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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 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.
Claim(s) 1, 10, 15, 16, 17, 18, 21, 30, 32, 35, 37, 42, 44, 49 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Branigan, Edward T., Nadine Halberstadt, and V. A. Apkarian. "Solvation dynamics through Raman spectroscopy: Hydration of Br2 and Br3−, and solvation of Br2 in liquid bromine." The Journal of chemical physics 134.17 (2011) (hereinafter Branigan), and in view of US 20170184453 A1 (hereinafter Wang).
Regarding claim 1, Branigan teaches a method of identifying or detecting one or more substances in a sample comprising: “illuminating the sample with light of each of a plurality of different excitation modes” (p. 3 col 1 para 3 lines 1-2); “measuring an intensity of light from the sample at a plurality of wavelengths to obtain a measured Raman spectrum for each of the excitation modes” (figs. 1, 2, 4); and “identifying or detecting one or more substances in the sample using the measured spectra together” (figs. 1, 2, 4), wherein: the excitation modes differ in wavelength (figs. 1, 2, 4); “the wavelengths of the excitation modes are such that the measured spectra comprise two or more of a non-resonant Raman spectrum, a pre-resonant Raman spectrum, and a resonant Raman spectrum” (Abstract lines 1-7; RR and NR scattering); and “the identifying of the one or more substances uses contributions to the measured spectra from a plurality of photophysical processes in the sample including Raman scattering of light” (p. 3 col 1 para 3)
Branigan fails to teach fluorescence.
Wang, from the same field of endeavor as Branigan, teaches fluorescence (para [0033] last sentence).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to apply the teaching of Wang to Branigan to have fluorescence in order to trace detection of heavy metals in water, bacteria detection, and DNA analysis along with other applications (para [0004] last sentence).
Regarding claim 10, Branigan does not teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the plurality of photophysical processes in the sample further includes one or more of photoluminescence, phosphorescence, elastic scattering, and reflection.
Wang, from the same field of endeavor as Branigan, teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the plurality of photophysical processes in the sample further includes one or more of, photoluminescence (fluorescence is a type of photoluminescence; para [0033] last sentence), phosphorescence, elastic scattering, and reflection.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to apply the teaching of Wang to Branigan to have the method of claim 1, wherein the plurality of photophysical processes in the sample further includes one or more of photoluminescence, phosphorescence, elastic scattering, and reflection in order to trace detection of heavy metals in water, bacteria detection, and DNA analysis along with other applications (para [0004] last sentence).
Regarding claim 15, Branigan teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the wavelengths of the excitation modes comprise one or more visible light wavelengths and/or one or more infra- red light wavelengths (p. 3 col 1 para 3).
Regarding claim 16, Branigan teaches the method of claim 15, wherein the one or more visible light wavelengths comprise a wavelength in the range 400-700nm, and the one or more infra-red light wavelengths comprise a wavelength in the range 700-3000 nm (p. 3 col 1 para 3).
Regarding claim 17, Branigan teaches the method of claim 15-wherein the wavelengths of the excitation modes comprise one or more of 405nm, 532nm, 633nm, 785nm, and 1064nm (p. 3 col 1 para 3).
Regarding claim 18, Branigan teaches the method of claim 1, wherein two or more of the excitation modes differ from one another in wavelength by at least 20nm (p. 3 col 1 para 3).
Regarding claim 21, Branigan teaches the method of claim1, wherein illuminating the sample with light of each of a plurality of different excitation modes comprises either a) illuminating the sample simultaneously with light of each of the excitation modes or b) illuminating the sample sequentially with light of each of the excitation modes (figs. 1, 2, 4).
Regarding claim 30, Branigan does not teach the method of claim 1, wherein the sample is a biological sample.
Wang, from the same field of endeavor as Branigan, teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the sample is a biological sample (para [0004] last sentence).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to apply the teaching of Wang to Branigan to have the method of claim 1, wherein the sample is a biological sample in order to trace detection of heavy metals in water, bacteria detection, and DNA analysis along with other applications (para [0004] last sentence).
Regarding claim 32, Branigan teaches the method of 1, wherein the sample is obtained from a non-biological source (figs. 1, 2, 4).
Regarding claim 35, Branigan teaches an apparatus for identifying or detecting one or more substances in a sample comprising: an illumination source configured to illuminate the sample with light of each of a plurality of different excitation modes (p. 3 col 1 para 3 lines 1-2); a detector configured to measure an intensity of light from the sample at a plurality of wavelengths to obtain a measured Raman spectrum for each of the excitation modes (p. 3 col 1 para 3 lines 1-2; a Renishaw Raman microscope has spectrometer); and “a processing unit configured to identify or detecting one or more substances in the sample using the measured spectra together” (figs. 1, 2, 4 show the results of the processing unit), wherein: the excitation modes differ in wavelength; “the wavelengths of the excitation modes are such that the measured spectra comprise two or more of a non-resonant Raman spectrum, a pre-resonant Raman spectrum, and a resonant Raman spectrum” (Abstract lines 1-7; RR and NR scattering); and the processing unit is configured to identify the one or more substances using contributions to the measured spectra from a plurality of photophysical processes in the sample including Raman scattering of light (p. 3 col 1 para 3).
Branigan fails to teach fluorescence.
Wang, from the same field of endeavor as Branigan, teaches fluorescence (para [0033] last sentence).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to apply the teaching of Wang to Branigan to have fluorescence in order to trace detection of heavy metals in water, bacteria detection, and DNA analysis along with other applications (para [0004] last sentence).
Regarding claim 37, Branigan teaches the apparatus of claim 35, wherein the illumination source comprises a plurality of sub-sources, each sub-source configured to emit light at a different wavelength from the other sub-sources (p. 3 col 1 para 3).
Regarding claim 42, Branigan teaches the apparatus of 35, wherein either a) the detector is configured to detect light reflected and/or backscattered from the sample, or b) the detector is configured to detect light transmitted through and/or scattered by the sample (figs. 1, 2, 4).
Regarding claim 44, Branigan teaches the apparatus of claim 35, wherein the apparatus further comprises one or more of: a) a filtering element configured to remove light at the wavelength of the excitation mode from the light from the sample; b) a detection polariser configured to select light having a predetermined polarisation from the light from the sample; and c) a resolving element configured to spectrally resolve the light from the sample (figs. 1, 2, 4).
Regarding claim 49, Branigan teaches the apparatus of claim 44 wherein one or both of: a) the filtering element comprises a shortpass optical filter, longpass optical filter, notch optical filter, bandpass optical filter, or electro-optical modulator; and b) the resolving element comprises a spectrograph (figs. 1, 2, 4), a grating, a prism, or an interferometer.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Branigan and Wang as applied to claim(s) 1 above, and in view of Wollmann, P. et al., US20210318243A1 (hereinafter Wollmann).
Regarding claim 2, the modified device of Branigan does not teach the method of claim 1, wherein identifying the one or more substances comprises using a multivariate analysis, for example principal component analysis or linear discriminant analysis.
Wollmann, from the same field of endeavor as Branigan, discloses the method of claim 1, wherein identifying the one or more substances comprises using a multivariate analysis, for example principal component analysis or linear discriminant analysis (para [0017]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to apply the teaching of Wollmann to the modified device of Branigan to have the method of claim 1, wherein identifying the one or more substances comprises using a multivariate analysis, for example principal component analysis or linear discriminant analysis in order to recognize spectral intensity differences of intensities of at least one wavelength detected by detectors and to extract parameters (para [0017]) from the articles or products.
Claim(s) 4, 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Branigan, Wang, and Wollmann as applied to claim(s) 2 above, and in view of Grun, Jacob, et al. "Identification of bacteria from two-dimensional resonant-Raman spectra." Analytical Chemistry 79.14 (2007): 5489-5493 (hereinafter Grun).
Regarding claim 4, Branigan, when modified Wang and Wollmann, does not teach the method of claim 2, wherein identifying the one or more substances comprises combining the measured spectra using the multivariate analysis to obtain a multi-dimensional signature of the sample. Regarding claim 5, Branigan, when modified Wang and Wollmann, does not teach the method of claim 4, wherein identifying the one or more substances further comprises comparing the multi-dimensional signature to one or more reference signatures.
Grun, from the same field of endeavor as Branigan, teaches the method of claim 2, wherein identifying the one or more substances comprises combining the measured spectra using the multivariate analysis to obtain a multi-dimensional signature of the sample (Conclusion section lines 1-4; a multi-dimensional signature of the sample corresponds to the various bacterial species), the method of claim 4, wherein identifying the one or more substances further comprises comparing the multi-dimensional signature to one or more reference signatures (this is the “many other objects” in p. 4 col 2 para 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to apply the teaching of Grun to Branigan, when modified Wang and Wollmann, to have teaches the method of claim 2, wherein identifying the one or more substances comprises combining the measured spectra using the multivariate analysis, the method of claim 4, wherein identifying the one or more substances further comprises comparing the multi-dimensional signature to one or more reference signatures to obtain a multi-dimensional signature of the sample in order to rapidly identify bacteria in hospital and food plant settings, for screening large populations, and for biochemical-threat warning systems (Abstract last sentence).
Claim(s) 6, 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Branigan and Wang as applied to claim(s) 1 above, and in view of Wang, Kaidi, et al. "Arcobacter identification and species determination using Raman spectroscopy combined with neural networks." Applied and environmental microbiology 86.20 (2020): e00924-20 (hereinafter Kaidi).
Regarding claim 6, the modified device of Branigan does not teach the method of claim 1, wherein identifying the one or more substances comprises using a machine-learning algorithm, for example a support vector machine or nueral network. Regarding claim 8, the modified device of Branigan does not teach the method of claim 1, wherein identifying the one or more substances comprises classifying the one or more substances.
Kaidi, from the same field of endeavor as Branigan, teaches the method of claim 1, wherein identifying the one or more substances comprises using a machine-learning algorithm, for example a support vector machine or nueral network (Abstract lines 1-6), the method of claim 1, wherein identifying the one or more substances comprises classifying the one or more substances (this is shown in fig. 1, classifying 3 Arcobacter species).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to apply the teaching of Kaidi to the modified device of Branigan to have the method of claim 1, wherein identifying the one or more substances comprises using a machine-learning algorithm, for example a support vector machine or nueral network, the method of claim 1, wherein identifying the one or more substances comprises classifying the one or more substances in order to have a rapid identification of bacterial pathogens which is critical for developing an early warning system and performing epidemiological investigation (p. 1 Importance section first sentence).
Claim(s) 9, 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Branigan and Wang as applied to claim(s) 1 above, and in view of Zeng, H. et al., US8326404B2 (hereinafter Zeng).
Regarding claim 9, the modified device of Branigan does not teach the method of claim 1, wherein identifying the one or more substances does not comprise processing to reduce the contribution to the measured spectra of any photophysical processes in the sample. Regarding claim 11, the modified device of Branigan does not teach the method of claim 1 wherein the plurality of photophysical processes in the sample further includes fluorescence, and identifying the one or more substances does not comprise processing to reduce the contribution to the measured spectra of the fluorescence in the sample.
Zeng, from the same field of endeavor as Branigan, teaches the method of claim 1, wherein identifying the one or more substances does not comprise processing to reduce the contribution to the measured spectra of any photophysical processes in the sample (p. 40 col 1 claim 1 lines 54-65; both Raman and fluorescence are included), the method of claim 1 wherein the plurality of photophysical processes in the sample further includes fluorescence, and identifying the one or more substances does not comprise processing to reduce the contribution to the measured spectra of the fluorescence in the sample (p. 40 col 1 claim 1 lines 54-65; both Raman and fluorescence are included).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to apply the teaching of Zeng to the modified device of Branigan to have the method of claim 1, wherein identifying the one or more substances does not comprise processing to reduce the contribution to the measured spectra of any photophysical processes in the sample, the method of claim 1 wherein the plurality of photophysical processes in the sample further includes fluorescence, and identifying the one or more substances does not comprise processing to reduce the contribution to the measured spectra of the fluorescence in the sample in order to yield an indication as to the likelihood that the test tissue is abnormal (Abstract lines 3-8).
Claim(s) 13, 38 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Branigan and Wang as applied to claim(s) 1, 35 above, and in view of Oosta, G. et al., US6567678B1 (hereinafter Oosta).
Regarding claim 13, the modified device of Branigan fails to teach the method of claim 1, wherein the polarisation of at least one of the excitation modes comprises linear polarisation, circular polarisation, or elliptical polarisation.
Oosta, from the same field of endeavor as Branigan, teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the polarisation of at least one of the excitation modes comprises linear polarisation, circular polarization (fig. 3 element 111, col 21 lines 25-34), or elliptical polarisation.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to apply the teaching of Oosta to the modified device of Branigan to have the method of claim 1, wherein the polarisation of at least one of the excitation modes comprises linear polarisation, circular polarisation, or elliptical polarization in order to measure the depolarization and diattenuation of the finger or other body parts, such as an earlobe (col 21 lines 41-43).
Regarding claim 38, the modified device of Branigan fails to teach the apparatus of claim 35, wherein the illumination source is configured to emit polarised light.
Oosta, from the same field of endeavor as Branigan, teaches the apparatus of claim 35, wherein the illumination source is configured to emit polarised light (fig. 3 element 111, col 21 lines 25-34).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to apply the teaching of Oosta to the modified device of Branigan to have the apparatus of claim 35, wherein the illumination source is configured to emit polarised light in order to measure the depolarization and diattenuation of the finger or other body parts, such as an earlobe (col 21 lines 41-43).
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Branigan and Wang as applied to claim(s) 1 above, and in view of Bechtel, J. H., and A. R. Chraplyvy. "Laser diagnostics of flames, combustion products, and sprays." Proceedings of the IEEE 70.6 (1982): 658-677 (hereinafter Bechtel).
Regarding claim 14, the modified device of Branigan fails to teach the method of claim 1, wherein two or more of the excitation modes differ from one another in polarisation.
Bechtel, from the same field of endeavor as Branigan, teaches the method of claim 1, wherein two or more of the excitation modes differ from one another in polarization (fig. 7, p. 7 col 2 para 4, Nd: YAG laser beams and dye laser have different polarization).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to apply the teaching of Bechtel to the modified device of Branigan to have the method of claim 1, wherein two or more of the excitation modes differ from one another in polarization in order to suppress the CARS nonresonant background signal in experiments to measure CO and CO2 (p. 7 col 2 para 4, last sentence).
Claim(s) 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Branigan and Wang as applied to claim(s) 1 above, and in view of Bergeson, Scott D., et al. "Resonance Raman measurements of carotenoids using light-emitting diodes." Journal of biomedical optics 13.4 (2008): 044026-044026 (hereinafter Bergeson).
Regarding claim 23, the modified device of Branigan does teach the method of claim 1, wherein measuring the intensity of light from the sample for each of the excitation modes comprises filtering out light at the wavelength of the excitation mode.
Bergeson, from the same field of endeavor as Branigan, teaches the method of claim 1, wherein measuring the intensity of light from the sample for each of the excitation modes comprises filtering out light at the wavelength of the excitation mode (fig. 1 F=bandpass filter, p. 2 col 1 last para last line to col 2 para 1 lines 1-6).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to apply the teaching of Bergeson to the modified device of Branigan to have the method of claim 1, wherein measuring the intensity of light from the sample for each of the excitation modes comprises filtering out light at the wavelength of the excitation mode in order to select the excitation detection wavelengths (Abstract lines 4-5).
Claim(s) 24, 41 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Branigan and Wang as applied to claim(s) 1, 35 above, and in view of Grun.
Regarding claim 24, the modified device of Branigan does not teach the method of claim 1, wherein the one or more substances comprise microorganisms, bacteria or archaea, and identifying the one or more substances comprises classifying the microorganisms.
Grun, from the same field of endeavor as Branigan, teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the one or more substances comprise microorganisms, for example bacteria or archaea, and identifying the one or more substances comprises classifying the microorganisms (fig. 3 shows a different species of bacteria).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to apply the teaching of Grun to the modified device of Branigan to have the method of claim 1, wherein the one or more substances comprise microorganisms, for example bacteria or archaea, and identifying the one or more substances comprises classifying the microorganisms to obtain a multi-dimensional signature of the sample in order to rapidly identify bacteria in hospital and food plant settings, for screening large populations, and for biochemical-threat warning systems (Abstract last sentence).
Regarding claim 41, the modified device of Branigan fails to teach the apparatus of claim 35, wherein the bandwidth of light emitted by the illumination source is sufficiently narrow to resolve a Raman linewidth of 50 cm-1 or less.
Grun, from the same field of endeavor as Branigan, teaches the apparatus of claim 35, wherein the bandwidth of light emitted by the illumination source is sufficiently narrow to resolve a Raman linewidth of 50 cm-1 or less (p. 2 col 1 lines 1-4).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to apply the teaching of Grun to the modified device of Branigan to have the apparatus of claim 35, wherein the bandwidth of light emitted by the illumination source is sufficiently narrow to resolve a Raman linewidth of 50 cm-1 or less in order to obtain a two-dimensional spectra, which will allow identification of bacteria and chemicals in environments containing multiple organisms and chemicals, leading, for example, to instruments that rapidly identify bacteria in hospital and food plant settings, for screening large populations, and for biochemical-threat warning systems (Abstract last sentence).
Claim(s) 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Branigan and Wang and as applied to claim(s) 1 above, and in view of Grun.
Regarding claim 25, the modified device of Branigan does not teach the method of claim 24, wherein classifying the microorganisms comprises identifying a category of the microorganisms, wherein the category comprises one or more of a taxonomic group of a sub-species, a strain, a species, a genus, a family, an order, a class, a phenotype, a type of anti-microbial resistance or an anti-biotic susceptibility.
Grun, from the same field of endeavor as Branigan, teaches the method of claim 24, wherein classifying the microorganisms comprises identifying a category of the microorganisms, wherein the category comprises one or more of a taxonomic group of a sub-species, a strain, a species (fig. 3 shows a different species of bacteria), a genus, a family, an order, a class, a phenotype, a type of anti-microbial resistance or an anti-biotic susceptibility.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to apply the teaching of Grun to the modified device of Branigan to have the method of claim 24, wherein classifying the microorganisms comprises identifying a category of the microorganisms, wherein the category comprises one or more of a taxonomic group of a sub-species, a strain, a species, a genus, a family, an order, a class, a phenotype, a type of anti-microbial resistance or an anti-biotic susceptibility in order to rapidly identify bacteria in hospital and food plant settings, for screening large populations, and for biochemical-threat warning systems (Abstract last sentence).
Claim(s) 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Branigan, Wang, and Grun as applied to claim(s) 25 above, and in view of Kaidi.
Regarding claim 27, Branigan, when modified by Wang and Grun, does not teach the method of claim 25, wherein the sample comprises microorganisms of two or more categories, and identifying the one or more substances comprises determining a quantity and/or relative proportion of microorganisms of each of the two or more categories.
Kaidi, from the same field of endeavor as Branigan, teaches the method of claim 25, wherein the sample comprises microorganisms of two or more categories (this is shown in fig. 1), and identifying the one or more substances comprises determining a quantity and/or relative proportion of microorganisms of each of the two or more categories (this is shown in fig. 6, which is the actual ratio of the microorganisms).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to apply the teaching of Kaidi to Branigan, when modified by Wang and Grun, to have the method of claim 25, wherein the sample comprises microorganisms of two or more categories, and identifying the one or more substances comprises determining a quantity and/or relative proportion of microorganisms of each of the two or more categories in order to have a rapid identification of bacterial pathogens which is critical for developing an early warning system and performing epidemiological investigation (p. 1 Importance section first sentence).
Claim(s) 28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Branigan and Wang as applied to claim(s) 1 above, and in view of Ridgley, Devin M., Elizabeth C. Claunch, and Justin R. Barone. "Characterization of large amyloid fibers and tapes with Fourier transform infrared (FT-IR) and Raman spectroscopy." Applied spectroscopy 67.12 (2013): 1417-1426 (hereinafter Ridgley).
Regarding claim 28, the modified device of Branigan does not teach the method of claim 1, wherein the one or more substances comprise one or more any type of amyloid fibrils, amyloid plaques or its precursors, tau and phospho-tau, huntingtin, other markers of proteinopathies, extracellular matrix components, collagen or elastin.
Ridgley, from the same field of endeavor as Branigan, teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the one or more substances comprise one or more any type of amyloid fibrils (fig. 4), amyloid plaques or its precursors, tau and phospho-tau, huntingtin, other markers of proteinopathies, extracellular matrix components, collagen or elastin.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to apply the teaching of Ridgley to the modified device of Branigan to have the method of claim 1, wherein the one or more substances comprise one or more any type of amyloid fibrils, amyloid plaques or its precursors, tau and phospho-tau, huntingtin, other markers of proteinopathies, extracellular matrix components, collagen or elastin in order to mimic nature’s amyloid self-assembly processes, to study prion disease progression, and to design new biomaterials (p. 1 col 2 para 1).
Claim(s) 31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Branigan and Wang as applied to claim(s) 30 above, and in view of Becker, Lucas, et al. "Raman imaging and fluorescence lifetime imaging microscopy for diagnosis of cancer state and metabolic monitoring." Cancers 13.22 (2021): 5682 (Becker).
Regarding claim 31, the modified device of Branigan does not teach the method of claim 30, wherein the sample is obtained from an organism or a human, and the method further comprises determining a type, a likelihood, a severity, and/or a stage of a disease or condition for the organism or the human on the basis of the identification of the one or more substances.
Becker, from the same field of endeavor as Wang, teaches the method of claim 30, wherein the sample is obtained from an organism or a human (fig. 2(a), tissue samples are from patients), and the method further comprises determining a type, a likelihood, a severity, and/or a stage of a disease or condition for the organism or the human on the basis of the identification of the one or more substances.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to apply the teaching of Becker to the modified device of Branigan to have the method of claim 30, wherein the sample is obtained from an organism or a human, and the method further comprises determining a type, a likelihood, a severity, and/or a stage of a disease or condition for the organism or the human on the basis of the identification of the one or more substances in order to facilitate the screening for patient-individualized drug treatment options (Abstract last sentence).
Claim(s) 33 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Branigan and Wang as applied to claim(s) 1 above, and in view of Shlomo, S. et al., WO 2020075163 A1 (hereinafter Shlomo).
Regarding claim 33, the modified device of Branigan does not teach the method of claim 32, wherein the method further comprises determining a likelihood or severity of contamination or biological contamination of the non-biological source, on the basis of the identification of the one or more substances.
Shlomo, from the same field of endeavor as Branigan, teaches the the method of claim 32, wherein the method further comprises determining a likelihood or severity of contamination or biological contamination of the non-biological source, on the basis of the identification of the one or more substances (fig. 3 shows the bacterial density in drinking water, p. 5 para 11-13).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to apply the teaching of Shlomo to the modified device of Branigan to have the method of claim 32, wherein the method further comprises determining a likelihood or severity of contamination or biological contamination of the non-biological source, on the basis of the identification of the one or more substances in order to have a rapid quantification of bacteria in high-quality water (Abstract lines 1-2).
Claim(s) 36 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Branigan and Wang as applied to claim(s) 35 above, and in view of Grun.
Regarding claim 36, the modified device of Branigan does not teach the apparatus of claim 35, wherein the illumination source comprises a wavelength-tuneable illumination source.
Grun, from the same field of endeavor as Branigan, teaches the the apparatus of claim 35, wherein the illumination source comprises a wavelength-tuneable illumination source (p. 1 col 2 last para lines 3-6).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to apply the teaching of Grun to the modified device of Branigan to have the apparatus of claim 35, wherein the illumination source comprises a wavelength-tuneable illumination source in order to change the wavelength of the laser at 1 nm increments (p. 1 col 2 last para lines 3-6).
Claim(s) 39, 40 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang and Oosta as applied to claim(s) 38 above, and in view of Zhang, Y. et al., CN 103698309 A (hereinafter Zhang).
Regarding claim 39, Branigan, when modified by Wang and Oosta, does not teach the apparatus of claim 38, wherein the polarisation of the light emitted by the illumination source is tuneable. Regarding claim 40, Branigan, when modified by Wang and Oosta, does not teach the apparatus of claim 38, wherein the illumination source comprises a plurality of sub-sources, each sub-source configured to emit light having a different polarisation from the other sub-sources.
Zhang, from the same field of endeavor as Branigan, teaches the apparatus of claim 38, wherein the polarisation of the light emitted by the illumination source is tuneable (fig. 1 elements 121 and 111 are two tunable lasers, p. 2 para [0008] lines 1-6) and the apparatus of claim 38, wherein the illumination source comprises a plurality of sub-sources, each sub-source configured to emit light having a different polarisation from the other sub-sources (fig. 1 shows element 121 has a different polarization than element 111; para [0026]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to apply the teaching of Zhang to Branigan, when modified by Wang and Oosta, to have the apparatus of claim 38, wherein the polarisation of the light emitted by the illumination source is tuneable and the apparatus of claim 38, wherein the illumination source comprises a plurality of sub-sources, each sub-source configured to emit light having a different polarisation from the other sub-sources in order to increase the application range of the super-resolution microscope (Abstract last sentence).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERTO FABIAN JR whose telephone number is (571)272-3632. The examiner can normally be reached M-F (8-12, 1-5).
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, KARA GEISEL can be reached at (571)272-2416. 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.
/ROBERTO FABIAN JR/Examiner, Art Unit 2877
/Kara E. Geisel/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2877
Prosecution Insights