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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 07/13/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues:
At p. 13 para 4 that “Grun is only concerned with analysing resonant Raman spectra with fluorescence contributions removed. There is no disclosure of using non-resonant or pre-resonant Raman regimes or fluorescence contributions as required by claim 1.”
Examiner response:
The examiner respectfully disagrees. Grun teaches the limitation: “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 (this is shown in figs. 1and 3)”, which is the five resonant-Raman signal of the bacteria. In addition, the teaching of Zeng, includes fluorescence, in order to improve the accuracy of the measurements (col 6 lines 36-46).
Adding fluorescent signals would not break the device of Grun as disclosed in the teaching of Zeng. It would be obvious to try to include the fluorescent signals in analyzing the data in evaluating the sample (col 5 lines 45-48). See rejection below.
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, 2, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 13, 15, 16, 18, 21, 23, 24, 25, 28, 30, 31, 35, 36, 38, 39, 41, 42, 44, 49 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grun, Jacob, et al. "Identification of bacteria from two-dimensional resonant-Raman spectra." Analytical Chemistry 79.14 (2007): 5489-5493 (hereinafter Grun), and in view of US 8326404 B2 (hereinafter Zeng).
Regarding claim 1, Grun 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. 1 col 2 last para lines 3-6 to p. 2 col 1 para 1 lines 1-4); 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 (this is shown in fig. 1); and identifying or detecting one or more substances in the sample using the measured spectra together (this is shown in fig. 1) by combining at least part of each of the measured spectra, or values derived therefrom, to obtain a combined set of values and analyzing the combined set of values (this is shown in fig. 2 with E. coli and Y. rohdei), wherein: the excitation modes differ in wavelength (this is shown in fig. 1 “Pump wavelength, nm”); 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 (this is shown in figs. 1 and 3); the identifying or detecting 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 (this is shown in fig. 1).
Grun fails to teach including the fluorescence.
Zeng, from the same field of endeavor as Grun, teaches including the fluorescence (Abstract lines 1-8).
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 Grun to have including the fluorescence in order to test the sample and yields an indication as to the likelihood that the test sample is abnormal (Abstract lines 1-8).
Regarding claim 2, Grun does not teach the method of claim 1, wherein analyzing the combined set of values comprises using at least one of a multivariate analysis, principal component analysis or linear discriminant analysis.
Zeng, from the same field of endeavor as Grun, teaches the method of claim 1, wherein analyzing the combined set of values comprises using at least one of a multivariate analysis, principal component analysis or linear discriminant analysis (figs. 7A-C, col 4 last para).
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 Grun to have the method of claim 1, wherein analyzing the combined set of values comprises using at least one of a multivariate analysis, principal component analysis or linear discriminant analysis in order to test the sample and yields an indication as to the likelihood that the test sample is abnormal (Abstract lines 1-8).
Regarding claim 4, Grun teaches the method of claim 2, wherein combining the measured spectra comprises 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).
Regarding claim 5, Grun does not teach the method of claim 4, wherein identifying or detecting the one or more substances further comprises comparing the multi-dimensional signature to one or more reference signatures.
Zeng, from the same field of endeavor as Grun, teaches the method of claim 4, wherein identifying or detecting the one or more substances further comprises comparing the multi-dimensional signature to one or more reference signatures (col 5 last para to col 6 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 Zeng to Grun to have the method of claim 4, wherein identifying or detecting the one or more substances further comprises comparing the multi-dimensional signature to one or more reference signatures in order to test the sample and yields an indication as to the likelihood that the test sample is abnormal (Abstract lines 1-8).
Regarding claim 6, Grun teaches the method of claim 1, wherein analyzing the combined set of values comprises using at least one of a machine-learning algorithm (fig. 3, “ORASIS” is a machine-learning algorithm), a support vector machine or a neural network.
Regarding claim 8, Grun teaches the method of claim 1, wherein identifying or detecting the one or more substances comprises classifying the one or more substances (this is shown in fig. 3).
Regarding claim 9, Grun does not teach the method of claim 1, wherein identifying or detecting 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 10, Grun does not teach 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. Regarding claim 11, Grun does not teach the method of claim 1, wherein identifying or detecting 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 Grun, teaches the method of claim 1, wherein identifying or detecting the one or more substances does not comprise processing to reduce the contribution to the measured spectra of any photophysical processes in the sample (figs. 7A-C, col 4 last para; it does not remove the background fluorescence), the method of claim 1, wherein the plurality of photophysical processes in the sample further includes one or more of photoluminescence (figs. 7A-C, col 4 last para; it does not remove the background fluorescence), phosphorescence, elastic scattering, and reflection, the method of claim 1, wherein identifying or detecting the one or more substances does not comprise processing to reduce the contribution to the measured spectra of the fluorescence in the sample (figs. 7A-C, col 4 last para; it does not remove the background fluorescence).
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 Grun to have the method of claim 1, wherein identifying or detecting 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 one or more of photoluminescence, the method of claim 1, wherein identifying or detecting 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 test the sample and yields an indication as to the likelihood that the test sample is abnormal (Abstract lines 1-8).
Regarding claim 13, Grun teaches the method of claim 1, wherein a polarisation of at least one of the excitation modes comprises linear polarization (p. 3 col 1 para 1 last sentence; this is a linear polarization), circular polarisation, or elliptical polarisation.
Regarding claim 15 Grun fails to teach 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.
Zeng, from the same field of endeavor as Grun, 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 (Abstract lines 1-3).
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 Grun to have 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 in order to test the sample and yields an indication as to the likelihood that the test sample is abnormal (Abstract lines 1-8).
Regarding claim 16, Grun fails to teach 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 700-3000nm.
Zeng, from the same field of endeavor as Grun, teaches the method of claim 15, wherein the one or more visible light wavelengths comprise a wavelength in the range 400-700nm (col 6 line 45; visible fluorescence spectra are within this range), and the one or more infra-red light wavelengths comprise a wavelength in the range 700-3000nm (col 5 line 64).
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 Grun to have 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 700-3000nm in order to test the sample and yields an indication as to the likelihood that the test sample is abnormal (Abstract lines 1-8).
Regarding claim 18 Grun 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. 2 col 1 para 1 line 3; the difference is 70 nm).
Regarding claim 21, Grun teaches the method of claim 1, 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 (p. 2 col 1 para 1 lines 1-10).
Regarding claim 23, Grun does not 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.
Zeng, from the same field of endeavor as Grun, 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. 1A element 19, col 7 lines 30-34).
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 Zeng to Grun 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 only allow specific wavelength of light (col 7 lines 30-34).
Regarding claim 24, Grun teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the one or more substances comprise microorganisms, bacteria (this is shown in fig. 1) or archaea, and identifying or detecting the one or more substances comprises classifying the microorganisms.
Regarding claim 25, Grun 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, 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.
Regarding claim 28, Grun does not teach the method of claim 1, wherein the one or more substances comprise one or more of: 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.
Zeng, from the same field of endeavor as Grun, teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the one or more substances comprise one or more of: 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 (Table 1 col 12 last para 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 Zeng to Grun to have the method of claim 1, wherein the one or more substances comprise one or more of: 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 distinguish between normal and tumor skin (Table 1 col 12 last para last sentence).
Regarding claim 30, Grun teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the sample is a biological sample (this is shown in fig. 1).
Regarding claim 31, Grun 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.
Zeng, from the same field of endeavor as Grun, teaches the method of claim 30, wherein the sample is obtained from an organism or a human (this is example 4 in col 17 lines 8-61), and the method further comprises determining a type (this is example 4 in col 17 lines 8-61), 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 Zeng to Grun 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 indicate whether the sample is normal or abnormal (col 17 lines 52-58).
Regarding claim 35, Grun 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. 1 col 2 last para lines 3-6 to p. 2 col 1 para 1 lines 1-4); 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. 2 col 1 para 1 lines 14-16, fig. 1); and a processing unit configured to identify or detect one or more substances in the sample using the measured spectra (these are shown in fig. 2 and fig. 3) together by combining at least part of each of the measured spectra, or values derived therefrom (these are shown in fig. 2 and fig. 3), to obtain a combined set of values and analyzing the combined set of values (these are shown in fig. 2 and fig. 3), wherein: the excitation modes differ in wavelength (fig. 1 “Pump wavelength, nm”); 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 (this is shown in fig. 1); and the processing unit is configured to identify or detect 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 (this is shown in fig. 1).
Grun fails to teach including the fluorescence.
Zeng, from the same field of endeavor as Grun, teaches including the fluorescence (Abstract lines 1-8).
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 Grun to have including the fluorescence in order to test the sample and yields an indication as to the likelihood that the test sample is abnormal (Abstract lines 1-8).
Regarding claim 36, Grun teaches the apparatus of claim 35, wherein the illumination source comprises a wavelength-tuneable illumination source (p. 1 col 2 last para lines 3-6).
Regarding claim 38, Grun teaches the apparatus of claim 35, wherein the illumination source is configured to emit polarised light (p. 3 col 1 para 1 last sentence).
Regarding claim 39, Grun teaches the apparatus of claim 38, wherein the polarisation of the light emitted by the illumination source is tuneable (p. 1 col 2 last para lines 3-6).
Regarding claim 41, Grun 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 para 1 lines 1-4).
Regarding claim 42, Grun teaches the apparatus of claim 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 (p. 3 col 1 para 1 lines 14-15).
Regarding claim 44, Grun fails to teach 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.
Zeng, from the same field of endeavor as Grun, 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 (fig. 1A element 19, col 7 lines 30-34); 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.
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 Grun to have 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 in order only allow specific wavelength of light (col 7 lines 30-34).
Regarding claim 49, Grun 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, a grating (p. 2 col 2 para 1; “gratings”), a prism, or an interferometer.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grun and Zeng 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 Grun 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 Grun, 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 Grun 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) 17, 32, 37 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grun and Zeng as applied to claim(s) 1, 15, 35 above, and further in view of 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).
Regarding claim 17, the modified device of Grun does not teach the method of claim 15, wherein the wavelengths of the excitation modes comprise one or more of 405nm, 532nm, 633nm, 785nm, and 1064nm.
Branigan, from the same field of endeavor as Grun, 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).
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 Branigan to the modified device of Grun to have the method of claim 15, wherein the wavelengths of the excitation modes comprise one or more of 405nm, 532nm, 633nm, 785nm, and 1064nm in order to interrogate hydration dynamics spectroscopically (p. 2 “Introduction” para 1 lines 1-2).
Regarding claim 32, the modified device Grun does not teach the method of claim 1, wherein the sample is obtained from a non-biological source.
Branigan, from the same field of endeavor as Grun, teaches the method of 1, wherein the sample is obtained from a non-biological source (figs. 1, 2, 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 Branigan to the modified device of Grun to have the method of 1, wherein the sample is obtained from a non-biological source (figs. 1, 2, 4) in order to interrogate hydration dynamics spectroscopically (p. 2 “Introduction” para 1 lines 1-2).
Regarding claim 37, the modified device of Grun does not teach 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.
Branigan, from the same field of endeavor as Grun, 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).
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 Branigan to the modified device of Grun to have 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 in order to emit different wavelengths of light to the sample.
Claim(s) 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grun and Zeng as applied to claim(s) 25 above, and further in view of 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 27, the modified device of Grun, does not teach the method of claim 25, wherein the sample comprises microorganisms of two or more categories, and identifying or detecting 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 or detecting 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 the modified device of Grun, to have the method of claim 25, wherein the sample comprises microorganisms of two or more categories, and identifying or detecting 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) 33 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grun and Zeng 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 Grun 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 Grun, 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 Grun 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) 40 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grun and Zeng as applied to claim(s) 38 above, and further in view of Zhang, Y. et al., CN 103698309 A (hereinafter Zhang).
Regarding claim 40, the modified device of Grun 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 Grun, teaches 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 the modified device of Grun to have 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
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