasis added via bolded words, extra emphasis added via underlined words).
The closest prior art of record, Vacca (US Patent No. 11,635,384 B2), teaches a modulation method in which a first signal having a first train of short pulses having a first frequency and a second signal having a second train of short pulses having a second frequency are generated and each associated with a negative or positive sign, a narrow frequency difference is maintained between the first and second frequencies, imposing chirp modulation on the first and second signals, and detecting a spectral response from a combined signal of the first and second signals (see Vacca Fig. 7, col. 27 line 34-col. 29 line 48). While Vacca teaches that the first signal and second signals are chirped with either positive or negative chirp signs, Vacca does not teach, among other elements, switching between the first sign and the second sign for each signal over a frequency range, and detecting for each frequency of said frequency range, a spectral response resulting from a transfer of said modulation between the first signal and the second signal wherein the chirp sign of the first signal is different from the chirp sign of the second signal, thereby obtaining hyperspectral data of said spectral response over said frequency range. Resch (WO 2009/079759 A1, of record), TAKASHIGE et al. (JP 2008052266 A), and Liu et al. (Liu, Jun, and Takayoshi Kobayashi. "Generation and amplification of tunable multicolored femtosecond laser pulses by using cascaded four-wave mixing in transparent bulk media." Sensors 10.5 (2010): 4296-4341.) all have similar teachings and deficiencies as Vacca.
Malinovskaya et al. (US Patent No. 7,847,933 B2), hereinafter Malinovskaya, teaches an imaging method in which two short pulse signals of different frequencies are generated, each of the signals are chirped to receive a positive or negative chirp, and the chirped signals are used to interrogate a sample (see Malinovskaya Fig. 5, col. 2 lines 9-32). While Malinovskaya generally recites a change in chirp sign (col. 2 lines 9-32), Malinovskaya does not recite is the signs of each signal are switched, if the switching occurs over a frequency range, or the detection of a spectral response resulting from a transfer of modulation between first and second signals. Thus, Malinovskaya does not teach, among other elements, switching between the first sign and the second sign for each signal over a frequency range, and detecting for each frequency of said frequency range, a spectral response resulting from a transfer of said modulation between the first signal and the second signal wherein the chirp sign of the first signal is different from the chirp sign of the second signal, thereby obtaining hyperspectral data of said spectral response over said frequency range.
Krishnamachari et al. (US Patent No. 10,132,754 B2), Liao et al. (US Patent No. 10,928,324 B2), Yonetani (US 2015/0204790 A1), Rigneault et al. (US 2021/0381985 A1), TOSHIYUKI (JP 2004020352 A), and Figueroa et al. (Figueroa, Benjamin, et al. "Broadband hyperspectral stimulated Raman scattering microscopy with a parabolic fiber amplifier source." Biomedical optics express 9.12 (2018): 6116-6131.) all relate to modulation methods in which two short pulse signals of different frequencies are generated and are chirped to have the same signs, however, none of these references teach, among other elements, switching between the first sign and the second sign for each signal over a frequency range, and detecting for each frequency of said frequency range, a spectral response resulting from a transfer of said modulation between the first signal and the second signal wherein the chirp sign of the first signal is different from the chirp sign of the second signal, thereby obtaining hyperspectral data of said spectral response over said frequency range.
Additionally, the remaining references cited on applicant’s information disclosure statement, that are not specifically mentioned above, have been considered by the examiner. None of these references teach the bolded and/or underlined limitations outlined above, in combination with the remaining limitations from the claim.
Therefore, for the reasons outlined above, claim 1 is indicated as having allowable subject matter. Claims 2-10 depend on claim 1 and are therefore also indicated as having allowable subject matter.
Regarding claim 11, the prior art of record, taken alone or in combination, neither anticipates nor renders obvious a method of imaging a sample, the method comprising: a) generating a pump beam and a Stokes beam comprising of a train of short pulses and having a tunable optical frequency difference; b) imposing chirped modulation on the pump beam and Stokes beam to achieve a desired spectral resolution, such that each beam is associated with a chirp having a first sign and a second sign; and c) probing regions of the sample with the pump beam and Stokes beam jointly, said probing comprising switching between the first sign and the second sign for each beam over an optical frequency range, said probing further comprising detecting, for each frequency of said optical frequency range for each of the probed regions, an optical response of the sample resulting from a transfer of said modulation between the pump beam and the Stokes beam when the chirp sign of the pump beam is different from the chirp sign of the Stokes beam, thereby obtaining hyperspectral data of said optical response over said optical frequency range for each of the probed regions (emphasis added via bolded words, extra emphasis added via underlined words).
Claim 11 has similar limitations to the limitations indicated as allowable subject matter in claim 1. Therefore, for the same reasons outlined above, claim 11 is indicated as having allowable subject matter. Claims 12-14 depend on claim 11 and are therefore also indicated as having allowable subject matter.
Regarding claim 17, the prior art of record, taken alone or in combination, neither anticipates nor renders obvious the imaging system of claim 16, wherein the modulator switches the chirp between the first sign and the second sign for each set of light pulses over a frequency range, such that the first set of chirped light pulses and the second set of chirped light pulses comprise opposite chirp signs.
Claim 17 has similar limitations to the limitations indicated as allowable subject matter in claim 1. Therefore, for the same reasons outlined above, claim 17 is indicated as having allowable subject matter.
Regarding claim 18, the prior art of record, taken alone or in combination, neither anticipates nor renders obvious a modulation method of suppressing noise, the method comprising a) generating a first signal having a first train of short pulses having a first frequency, and a second signal having a second train of short pulses having a second frequency, wherein each of the first signal and the second signal is associated with a negative or positive sign; b) maintaining a narrow frequency difference between the first frequency and the second frequency; c) imposing chirped modulation on the first signal and the second signal to achieve a desired spectral resolution, such that each signal is associated with a chirp having a first sign and a second sign; and d) switching between the first sign and the second sign for each signal over a frequency range, and detecting for each frequency of said frequency range, a spectral response resulting from a transfer of said modulation between the first signal and the second signal wherein the chirp sign of the first signal is different from the chirp sign of the second signal, thereby obtaining hyperspectral data of said spectral response over said frequency range (emphasis added via bolded words, extra emphasis added via underlined words).
Claim 18 has similar limitations to the limitations indicated as allowable subject matter in claim 1. Therefore, for the same reasons outlined above, claim 18 is indicated as having allowable subject matter. Claims 19-21 depend on claim 18 and are therefore also indicated as having allowable subject matter.
As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NOAH J HANEY whose telephone number is (571)270-1282. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-6pm eastern time.
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.
/NOAH J. HANEY/Examiner, Art Unit 2877
/MICHELLE M IACOLETTI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2877
Prosecution Insights