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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the sensor must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “optical elements configured to guide the scattered light” in claims 4 and 26.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 11, 12, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Englund (US20150168217A1) in view of Swillam (US20230273531A1).
Regarding claim 1, Englund teaches a multimode-interferometric spectrometer (paragraph [0005]), comprising:
a multi-mode interference waveguide (MMI-WG) (paragraph [0005]; 160, Fig. 2A), comprising: an input end (paragraph [0056] discusses the input end of the MMI waveguide, however it is the examiner's position that any waveguide would have an input end);
a lateral surface (the examiner is interpreting lateral to be the side parallel to the longest dimension of the waveguide; Fig. 1A, 2A and 2B depict this lateral surface); and
an input port (it is the position of the examiner that all waveguides have an input port) disposed on the input end of the MMI-WG and configured to guide input light to enter the MMI-WG, such that light in the MMI-WG propagates in a direction away from the input end (Figs. 1A and 2B depict the light, shown as an arrow in the waveguide portion, directed away from an input end);
a sensor configured to detect light through the lateral surface of the MMI-WG (120, Fig. 1A or 270, Fig. 2A), and to generate data based on the detected scattered light, wherein the data indicates an intensity of the scattered light (Fig. 1C depicts intensity data gathered by the sensor); and
one or more processors (122, Fig. 1A) configured to determine, based on the intensity of the light indicated by the data generated by the sensor, one or more wavelengths of the input light (paragraphs [0008], [0010], [0037], [0045], and [0049] discloses the processor determining the spectrum of the light).
Englund fails to teach the light is scattered light.
However, in the same field of endeavor of multimode interferometric spectrometers, Swillam teaches a processor which is configured to determine wavelength based on the scattering data (clause 20, paragraph [0159]).
Swillam discloses the use of scattered light data is known in the art and used to measure parameters of the object being imaged (paragraph [0006]), while also allowing fast and non-invasive measurements (paragraph [0005]). Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date would find it obvious to combine the spectrometer of Englund with the scattering measurement data taught in Swillam as it is a well-known and fast method of measurement.
Regarding claim 2, Englund as modified by Swillam teaches the invention as explained above in claim 1, and further teaches the lateral surface comprises one of a top surface of the MMI-WG and a bottom surface of the MMI-WG (Englund: the waveguide would inherently have a top and bottom on the lateral surface. For example, in Fig. 2B, the top of the lateral surface would be adjacent to 220, while the bottom would be adjacent to 214 or vice versa).
Regarding claim 4, Englund as modified by Swillam teaches the invention as explained above in claim 1, and further teaches one or more optical elements configured to guide the scattered light to the sensor (Swillum: paragraph [0010]; clause 19, paragraph [0159]).
Without the use of an optical element to guide the light, the scattered light would not reach the target and would not be measured. Thus, it would be obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to combine the spectrometer of Englund with the optical element of Swillam in order to correctly guide the light to the targeted sensor.
Regarding claim 5, Englund as modified by Swillam teaches the invention as explained above in claim 1, and further teaches the sensor comprises a two-dimensional sensor configured to detect the scattered light scattered through the lateral surface of the MMI-WG (Englund: paragraph [0049]); and
the data generated by the sensor comprises a two-dimensional image based on the detected scattered light (Englund: paragraph [0049] discloses the use of a 2D sensor, such as "those used in smartphones and digital cameras". The images of these types of sensors is 2D, thus the examiner is interpreting the sensor mentioned generates a 2D image).
Regarding claim 11, Englund as modified by Swillam teaches the invention as explained above in claim 1, and further teaches the data generated by the sensor comprises a two-dimensional image (Englund: paragraph [0049] discloses the use of a 2D sensor, such as "those used in smartphones and digital cameras". The images of these types of sensors is 2D, thus the examiner is interpreting the sensor mentioned generates a 2D image);
and determining the one or more wavelengths of the input light comprises applying a pattern-recognition operation to image (Englund: paragraph [0010] discloses storing a mapping of interference patterns and using them to determine a wavelength spectrum).
Regarding claim 12, Englund teaches a method, performed at a multimode-interferometric spectrometer (paragraph [0005]) comprising a sensor (120, Fig. 1A), one or more processors (122, Fig. 1), and a multi-mode interference waveguide (MMI- WG) (160, Fig. 2A), the method comprising:
detecting, by the sensor, light through a lateral surface of the MMI-WG (120, Fig. 1A is on the lateral surface), wherein the MMI-WG comprises:
an input end (paragraph [0056] discusses the input end of the MMI waveguide, however it is the examiner's position that any waveguide would have an input end);
the lateral surface (the examiner is interpreting lateral to be the side parallel to the longest dimension of the waveguide; Fig. 1A, 2A and 2B depict this lateral surface); and
an input port (it is the position of the examiner that all waveguides have an input port) disposed on the input end of the MMI-WG and configured to guide input light to enter the MMI-WG, such that light in the MMI-WG propagates in a direction away from the input end (Figs. 1A and 2B depict the light, shown as an arrow in the waveguide portion, directed away from an input end);
Englund fails to teach the light is scattered light and generate, by the sensor, data based on the detected scattered light, wherein the data indicates an intensity of the scattered light; and
determine, by the one or more processors, based on the intensity of the scattered light indicated by the data generated by the sensor, one or more wavelengths of the input light.
However, Swillam teaches detecting scattered light (paragraph [0009]), generate data based on the scattered light ((clause 1, paragraph [0106]), and using a processor to determine the wavelength of the scattered light based on the data (clause 20, paragraph [0106]).
Swillam discloses the use of scattered light data is known in the art and used to measure parameters of the object being imaged (paragraph [0006]), while also allowing fast and non-invasive measurements (paragraph [0005]). Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date would find it obvious to combine the spectrometer of Englund with the scattering measurement data taught in Swillam as it is a well-known and fast method of measurement.
Regarding claim 13, Englund teaches a non-transitory computer readable storage medium (paragraph [0075]) storing instructions configured to be executed by one or more processors (122, Fig. 1A) of a multimode-interferometric spectrometer comprising a sensor (122, Fig. 1A) and a multi-mode interference waveguide (MMI-WG) (120, Fig. 1A), the instructions configured to cause the spectrometer to:
detect, by the sensor, light through a lateral surface of the MMI-WG, wherein the MMI-WG comprises (120, Fig. 1A is on the lateral surface):
an input end (paragraph [0056] discusses the input end of the MMI waveguide, however it is the examiner's position that any waveguide would have an input end);
the lateral surface (the examiner is interpreting lateral to be the side parallel to the longest dimension of the waveguide; Fig. 1A, 2A and 2B depict this lateral surface); and
an input port (it is the position of the examiner that all waveguides have an input port) disposed on the input end of the MMI-WG and configured to guide input light to enter the MMI-WG, such that light in the MMI-WG propagates in a direction away from the input end (Figs. 1A and 2B depict the light, shown as an arrow in the waveguide portion, directed away from an input end);
Englund fails to teach the light is scattered light and generate, by the sensor, data based on the detected scattered light, wherein the data indicates an intensity of the scattered light; and
determine, by the one or more processors, based on the intensity of the scattered light indicated by the data generated by the sensor, one or more wavelengths of the input light.
However, Swillam teaches detecting scattered light (paragraph [0009]), generate data based on the scattered light ((clause 1, paragraph [0106]), and using a processor to determine the wavelength of the scattered light based on the data (clause 20, paragraph [0106]).
Swillam discloses the use of scattered light data is known in the art and used to measure parameters of the object being imaged (paragraph [0006]), while also allowing fast and non-invasive measurements (paragraph [0005]). Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date would find it obvious to combine the spectrometer of Englund with the scattering measurement data taught in Swillam as it is a well-known and fast method of measurement.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Englund (US20150168217A1) in view of Swillam (US20230273531A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Gao ("Light coupling for on-chip optical interconnects", Optics & Laser Technology, Volume 97, 2017, Pages 154-160, ISSN 0030-3992, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.optlastec.2017.06.017.).
Regarding claim 3, Englund as modified by Swillam teaches the invention as explained above in claim 1, but fails to teach the sensor is spaced apart from the lateral surface of the MMI-WG such that the scattered light propagates from the lateral surface of the MMI-WG through air to reach the sensor.
However, in the same field of endeavor of waveguides used in optical detection, Gao teaches spacing the sensor apart from the waveguide (abstract; page 154, column 2, paragraph 2).
Gao discloses the air gap can be used as a coupling channel (page 157, column 2, paragraph 1) and allows the coupling ratio to be manipulated (Fig. 6d). Thus, a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date would find it obvious to combine the spectrometer of Englund and Swillam with the air gap taught in Gao in order to manipulate the coupling ratio of the light going to the sensor.
Claims 6, 7, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Englund (US20150168217A1) in view of Swillam (US20230273531A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Taverner (US20070223855A1).
Regarding claim 6, Englund as modified by Swillam teaches the invention as explained above in claim 1, but fails to teach a portion of the lateral surface of the MMI-WG comprises a modified portion that enhances scattering at a location of the modified portion.
However, in the same field of endeavor of waveguides, Taverner teaches a waveguide which is modified to increase scattering (paragraph [0016]).
Taverner discloses that the light scattered in waveguides is typically very weak, making it difficult to measure (paragraph [0007]). Thus, a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date would find it obvious to combine the spectrometer of Englund and Swillam with the modified waveguide taught in Taverner to increase scattering, making it easier to measure.
Regarding claim 7, Englund as modified by Swillam and Taverner teaches the invention as explained above in claim 6, and further teaches the modified portion comprises one or more of:
an etched portion of the lateral surface; and a layer deposited onto the lateral surface (Taverner: paragraph [0016] discloses a layer deposited on the waveguide).
As discussed above in claim 6, it would be obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to combine the spectrometer of Englund and Swillam with the modified waveguide taught in Taverner in order to make the scattering signal easier to measure.
Regarding claim 9, Englund as modified by Swillam and Taverner teaches the invention as explained above in claim 6, and further teaches the sensor is configured to detect the scattered light after scattering through the modified portion of the lateral surface of the MMI-WG (Taverner: 106, Fig. 1; paragraph [0019]).
Placing the sensor after the modified portion of the waveguide allows the sensor to detect the increased scattering signal, therefore making it easier to measure (Taverner: paragraph [0007]). Thus, it would be obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine the device of Englund as modified by Swillam and Taverner with the sensor placement taught in Taverner in order to ensure the sensor is detected the enhanced scattering signal.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Englund (US20150168217A1) in view of Swillam (US20230273531A1) and Taverner (US20070223855A1) as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Aizawa (US20210190692A1).
Regarding claim 8, Englund as modified by Swillam and Taverner teach the invention as explained above in claim 6, but fails to teach input light of a first wavelength scatters at the location with an intensity above a predefined threshold; and
Input light of a second wavelength scatters at the location with an intensity below a predefined threshold.
However, in the same field of endeavor of observing scattered light, Aizawa teaches selecting wavelengths that are above a predefined threshold (paragraph [0070] discloses selecting wavelengths that are not within a certain range).
Aizawa discloses that only certain wavelengths are preferred when observing scattering, as it can weak the scattering signal (paragraph [0004]). Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date would find it obvious to combine the device of Englund as modified by Swillam and Taverner with the threshold method taught in Aizawa in order to prevent the scattering signal from being weakened.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Englund (US20150168217A1) in view of Swillam (US20230273531A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Aizawa (US20210190692A1).
Regarding claim 10, Englund as modified by Swillam teaches the invention as explained above in claim 1, but fails to teach determining the one or more wavelengths of the input light comprises determining whether the intensity of the scattered light exceeds a predefined intensity threshold.
However, Aizawa teaches comparing intensity to a predefined threshold to determine wavelength (paragraph [0071]).
Aizawa discloses that the method of threshold comparison is known in the art (paragraph [0070]). A person of ordinary skill in the art would be able to use the known technique of threshold comparison to determine a wavelength of scattered light as it is straightforward and simple to use. Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date would find it obvious to combine the device of Englund as modified by Swillam with the threshold technique taught in Aizawa as it is a simple and well-known method of determining wavelength.
Claims 14, 15, 16, 21, 22, 23, 24, 26, 27, 33, 34, and 35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schmidt (US20200011795A1), in view of Englund (US20150168217A1) and Swillam (US20230273531A1).
Regarding claim 14, Schmidt teaches a system for particle identification, comprising:
an excitation light source configured to excite a particle and to cause the particle to emit emission light (paragraph [0110]);
Schmidt fails to teach a multi-mode interference waveguide (MMI-WG), comprising: an input end;
a lateral surface and
an input port disposed on the input end of the MMI-WG and configured to guide input light to enter the MMI-WG, such that light in the MMI-WG propagates in a direction away from the input end;
a sensor configured to detect scattered light that scattered through the lateral surface of the MMI-WG, and to generate data based on the detected scattered light, wherein the data indicates an intensity of the scattered light; and
one or more processors configured to determine, based on the intensity of the scattered light indicated by the data generated by the sensor, an identity of the particle.
However, in the same field of endeavor of multi-mode interference waveguides, Englund teaches a multi-mode interference waveguide (MMI-WG) (paragraph [0005]; 160, Fig. 2A), comprising: an input end (paragraph [0056] discusses the input end of the MMI waveguide, however it is the examiner's position that any waveguide would have an input end);
a lateral surface (the examiner is interpreting lateral to be the side parallel to the longest dimension of the waveguide; Fig. 1A, 2A and 2B depict this lateral surface); and
an input port (it is the position of the examiner that all waveguides have an input port) disposed on the input end of the MMI-WG and configured to guide input light to enter the MMI-WG, such that light in the MMI-WG propagates in a direction away from the input end (Figs. 1A and 2B depict the light, shown as an arrow in the waveguide portion, directed away from an input end);
a sensor configured to detect scattered light that scattered through the lateral surface of the MMI-WG (120, Fig. 1A or 270, Fig. 2A), and to generate data based on the detected scattered light, wherein the data indicates an intensity of the scattered light (Fig. 1C depicts intensity data gathered by the sensor); and
one or more processors configured to determine, based on the intensity of the scattered light indicated by the data generated by the sensor, an identity of the particle.
Schmidt discloses the use of multi-mode interference waveguides is helpful in the identification of target particles as they are highly sensitive and therefore increases the capability of optofluidic devices (paragraph [0006]). Thus, it would be obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine the particle identification system taught in Schmidt with the multi-mode interference waveguide taught in Englund as it increases the capability of the device.
Schmidt as modified by Englund fails to teach scattered light, and one or more processors configured to determine, based on the intensity of the scattered light indicated by the data generated by the sensor, an identity of the particle.
However, Swillam teaches detecting scattered light (paragraph [0009]), generate data based on the scattered light ((clause 1, paragraph [0106]), and using a processor to determine the wavelength of the scattered light based on the data (clause 20, paragraph [0106]).
Swillam discloses the use of scattered light data is known in the art and used to measure parameters of the object being imaged (paragraph [0006]), while also allowing fast and non-invasive measurements (paragraph [0005]). Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date would find it obvious to combine the device of Schmidt as modified by Englund with the scattering measurement data taught in Swillam as it is a well-known and fast method of measurement.
Regarding claim 15, Schmidt as modified by Englund and Swillam teach the invention as explained above in claim 14, and further teaches a fluorescent molecule (Schmidt: paragraph [0049]).
Regarding claim 16, Schmidt as modified by Englund and Swillam teach the invention as explained above in claim 14, and further teaches the particle is fluorescently labeled (Schmidt: paragraph [0049]).
Regarding claim 21, Schmidt as modified by Englund and Swillam teach the invention as explained above in claim 14, and further teaches a fluid channel configured to hold a fluid medium in which the particle is disposed (Schmidt: paragraph [0007]; 114, Fig. 1C).
Regarding claim 22, Schmidt as modified by Englund and Swillam teach the invention as explained above in claim 21, and further teaches the excitation light source is incident on the fluid channel to excite the particle (Schmidt: paragraph [0098]).
Regarding claim 23, Schmidt as modified by Englund and Swillam teach the invention as explained above in claim 14, and further teaches determining, based on the intensity of the scattered light indicated by the data generated by the sensor, one or more wavelength of the emission light (Swillam: clause 20, paragraph [0106]); and
determining, based on the determined one of more wavelengths of the emission light (Swillam: paragraph [0011] discloses determining the property of a particle), the identity of the particle (Schmidt: paragraph [0237]).
As discussed above, a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date would find it obvious to combine the device of Schmidt, Englund, and Swillam with the scattering measurement data and wavelength calculation taught in Swillam as it is a well-known and fast method of measurement.
Regarding claim 24, Schmidt as modified by Englund and Swillam teach the invention as explained above in claim 14, and further teaches the lateral surface comprises one of a top surface of the MMI-WG and a bottom surface of the MMI-WG (inherent in the waveguide of Schmidt).
Regarding claim 26, Schmidt as modified by Englund and Swillam teach the invention as explained above in claim 14, and further teaches one or more optical elements configured to guide the scattered light to the sensor (Swillam: paragraph [0010]; clause 19, paragraph [0159]).
Without the use of an optical element to guide the light, the scattered light would not reach the target and would not be measured. Thus, it would be obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to combine the device of Schmidt, Englund, and Swillam with the optical element of Swillam in order to correctly guide the light to the targeted sensor.
Regarding claim 27, Schmidt as modified by Englund and Swillam teach the invention as explained above in claim 14, and further teaches the sensor comprises a two-dimensional sensor configured to detect the scattered light scattered through the lateral surface of the MMI-WG (Englund: paragraph [0049]); and
the data generated by the sensor comprises a two-dimensional image based on the detected scattered light (Englund: paragraph [0049] discloses the use of a 2D sensor, such as "those used in smartphones and digital cameras". The images of these types of sensors is 2D, thus the examiner is interpreting the sensor mentioned generates a 2D image).
Englund discloses that 2D sensors are inexpensive and widely used (paragraph [0049]). Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date would find it obvious to combine the device of Schmidt, Englund, and Swillam with the 2D sensor taught in Englund as it is inexpensive and widely used.
Regarding claim 33, Schmidt as modified by Englund and Swillam teach the invention as explained above in claim 23, and further teaches the data generated by the sensor comprises a two-dimensional image (Englund: paragraph [0049] discloses the use of a 2D sensor, such as "those used in smartphones and digital cameras". The images of these types of sensors is 2D, thus the examiner is interpreting the sensor mentioned generates a 2D image); and
determining the one or more wavelengths of the input light comprises applying a pattern-recognition operation to image (Englund: paragraphs [0008], [0010] discloses storing a mapping of interference patterns and using them to determine a wavelength spectrum).
Englund discloses that 2D sensors are inexpensive and widely used (paragraph [0049]). Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date would find it obvious to combine the device of Schmidt, Englund, and Swillam with the 2D sensor taught in Englund as it is inexpensive and widely used.
Further, using a pattern-recognition operation ("calibration data", Englund: paragraph [0008]) enables a processor to quickly and accurately determine a wavelength (Englund: paragraph [0010]). Thus, it would be obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to combine the device of Schmidt as modified by Englund and Swillam with the pattern-recognition operation of Englund as it enables a quick and accurate wavelength calculation.
Regarding claim 34, Schmidt teaches a method, performed at a particle identification system (paragraph [0006]) comprising an excitation light source, a sensor, and a multi-mode interference waveguide (MMI- WG) (paragraph [0006]), the method comprising:
exciting, by the excitation light source, a particle to cause the particle to emit emission light (paragraph [0110]);
Schmidt fails to a method comprising exciting, by the excitation light source, a particle to cause the particle to emit emission light (paragraph [0110]);
detecting, by the sensor, scattered light that scattered through a lateral surface of the MMI-WG, wherein the MMI-WG comprises:
an input end;
the lateral surface;
an input port disposed on the input end of the MMI-WG and configured to guide the emission light emitted from the particle to enter the MMI-WG, such that the emission light in the MMI-WG propagates in a direction away from the input end;
generating, by the sensor, data based on the detected scattered light, wherein the data indicates an intensity of the scattered light; and
determining, by one or more processors, based on the intensity of the scattered light indicated by the data generated by the sensor, an identity of the particle.
However, in the same field of endeavor of multi-mode interference waveguides, Englund teaches a sensor which detects light through a lateral surface of the MMI-WG (120, Fig. 1A), an input end (paragraph [0056] discusses the input end of the MMI waveguide, however it is the examiner's position that any waveguide would have an input end); a lateral surface (the examiner is interpreting lateral to be the side parallel to the longest dimension of the waveguide; Fig. 1A, 2A and 2B depict this lateral surface); and an input port (it is the position of the examiner that all waveguides have an input port) disposed on the input end of the MMI-WG and configured to guide input light to enter the MMI-WG, such that light in the MMI-WG propagates in a direction away from the input end (Figs. 1A and 2B depict the light, shown as an arrow in the waveguide portion, directed away from an input end).
Schmidt discloses the use of multi-mode interference waveguides is helpful in the identification of target particles as they are highly sensitive and therefore increases the capability of optofluidic devices (paragraph [0006]). Thus, it would be obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine the particle identification system taught in Schmidt with the multi-mode interference waveguide taught in Englund as it increases the capability of the device.
However, Swillam teaches detecting scattered light (paragraph [0009]), generate data based on the scattered light ((clause 1, paragraph [0106]), and using a processor to determine the wavelength of the scattered light based on the data (clause 20, paragraph [0106]).
Swillam discloses the use of scattered light data is known in the art and used to measure parameters of the object being imaged (paragraph [0006]), while also allowing fast and non-invasive measurements (paragraph [0005]). Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date would find it obvious to combine the spectrometer of Englund with the scattering measurement data taught in Swillam as it is a well-known and fast method of measurement.
Regarding claim 35, Schmidt teaches a non-transitory computer readable storage medium (paragraph [0218]) storing instructions configured to be executed by one or more processors (paragraph [0216]) of a particle identification system comprising an excitation light source (paragraph [0110]), a sensor, and a multi-mode interference waveguide (MMI-WG) (paragraph [0006]), the instructions configured to cause the system to:
excite, by the excitation light source, a particle to cause the particle to emit emission light (paragraph [0110]).
Schmidt fails to teach instructions configured to cause the system to detect, by the sensor, scattered light that scattered through a lateral surface of the MMI- WG, wherein the MMI-WG comprises:
an input end;
the lateral surface; and
an input port disposed on the input end of the MMI-WG and configured to guide the emission light emitted from the particle to enter the MMI-WG, such that the emission light in the MMI-WG propagates in a direction away from the input end;
generate, by the sensor, data based on the detected scattered light, wherein the data indicates an intensity of the scattered light; and
determine, by the one or more processors, based on the intensity of the scattered light indicated by the data generated by the sensor, an identity of the particle.
However, in the same field of endeavor of multi-mode interference waveguides, Englund teaches a sensor which detects light through a lateral surface of the MMI-WG (120, Fig. 1A), an input end (paragraph [0056] discusses the input end of the MMI waveguide, however it is the examiner's position that any waveguide would have an input end); a lateral surface (the examiner is interpreting lateral to be the side parallel to the longest dimension of the waveguide; Fig. 1A, 2A and 2B depict this lateral surface); and an input port (it is the position of the examiner that all waveguides have an input port) disposed on the input end of the MMI-WG and configured to guide input light to enter the MMI-WG, such that light in the MMI-WG propagates in a direction away from the input end (Figs. 1A and 2B depict the light, shown as an arrow in the waveguide portion, directed away from an input end).
Schmidt discloses the use of multi-mode interference waveguides is helpful in the identification of target particles as they are highly sensitive and therefore increases the capability of optofluidic devices (paragraph [0006]). Thus, it would be obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine the particle identification system taught in Schmidt with the multi-mode interference waveguide taught in Englund as it increases the capability of the device.
Schmidt as modified by Englund fails to teach instructions configured to cause the system to generate, by the sensor, data based on the detected scattered light, wherein the data indicates an intensity of the scattered light; and
determine, by the one or more processors, based on the intensity of the scattered light indicated by the data generated by the sensor, an identity of the particle.
However, Swillam teaches detecting scattered light (paragraph [0009]), generate data based on the scattered light ((clause 1, paragraph [0106]), and using a processor to determine the wavelength of the scattered light based on the data (clause 20, paragraph [0106]).
However, Swillam teaches detecting scattered light (paragraph [0009]), generate data based on the scattered light ((clause 1, paragraph [0106]), and using a processor to determine the wavelength of the scattered light based on the data (clause 20, paragraph [0106]).
Claims 17, 18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schmidt (US20200011795A1), in view of Englund (US20150168217A1) and Swillam (US20230273531A1) as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Black ( "Multi-Channel Velocity Multiplexing on a PDMS Based Optofluidic Chip," 2018 IEEE Photonics Conference (IPC), Reston, VA, USA, 2018, pp. 1-2, doi: 10.1109/IPCon.2018.8527116.).
Regarding claim 17, Schmidt as modified by Englund and Swillam teach the invention as explained above in claim 14, but fails to teach the particle comprises a quantum dot.
However, in the same field of endeavor of optofluidic devices, Black teaches the use of an multi-mode interference waveguide to detect particles, such as quantum dots (page 2, first paragraph).
Black discloses quantum dots aid in viewing the patterns made from the light in the fluid channels. Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to combine the device of Schmidt as modified by Englund and Swillam with the use of quantum dots as taught in Black in order to aid in viewing the light patterns of the fluid channel.
Regarding claim 18, Schmidt as modified by Englund and Swillam teach the invention as explained above in claim 14, but fails to teach the particle is labeled with one or more quantum dots.
However, Black teaches the use of an multi-mode interference waveguide to detect particles, such as quantum dots (page 2, first paragraph).
Black discloses quantum dots aid in viewing the patterns made from the light in the fluid channels. Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to combine the device of Schmidt as modified by Englund and Swillam with the use of quantum dots as taught in Black in order to aid in viewing the light patterns of the fluid channel.
Regarding claim 20, Schmidt as modified by Englund and Swillam teach the invention as explained above in claim 14, but fails to teach a particle is bound to a carrier particle.
However, Black teaches the use of carrier particles (beads, page 2, paragraph 2) in the optofluidic device.
Black discloses the beads give the particles fluorescence, and are used with a variety of bioparticles (page 2, paragraphs 2 and 2). Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date would find it obvious to combine the system taught in Schmidt as modified by Englund and Swillam with the carrier particles taught in Black as carrier particles are used to ensure the bioparticle emits fluorescence.
Claims 19 and 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schmidt (US20200011795A1), in view of Englund (US20150168217A1) and Swillam (US20230273531A1) as applied to claims 14 and 23 above, and further in view of Aizawa (US20210190692A1).
Regarding claim 19, Schmidt as modified by Englund and Swillam teach the invention as explained above in claim 14, but fails to teach the particle scatters light via Rayleigh or Ramen scattering.
However, Aizawa discloses the use of Ramen scattering to identify particles (paragraphs [0064], [0065]).
Raman scattering is a well-known and widely used technique in the art. A person having ordinary skill in the art would be able to reasonably apply the technique to the particle identification system taught in Schmidt as modified by Englund and Swillam with the Ramen scattering method taught in Aizawa as it is a well-known and widely used method.
Regarding claim 32, Schmidt as modified by Englund and Swillam teach the invention as explained above in claim 23, but fails to teach determining the one or more wavelengths of the input light comprises determining whether the intensity of the scattered light exceeds a predefined intensity threshold.
However, Aizawa teaches comparing intensity to a predefined threshold to determine wavelength (paragraph [0071]).
Aizawa discloses that the method of threshold comparison is known in the art (paragraph [0070]). A person of ordinary skill in the art would be able to use the known technique of threshold comparison to determine a wavelength of scattered light as it is straightforward and simple to use. Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date would find it obvious to combine the device of Schmidt as modified by Englund, Swillam and Taverner with the threshold technique taught in Aizawa as it is a simple and well-known method of determining wavelength.
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schmidt (US20200011795A1), in view of Englund (US20150168217A1) and Swillam (US20230273531A1) as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Gao ("Light coupling for on-chip optical interconnects", Optics & Laser Technology, Volume 97, 2017, Pages 154-160, ISSN 0030-3992, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.optlastec.2017.06.017.).
Regarding claim 25, Schmidt as modified by Englund and Swillam teach the invention as explained above in claim 14, but fails to teach the sensor is spaced apart from the lateral surface of the MMI-WG such that the scattered light propagates from the lateral surface of the MMI-WG through air to reach the sensor.
However, Gao teaches spacing the sensor apart from the waveguide (abstract; page 154, column 2, paragraph 2).
As discussed above in claim 2, a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date would find it obvious to combine the device of Schmidt, Englund, and Swillam with the air gap taught in Gao in order to manipulate the coupling ratio of the light going to the sensor.
Claims 28, 29 and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schmidt (US20200011795A1), in view of Englund (US20150168217A1) and Swillam (US20230273531A1) as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Taverner (US20070223855A1).
Regarding claim 28, Schmidt as modified by Englund and Swillam teach the invention as explained above in claim 14, but fails to teach a portion of the lateral surface of the MMI- WG comprises a modified portion that enhances scattering at a location of the modified portion.
However, Taverner teaches a waveguide which is modified to increase scattering (paragraph [0016]).
Taverner discloses that the light scattered in waveguides is typically very weak, making it difficult to measure (paragraph [0007]). Thus, a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date would find it obvious to combine the device of Schmidt as modified by Englund and Swillam with the modified waveguide taught in Taverner to increase scattering, making it easier to measure.
Regarding claim 29, Schmidt as modified by Englund, Swillam and Taverner teach the invention as explained above in claim 28, and further teaches the modified portion comprises one or more of: an etched portion of the lateral surface; and a layer deposited onto the lateral surface (Taverner: paragraph [0016]).
As discussed above in claim 28, it would be obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to combine the device of Schmidt as modified by Englund and Swillam with the modified waveguide taught in Taverner in order to make the scattering signal easier to measure.
Regarding claim 31, Schmidt as modified by Englund, Swillam and Taverner teach the invention as explained above in claim 28, and further teaches the sensor is configured to detect the scattered light after scattering through the modified portion of the lateral surface of the MMI-WG (Taverner: 106, Fig. 1; paragraph [0019]).
Placing the sensor after the modified portion of the waveguide allows the sensor to detect the increased scattering signal, therefore making it easier to measure (Taverner: paragraph [0007]). Thus, it would be obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine the device of Schmidt as modified by Englund , Swillam and Taverner with the sensor placement taught in Taverner in order to ensure the sensor is detected the enhanced scattering signal.
Claim 30 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schmidt (US20200011795A1), in view of Englund (US20150168217A1), Swillam (US20230273531A1) and Taverner (US20070223855A1) as applied to claim 28 above, and further in view of Aizawa (US20210190692A1).
Regarding claim 30, Schmidt as modified by Englund, Swillam and Taverner teach the invention as explained above in claim 28, but fails to teach input light of a first wavelength scatters at the location with an intensity above a predefined threshold; and
input light of a second wavelength scatters at the location with an intensity below a predefined threshold.
However, Aizawa teaches selecting wavelengths that are above a predefined threshold (paragraph [0070] discloses selecting wavelengths that are not within a certain range).
As discussed above in claim 8, a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date would find it obvious to combine the device of Schmidt as modified by Englund, Swillam and Taverner with the threshold method taught in Aizawa in order to prevent the scattering signal from being weakened.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Alexandria Mendoza whose telephone number is (571)272-5282. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Thur 9:00 - 6:00 CDT.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Michelle Iacoletti can be reached at (571) 270-5789. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ALEXANDRIA MENDOZA/ Examiner, Art Unit 2877
/MICHELLE M IACOLETTI/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2877