DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1-7, 9-24 and 26-37 are pending in this application.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I(Claims 1-7, 9-24 and 26-29) and of the species (biological material: biomolecules) in the reply filed on 08/14/2026 is acknowledged. Claims 30-37 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 08/14/2026.
Claims 1-7, 9-24 and 26-29 were examined on their merits.
Drawings
Figures 4 and 8 should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated. See MPEP § 608.02(g).
Corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The replacement sheet(s) should be labeled “Replacement Sheet” in the page header (as per 37 CFR 1.84(c)) so as not to obstruct any portion of the drawing figures. If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The use of the term MATLAB™, which is a trade name or a mark used in commerce, has been noted in this application. The term should be accompanied by the generic terminology; furthermore the term should be capitalized wherever it appears or, where appropriate, include a proper symbol indicating use in commerce such as ™, SM , or ® following the term. Although the use of trade names and marks used in commerce (i.e., trademarks, service marks, certification marks, and collective marks) are permissible in patent applications, the proprietary nature of the marks should be respected and every effort made to prevent their use in any manner which might adversely affect their validity as commercial marks.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-7 and 9-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. § 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claim 1 recites, “exposing each sample to simultaneous electromagnetic radiation from at least one electromagnetic radiation source”. It is unclear if the samples are being exposed to multiple sources of electromagnetic radiation at the same time or if the samples are all being exposed to an electromagnetic radiation at the same time, such that the metes and bounds of the claim are unclear. For purposes of examination, the Examiner has construed the claim as requiring exposure of all of the samples to an electromagnetic radiation at the same time. Claims 2-7 and 9-17 are rejected as being dependent upon rejected Claim 1 and for failing to rectify the indefiniteness thereof.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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) 1-7, 9, 11, 12, 14-24 and 27-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Furr et al. (2022), in view of Murnick (US 5,818,580).
Furr et al. teaches providing/depositing a sample comprising; a biomolecule (lysozyme), the disaccharide trehalose and a salt/water solution (phosphate buffer) on a glass coverslip (ratio of one sample per substrate) and exposing the sample to a laser beam to form an amorphous solid matrix containing the lysozyme which is stable at storage at temperatures of 4 °C (refrigerated) or 20 °C (room temperature) (Pg. 2, 4th paragraph and Pgs. 2-3, Paragraph 2.1 and Fig. 1 and Pg. 7, Table 1), and reading on Claims 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 17, 18, 19, 20, 23 and 29.
With regard to Claims 4 and 21, Furr et al. teaches the laser has a wavelength of 1064 nm (or 1.064 µm) (Pg. 2, Paragraph 2.1).
With regard to Claims 7 and 22, Furr et al. teaches the laser has a Gaussian beam (Pg. 2, Paragraph 2.1).
With regard to Claims 14, 15, 16, 27 and 28, Furr et al. teaches the same amorphous solid matrix as claimed, therefore it would be expected to have the same properties and characteristics with regard to glass transition temperature.
The teachings of Furr et al. were discussed above.
Furr et al. did not teach a method wherein a plurality of samples are exposed to the laser beam simultaneously, as required by Claims 1 and 18;
wherein the laser beam is directed to pass through each sample using a beam director, as required by Claims 9 and 18;
wherein the beam director is a mirror, as required by Claim 11;
or wherein the laser beam is directed through each sample more than once, as required by Claims 12 and 24.
Murnick teaches a method of exposing a plurality of samples to a laser beam simultaneously wherein the beam is directed to pass through each sample by a mirror (Fig. 1 and Column 3, Lines 30-40);
wherein the system allows a single beam to be directed through several samples simultaneously on a single optical path allowing the number of samples processed per unit time or throughput rate of the instrument to be multiplied several fold (Column 4, Lines 21-25);
and wherein the beam can be directed to pass both upstream and downstream directions through the samples one or more times to reduce differences in applied radiation intensity between upstream and downstream samples at the beam path end (Column 3, Lines 63-67 and Column 4, Lines 1-2).
It would have been obvious to those of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Furr et al. of using laser assisted drying of a single sample to apply the process to multiple samples simultaneously as taught by Murnick in order to process more than one sample at the same time. Those of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to increase the throughput rate of the process. There would have been a reasonable expectation of success in making this modification because both references are reasonably drawn to the same field of endeavor, that is, laser processing of samples.
Claim(s) 1-7, 9, 10, 11, 12, 14-24 and 27-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Furr et al. (2022), in view of Murnick (US 5,818,580), as applied to Claims 1-7, 9, 11, 12, 14-24 and 27-29 above, and further in view of Senisterra et al. (US 2004/0072356 A1).
The teachings of Furr et al. and Murnick were discussed above.
Neither reference taught a method wherein the beam director which directs the laser beam through each sample is a beam splitter, as required by Claim 10.
Senisterra et al. teaches a method for monitoring light scattering of a multiplicity of samples essentially simultaneously, wherein instruments to monitor light scattering in individual samples are expensive and to use a number of those instruments to monitor a multiplicity of samples is cost prohibitive (Pg. 1, Paragraph [0008]);
and the reference further teaches an embodiment wherein a plurality of biological samples may be exposed to a plurality of lasers or the beam of one or more lasers may be split (e.g. by a beam splitter) in order to expose the plurality of samples to the laser light simultaneously (Pg. 1, Paragraph [0013]
It would have been obvious to those of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Furr and Melnick of performing laser assisted drying of multiple samples simultaneously to use a beam splitter to expose a plurality of samples to the laser light simultaneously as taught by Senisterra et al. because this would provide an alternative means of processing more than one sample at the same time and eliminate the need for multiple discrete instruments to process multiple single samples. Those of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to increase the throughput rate of the process. There would have been a reasonable expectation of success in making this modification because all of the references are reasonably drawn to the same field of endeavor, that is, laser processing of samples.
Claim(s) 1-7, 9, 13, 11, 12, 14-24, 26 and 27-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Furr et al. (2022), in view of Murnick (US 5,818,580), as applied to Claims 1-7, 9, 11, 12, 14-24 and 27-29 above, and further in view of Maiman (US 3,437,942 A).
The teachings of Furr et al. and Murnick were discussed above.
Neither reference taught a method including correcting optics between samples to correct laser beam convergence or divergence, as required by Claims 13 and 26.
Maiman teaches a method and apparatus for at least partially correcting and/or compensating for beam divergence or convergence as a result of imperfections and “lens” effects in the laser crystal itself and associated optics (Column 1, Lines 65-69);
wherein suitable adjustment in a beam expander optics will at least partially correct or compensate for imperfections and lens effects (Column 2, Lines 32-35).
It would have been obvious to those of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Furr and Melnick of performing laser assisted drying of multiple samples simultaneously to use correcting optics between samples to correct convergence or divergence as taught by Maiman because this will correct for beam diameter changes caused by imperfections and “lens” effects in the laser crystal and associated optics.
Those of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to have a laser beam with the correct beam diameter for the intended application. There would have been a reasonable expectation of success in making this modification because all of the references are reasonably drawn to the same field of endeavor, that is, the use of lasers and systems thereof.
No claims are allowed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to PAUL C MARTIN whose telephone number is (571)272-3348. The Examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 12pm-8pm EST.
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, Sharmila G Landau can be reached at (571) 272-0614. 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.
/PAUL C MARTIN/Examiner, Art Unit 1653 08/26/2026
Prosecution Insights