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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 08/16/2024 was/were filed. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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.
Claim(s) 2, 4, 5, 6, 24, 25, 28, 33, 32, 44 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(s) 2, 6, 24, 25, 28, 32, 44 the phrase "for example" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claims 4, 5, 33 are rejected due to its dependency to claims 2, 32.
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 10, 12, 21, 30, 35, 37, 42, 44 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wang, R. et al., US 20170184453 A1 (hereinafter Wang).
Regarding claim 1, Wang teaches a method of identifying one or more substances in a sample (para [0031] lines 6-9) comprising: illuminating the sample with light of each of a plurality of different excitation modes (fig. 2 has three different wavelengths, para [0034] lines 1-20); measuring an intensity and/or polarisation of light from the sample at a plurality of wavelengths to obtain a measured spectrum for each of the excitation modes (para [0031] lines 6-9); and identifying one or more substances in the sample using the measured spectra together (para [0031] lines 6-9), wherein: the excitation modes differ in one or both of wavelength (para [0034] lines 1-20) and polarisation; and the identifying of the one or more substances uses contributions to the measured spectra from a plurality of photophysical processes (this is the fluorescent analysis, para [0064] lines 1-3) in the sample including inelastic scattering of light (this is the Raman analysis, para [0064] lines 1-3).
Regarding claim 10, Wang teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the plurality of photophysical processes in the sample further includes one or more of fluorescence (para [0064] lines 1-3), photoluminescence, phosphorescence, elastic scattering, and reflection.
Regarding claim 12, Wang teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the inelastic scattering of light comprises Raman scattering (para [0064] lines 1-3).
Regarding claim 21, Wang 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 (para [0034] lines 20-23) or b) illuminating the sample sequentially with light of each of the excitation modes.
Regarding claim 30, Wang teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the sample is a biological sample (para [0004] last sentence).
Regarding claim 35, Wang teaches an apparatus for identifying one or more substances in a sample (para [0031] lines 6-9) comprising: an illumination source configured to illuminate the sample with light of each of a plurality of different excitation modes (fig. 2 has three different wavelengths, para [0034] lines 1-20); a detector configured to measure an intensity and/or polarisation of light from the sample at a plurality of wavelengths to obtain a measured spectrum for each of the excitation modes (para [0031] lines 6-9); and a processing unit configured to identify one or more substances in the sample using the measured spectra together (para [0031] lines 6-9), wherein: the excitation modes differ in one or both of wavelength and polarization (para [0034] lines 1-20); 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 (this is the fluorescent analysis, para [0064] lines 1-3) in the sample including inelastic scattering of light (this is the Raman analysis, para [0064] lines 1-3).
Regarding claim 37, Wang 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 (fig. 2 shows three different wavelength lights as sub-sources).
Regarding claim 42, Wang teaches the apparatus of 35, wherein either a) the detector is configured to detect light reflected and/or backscattered from the sample (fig. 1 shows the detector detects reflected light from the sample), or b) the detector is configured to detect light transmitted through and/or scattered by the sample.
Regarding claim 44, Wang teaches The apparatus of claims 35, wherein the apparatus further comprises one or more of: a) filtering element, for example a shortpass optical filter, longpass optical filter, notch optical filter, bandpass optical filter, or electro-optical modulator, the filtering element configured to remove light at the wavelength of the excitation mode from the light from the sample; b) a detection polarizer configured to select light having a predetermined polarization from the light from the sample; and c) a resolving element, for example a spectrograph (fig. 3 shows a spectrometer device, para [0014]), a grating, a prism, or an interferometer, resolving element configured to spectrally resolve the light from the sample.
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) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang as applied to claim(s) 1 above, and in view of Wollmann, P. et al., US20210318243A1 (hereinafter Wollmann).
Regarding claim 2, Wang 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 Wang, 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 Wang 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 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, the modified device of Wang 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, the modified device of Wang 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 Wang, 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 the modified device of Wang 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 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, Wang 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, Wang 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 Wang, 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 Wang 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, 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang as applied to claim(s) 1 above, and in view of Zeng, H. et al., US8326404B2 (hereinafter Zeng).
Regarding claim 9, Wang 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, Wang 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 Wang, 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 Wang 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).
Regarding claim 15, Wang 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 Wang, 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 (col 7 lines 20-22).
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 Wang 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 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 Wang as applied to claim(s) 1, 35 above, and in view of Oosta, G. et al., US6567678B1 (hereinafter Oosta).
Regarding claim 13, Wang 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 Wang, 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 Wang 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, Wang 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 Wang, 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 Wang 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 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, Wang 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 Wang, 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 Wang 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) 16, 17, 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang and Zeng as applied to claim(s) 15 above, and in view of Li, C. et al., CN 111256821 A (hereinafter Li).
Regarding claim 16, the modified device of Wang does not 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 700-3000 nm. Regarding claim 17, the modified device of Wang does not to teach the method of claim 15-wherein the wavelengths of the excitation modes comprise one or more of 405nm, 532nm, 633nm, 785nm, and 1064nm. Regarding claim 18, the modified device of Wang does not to teach the method of claim 15-wherein the wavelengths of the excitation modes comprise one or more of 405nm, 532nm, 633nm, 785nm, and 1064nm.
Li, from the same field of endeavor as Wang, 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. 5 para 3), the method of claim 15-wherein the wavelengths of the excitation modes comprise one or more of 405nm, 532nm, 633nm, 785nm, and 1064nm (p. 5 para 3), the method of claim 15-wherein the wavelengths of the excitation modes comprise one or more of 405nm, 532nm, 633nm, 785nm, and 1064nm (p. 5 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 Li to the modified device of Wang 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 700-3000 nm, the method of claim 15-wherein the wavelengths of the excitation modes comprise one or more of 405nm, 532nm, 633nm, 785nm, and 1064nm, 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 have a suitable Raman and fluorescence detection, which has simple structure, low using cost, food safety, material identification, structure analysis, criminal investigation, scientific research and has wide application prospect (Abstract last sentence).
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang, Zeng, and Li as applied to claim(s) 18 above, and in view of Asahi, I. et al., WO 2019065828 A1 A (hereinafter Asahi).
Regarding claim 20, Wang does not to teach the method of claim 18, wherein 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.
Asahi, from the same field of endeavor as Wang, teaches the method of claim 18, wherein 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 explained in p. 4 para 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 Asahi to Wang to have the method of claim 18, wherein 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 in order to detect resonance Raman scattering light with high accuracy (p. 4 para 4 last sentence).
Claim(s) 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over 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, Wang does teach the method of claim 1, wherein measuring an intensity and/or polarisation 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 Wang, teaches the method of claim 1, wherein measuring an intensity and/or polarisation 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 Wang to have the method of claim 1, wherein measuring an intensity and/or polarisation 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, 36, 41 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang as applied to claim(s) 1, 35 above, and in view of Grun.
Regarding claim 24, Wang does not teach 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.
Grun, from the same field of endeavor as Wang, 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 Wang 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 36, Wang 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 Wang, 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 Wang 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).
Regarding claim 41, Wang 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 Wang, 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 Wang 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 Wang and Grun as applied to claim(s) 1 above, and in view of Shamsheyeva, A. et al., US20140278136A1A (hereinafter Shamsheyeva).
Regarding claim 25, Wang 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 the microorganisms, for example a sub-species, strain, species, genus, family, order, or class, and a phenotype of the microorganisms, for example a type of anti-microbial resistance or anti-biotic susceptibility.
Grun, from the same field of endeavor as Wang, 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 the microorganisms, for example a sub-species, strain, species, genus, family, order, or class (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 Wang 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 the microorganisms, for example a sub-species, strain, species, genus, family, order, or class 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).
Wang, when modified by Grun, fails to teach a phenotype of the microorganisms, for example a type of anti-microbial resistance or anti-biotic susceptibility.
Shamsheyeva, from the same field of endeavor as Wang, teaches a phenotype of the microorganisms, for example a type of anti-microbial resistance or anti-biotic susceptibility (this is shown in Table 2).
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 Shamsheyeva to Wang, when modified by Grun, to have a phenotype of the microorganisms, for example a type of anti-microbial resistance or anti-biotic susceptibility in order to have a rapid determination of microorganism growth and antimicrobial agent susceptibility and or resistance (Abstract).
Claim(s) 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang, Grun and Shamsheyeva as applied to claim(s) 25 above, and in view of Kaidi.
Regarding claim 27, Wang 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 Wang, 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 Wang 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 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, Wang does not teach the method of claim 1, wherein the one or more substances comprise any type of amyloid fibrils, amyloid plaques or its precursors, tau and phospho-tau, huntingtin, other markers of proteinopathies, or extracellular matrix components, for example collagen and or elastin.
Ridgley, from the same field of endeavor as Wang, teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the one or more substances comprise any type of amyloid fibrils (fig. 4), amyloid plaques or its precursors, tau and phospho-tau, huntingtin, other markers of proteinopathies, or extracellular matrix components, for example collagen and 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 Wang to have the method of claim 1, wherein the one or more substances comprise any type of amyloid fibrils, amyloid plaques or its precursors, tau and phospho-tau, huntingtin, other markers of proteinopathies, or extracellular matrix components, for example collagen and 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 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, Wang does not teach the method of claim 30, wherein the sample is obtained from an organism, and the method further comprises determining a type, a likelihood, a severity, and/or a stage of a disease or condition for the organism on the basis of the identification of the one or more substances, optionally wherein the organism is a human.
Becker, from the same field of endeavor as Wang, teaches the method of claim 30, wherein the sample is obtained from an organism (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 on the basis of the identification of the one or more substances, optionally wherein the organism is a human (fig. 2(a) shows low grade and stage IIA).
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 Wang to have the method of claim 30, wherein the sample is obtained from an organism, and the method further comprises determining a type, a likelihood, a severity, and/or a stage of a disease or condition for the organism on the basis of the identification of the one or more substances, optionally wherein the organism is a human in order to facilitate the screening for patient-individualized drug treatment options (Abstract last sentence).
Claim(s) 32, 33 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang as applied to claim(s) 1 above, and in view of Shlomo, S. et al., WO 2020075163 A1 (hereinafter Shlomo).
Regarding claim 32, Wang does not teach the method of 1, wherein the sample is obtained from a non-biological source. Regarding claim 33, Wang does not teach the method of claim 32, wherein the method further comprises determining a likelihood or severity of contamination of the non-biological source, for example a biological contamination, on the basis of the identification of the one or more substances.
Shlomo, from the same field of endeavor as Wang, teaches the method of 1, wherein the sample is obtained from a non-biological source (the non-biological source is water, Abstract lines 1-2), the method of claim 32, wherein the method further comprises determining a likelihood or severity of contamination of the non-biological source, for example a biological contamination, 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 Wang to have the method of 1, wherein the sample is obtained from a non-biological source, the method of claim 32, wherein the method further comprises determining a likelihood or severity of contamination of the non-biological source, for example a biological contamination, 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) 39, 40 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang and Oosta as applied to claim(s) 1, 35 above, and in view of Zhang, Y. et al., CN 103698309 A (hereinafter Zhang).
Regarding claim 39, Wang does not teach the apparatus of claim 38, wherein the polarisation of the light emitted by the illumination source is tuneable. Regarding claim 40, Wang 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 Wang, 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 Wang 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
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, Tarifur Chowdhury can be reached at (571) 272-2287. 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